Hacker News Reader

Comment by riazrizvi | Hacker News Reader

Allow people to make their own investment decisions and prosecute those who defraud investors. This is the way to do it.

View on HN

Years in the hedge fund/CTA space left me completely convinced that the regulators were right in throwing up barriers to investing in a wider range of investments.

Outright fraud probably isn't the main risk - it's deceptive salespersonship and naivete on the part of investors about what they're entering. I don't know how we'd get a judiciary with the expertise to judge the cases.

It's not like the US makes it hard to start a laundromat with your friend, or something like that. It's about whether vulnerable people will make predictably wrong decisions about "investment opportunities".

A good heuristic is that if the damages are less than $20k or so, it doesn't make financial sense to sue. So a lot of small investments through a sketchy or one sided contract can easily allow bad actors to continue to operate for years.

Deceptive sales practices are illegal already, the SEC has a mandate to prosecute them. While the Greenspan era was notorious for undermining that, the Financial Crisis restored the political will to support their mandate. The Trump admin did what it could to reverse that and hopefully the Biden admin will push against crime again.

As for naivete of investors, should we also regulate away matches, because consumers might cause an unwanted fire? More warnings if necessary sure, but not more nannying.

> While the Greenspan era was notorious for undermining that, the Financial Crisis restored the political will to support their mandate.

Did it? I haven't see anyone prosecuted for the 2008 crash, unless I missed it.

> Citigroup - SEC charged Citigroup's principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary with misleading investors about a $1 billion CDO tied to the housing market in which Citigroup bet against investors as the housing market showed signs of distress. The court approved a settlement of $285 million which will be returned to harmed investors. (10/19/11)

> Commonwealth Advisors - SEC charged Walter A. Morales and his Baton Rouge-based firm with defrauding investors by hiding millions of dollars in losses suffered during the financial crisis from investments tied to residential mortgage-backed securities. (11/9/12)

> Deutsche Bank AG - SEC charged the firm with filing misstated financial reports during the financial crisis. Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a $55 million penalty. (5/26/15)

> Goldman Sachs - SEC charged the firm with defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter. (4/16/10) Goldman Settled Charges - Firm agreed to pay record penalty in $550 million settlement and reform its business practices. (7/15/10) Fabrice Tourre Found Liable - A jury found former Goldman Sachs Vice President Fabrice Tourre liable for fraud relating to his role in a synthetic collateralized debt obligation tied to subprime residential mortgages. (8/1/13)

> Harding Advisory LLC - SEC charged a Morristown, N.J.-based firm and its CEO for misleading investors in a CDO about the asset selection process. (10/18/13) ICP Asset Management - SEC charged ICP and its president with fraudulently managing investment products tied to the mortgage markets as they came under pressure. (6/21/10)

> ICP and President Settled Charges - ICP and its president Thomas Priore agreed to pay penalties and settle the SEC's charges (9/6/12)

And many many more at https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enf-actions-fc.shtml

Ah, ok. I see I miscommunicated. I was referring to criminal prosecutions than end up with people in charge of the corrupt organizations going to jail. Not just a handful of fall guys like Tourre and Kerviel, and not just a "you broke the global economy tax".

If it was possible to make millions of dollars by fooling naive people into misusing matches, matches would be regulated.

> As for naivete of investors, should we also regulate away matches, because consumers might cause an unwanted fire?

People generally understand the risks of matches. They can evaluate what happens when they use them, they can tell when it's went wrong, and they are prepared to contain the harm.

If you make a match that's a bit more impressive, it becomes a firework and we regulate the hell out of it.

A match can be combined with gasoline to become a lot more dangerous, and we regulate the hell out of gasoline. Want to keep around 20,000 gallons of gasoline? No problem, you just need the appropriate permits, insurance, and equipment.

1000 times yes - there's 100+ year history of fraudsters, and IT DOES NOT WORK to prosecute after the fact: the incentive to defraud is simply too high, and the frauds can last for too long. Consider Bernie Madoff: he lived well for decades before his fraud unwound, and his fraud was not original - they call it a "Ponzi Scheme" after Charles Ponzi, a famous (but himself not original!) fraudster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi

and he didn't get _caught_. He admitted it.

Agree. SEC trying to "protect" people disincentivizes personal diligence. There is a broader societal problem here. Think fake news. People have been conditioned to the existence of gatekeepers everywhere, relieving them from any personal responsibility. Didn't Theranos got (or appear to get) an FDA approval [1] resulting in many "accredited" investors making huge dumb investments in that company?

[1]: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/biden-to-visits-bay-ar...

The wave after wave of ICO scam, where it's extremely clear that there is no one looking out from anyone doesn't make a clear case for there existing much/any risk compensation behaviour here.

People expect other people to just be basically honest because in most of our interactions -- at least in the developed world-- they are.

I expect other people to just be basically dishonest because in most of my interactions -- at least during the 15 years I spent in Silicon Valley -- they were.

Who pays for all the investigations and prosecutions? We don’t even have enough resources to stop identity theft/electronic funds theft at the federal level, FBI won’t touch anything unless it’s over $250k.

I've also seen a regulator refuse to investigate allegations of fraud from insiders because "the investigation would be complex and we would rather spend our funding on multiple smaller cases"

Keep this in mind next time congress passes a "no private right of action" law.

Those drive me nuts. If it isn't heinous enough for victims to be allowed to pursue justice in the courts at their own expense, it isn't heinous enough to outlaw.

Government doesn't have the resources to go after every fraud case so this would result in a lot of people losing their money forever.

Criminal prosecution is a ruinously expensive machine, and can't even scale down to car theft without the "efficiency" of plea-bargaining, much less $10k private investments with complicated legal agreements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com