given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
financial docs, etc..
there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
personally, with great suspicion.
Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
out over the next X years.
It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
less regulated!!
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can invest in
> startups :)
Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come up.
I think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
year but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to be
limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity for
startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep "scammers"
out of the system
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
> financial docs, etc..
> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
> personally, with great suspicion.
> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
> out over the next X years.
> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
> less regulated!!
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can invest
> in
> > startups :)
And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
(groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial records.
But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
them up themselves!!
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
> Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
> Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come up. I
> think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of year
> but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
> I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to be
> limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
> forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity for
> startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep "scammers"
> out of the system
> ..PJ
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
>> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
>> financial docs, etc..
>> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
>> personally, with great suspicion.
>> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
>> out over the next X years.
>> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>> less regulated!!
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can invest
>> > in
>> > startups :)
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> pj...
> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial records.
> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
> them up themselves!!
> peace..
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
>> Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
>> Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come up. I
>> think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of year
>> but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
>> I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to be
>> limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
>> forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity for
>> startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep "scammers"
>> out of the system
>> ..PJ
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>>> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
>>> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
>>> financial docs, etc..
>>> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>>> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>>> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
>>> personally, with great suspicion.
>>> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>>> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
>>> out over the next X years.
>>> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>>> less regulated!!
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>>> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can invest
>>> > in
>>> > startups :)
Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is harder.
Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains of
investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
"You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
the time." - Bob Marley
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> pj...
> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
> records.
> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
> them up themselves!!
> peace..
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
> > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
> > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
> up. I
> > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
> year
> > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
> > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to
> be
> > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
> > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
> for
> > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
> "scammers"
> > out of the system
> > ..PJ
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
> >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
> >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
> >> financial docs, etc..
> >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
> >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
> >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
> >> personally, with great suspicion.
> >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
> >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
> >> out over the next X years.
> >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
> >> less regulated!!
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
> wrote:
> >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
> invest
> >> > in
> >> > startups :)
The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to invest
in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch tulips
to the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov <
akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> guys,
> its not perfect. It never is.
> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is harder.
> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
> This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
> the time." - Bob Marley
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> pj...
>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
>> records.
>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
>> them up themselves!!
>> peace..
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
>> > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
>> > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
>> up. I
>> > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
>> year
>> > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
>> > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need
>> to be
>> > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
>> > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
>> for
>> > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
>> "scammers"
>> > out of the system
>> > ..PJ
>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>> >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
>> >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
>> >> financial docs, etc..
>> >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>> >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>> >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
>> >> personally, with great suspicion.
>> >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>> >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
>> >> out over the next X years.
>> >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>> >> less regulated!!
>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
>> invest
>> >> > in
>> >> > startups :)
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
> The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to invest
> in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
> investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch tulips to
> the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> guys,
>> its not perfect. It never is.
>> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
>> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
>> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
>> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is harder.
>> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
>> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
>> This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
>> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
>> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
>> the time." - Bob Marley
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> pj...
>>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
>>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
>>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
>>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
>>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
>>> records.
>>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
>>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
>>> them up themselves!!
>>> peace..
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
>>> > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
>>> > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
>>> > up. I
>>> > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
>>> > year
>>> > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
>>> > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need
>>> > to be
>>> > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor.
>>> > Looking
>>> > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
>>> > for
>>> > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
>>> > "scammers"
>>> > out of the system
>>> > ..PJ
>>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>>> >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
>>> >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
>>> >> financial docs, etc..
>>> >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>>> >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>>> >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
>>> >> personally, with great suspicion.
>>> >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>>> >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
>>> >> out over the next X years.
>>> >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>>> >> less regulated!!
>>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
>>> >> > invest
>>> >> > in
>>> >> > startups :)
> --
> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com > Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
> twitter.com/williamward
The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the controlling
positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks). They
were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they messed
it up for everyone else.
The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can
participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current situation
lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a lot
of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any "accredited"
investor had 20 years ago.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
> The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to invest
> in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
> investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch tulips
> to the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov <
> akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> guys,
>> its not perfect. It never is.
>> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
>> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
>> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
>> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is harder.
>> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
>> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
>> This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
>> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
>> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
>> the time." - Bob Marley
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> pj...
>>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
>>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
>>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
>>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
>>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
>>> records.
>>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
>>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
>>> them up themselves!!
>>> peace..
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
>>> > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
>>> > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
>>> up. I
>>> > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
>>> year
>>> > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
>>> > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need
>>> to be
>>> > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor.
>>> Looking
>>> > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for
>>> opportunity for
>>> > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
>>> "scammers"
>>> > out of the system
>>> > ..PJ
>>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>>> >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
>>> >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
>>> >> financial docs, etc..
>>> >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>>> >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>>> >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
>>> >> personally, with great suspicion.
>>> >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>>> >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
>>> >> out over the next X years.
>>> >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>>> >> less regulated!!
>>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
>>> invest
>>> >> > in
>>> >> > startups :)
> --
> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com > Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
> twitter.com/williamward
Available to be purchased by, and being purchased as a fad, are two
different things. Sure they may be available anyway, but when the masses
start actually speculating en masse, it makes it become a bubble. Remember
the fad for flipping houses in the early 2000s? Remember when everyone was
snatching up tech stocks in the 1990s? When people who don't know anything
about something start buying into it because they think it's a sure thing,
that's when things really go crazy. And this feels like that to me.
The thing is, the accredited investors (or whatever you call them) want
this to happen because they take those people's money and get out, making
huge profits.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Leo Susanto <leosusa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, looking at your examples, those products are available to be
> purchased by the masses.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
> > The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to
> invest
> > in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
> > investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch
> tulips to
> > the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
> > <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> >> guys,
> >> its not perfect. It never is.
> >> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
> >> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
> >> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or
> the
> >> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is
> harder.
> >> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
> >> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
> >> This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
> >> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
> >> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
> >> the time." - Bob Marley
> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> pj...
> >>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
> >>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
> >>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
> >>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
> >>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
> >>> records.
> >>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
> >>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
> >>> them up themselves!!
> >>> peace..
> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
> >>> > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
> >>> > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to
> come
> >>> > up. I
> >>> > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end
> of
> >>> > year
> >>> > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of
> summer ?
> >>> > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need
> >>> > to be
> >>> > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor.
> >>> > Looking
> >>> > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for
> opportunity
> >>> > for
> >>> > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
> >>> > "scammers"
> >>> > out of the system
> >>> > ..PJ
> >>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
> >>> >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to
> be
> >>> >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
> >>> >> financial docs, etc..
> >>> >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
> >>> >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
> >>> >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the
> "owners"
> >>> >> personally, with great suspicion.
> >>> >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
> >>> >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this
> plays
> >>> >> out over the next X years.
> >>> >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
> >>> >> less regulated!!
> >>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
> >>> >> > invest
> >>> >> > in
> >>> >> > startups :)
On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
> The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the controlling positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks). They were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they messed it up for everyone else.
Excluding house flippers from the housing crisis would be the same as saying, if the combination of the JOBS Act and FundersClub end up creating a bubble and popping it, that the un-accredited investors had nothing to do with it.
Yes banks created CDOs in order to get more and more money to lend, and without that it could not have happened. But one still could have identified it as a bubble by noticing everyone was suddenly allowed to invest in it (get mortgages).
The same theorically applies here. It will be congress who has lifted the restrictions, not un-accredited investors, but the presence of the un-accredited investors is what will sound the alarms.
Although I think this, the lack of regulation is okay to me. My issue is, don't bail it out when it fails. THAT is what forces people to be smart with their money. The exception being banks that print money. They cannot be allowed to gamble due to cashflow being dependent on them.
> The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current situation lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
> Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a lot of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any "accredited" investor had 20 years ago.
> It's time for a change.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net (mailto:b...@wards.net)> wrote:
> > The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to invest in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch tulips to the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com (mailto:akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com)> wrote:
> > > guys,
> > > its not perfect. It never is.
> > > Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is harder. Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
> > > This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
> > > "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all the time." - Bob Marley
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com (mailto:badoug...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > > pj...
> > > > And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
> > > > going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
> > > > Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
> > > > (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
> > > > And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial records.
> > > > But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
> > > > the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
> > > > them up themselves!!
> > > > peace..
> > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com (mailto:p...@pjgupta.com)> wrote:
> > > > > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
> > > > > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come up. I
> > > > > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of year
> > > > > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
> > > > > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to be
> > > > > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
> > > > > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity for
> > > > > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep "scammers"
> > > > > out of the system
> > > > > ..PJ
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com (mailto:badoug...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > > >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
> > > > >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
> > > > >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
> > > > >> financial docs, etc..
> > > > >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
> > > > >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
> > > > >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
> > > > >> personally, with great suspicion.
> > > > >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
> > > > >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
> > > > >> out over the next X years.
> > > > >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
> > > > >> less regulated!!
> > > > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com (mailto:jay.l...@hackerdojo.com)> wrote:
> > > > >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can invest
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > startups :)
Right, everyone had a part they played. Un-accredited investors should
allowed to fail. The public will get better over time.
Banks should not be able to gamble with the monetary supply. If everyone is
accredited with access to info, there will be more people to call the
bubble or problems as they happen. Boiler room set is not good.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Trussell <brandon...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
> The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the controlling
> positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks). They
> were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they messed
> it up for everyone else.
> Excluding house flippers from the housing crisis would be the same as
> saying, if the combination of the JOBS Act and FundersClub end up creating
> a bubble and popping it, that the un-accredited investors had nothing to do
> with it.
> Yes banks created CDOs in order to get more and more money to lend, and
> without that it could not have happened. But one still could have
> identified it as a bubble by noticing everyone was suddenly allowed to
> invest in it (get mortgages).
> The same theorically applies here. It will be congress who has lifted the
> restrictions, not un-accredited investors, but the presence of the
> un-accredited investors is what will sound the alarms.
> Although I think this, the lack of regulation is okay to me. My issue is,
> don't bail it out when it fails. THAT is what forces people to be smart
> with their money. The exception being banks that print money. They cannot
> be allowed to gamble due to cashflow being dependent on them.
> --
> BT
> The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can
> participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current situation
> lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
> Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a lot
> of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any "accredited"
> investor had 20 years ago.
> It's time for a change.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
> The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to invest
> in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
> investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch tulips
> to the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov <
> akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> guys,
> its not perfect. It never is.
> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is harder.
> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
> This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
> the time." - Bob Marley
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> pj...
> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
> records.
> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
> them up themselves!!
> peace..
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
> > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
> > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
> up. I
> > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
> year
> > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
> > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to
> be
> > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
> > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
> for
> > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
> "scammers"
> > out of the system
> > ..PJ
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
> >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
> >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
> >> financial docs, etc..
> >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
> >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
> >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
> >> personally, with great suspicion.
> >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
> >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
> >> out over the next X years.
> >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
> >> less regulated!!
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
> wrote:
> >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
> invest
> >> > in
> >> > startups :)
> --
> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com > Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
> twitter.com/williamward
i know it's trendy in the valley to say gov't is the cause of
society's ills... but gov't plays a role in protecting people who
might not be able to really protet themselves from foolish behavior..
regulations can be a good thing...
would you go into a casino if you didn't know it was regulated...
same principle here...
and the rationale for the accredited investor was to have a bit of
regulation, as well as place some of the risk on the investor...
this is like fleecing chickens..
and you're going to set up a generation where people will say screw
the stock market/investments..
<akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> Right, everyone had a part they played. Un-accredited investors should
> allowed to fail. The public will get better over time.
> Banks should not be able to gamble with the monetary supply. If everyone is
> accredited with access to info, there will be more people to call the bubble
> or problems as they happen. Boiler room set is not good.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Trussell <brandon...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
>> The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the controlling
>> positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks). They
>> were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they messed it
>> up for everyone else.
>> Excluding house flippers from the housing crisis would be the same as
>> saying, if the combination of the JOBS Act and FundersClub end up creating a
>> bubble and popping it, that the un-accredited investors had nothing to do
>> with it.
>> Yes banks created CDOs in order to get more and more money to lend, and
>> without that it could not have happened. But one still could have
>> identified it as a bubble by noticing everyone was suddenly allowed to
>> invest in it (get mortgages).
>> The same theorically applies here. It will be congress who has lifted the
>> restrictions, not un-accredited investors, but the presence of the
>> un-accredited investors is what will sound the alarms.
>> Although I think this, the lack of regulation is okay to me. My issue is,
>> don't bail it out when it fails. THAT is what forces people to be smart with
>> their money. The exception being banks that print money. They cannot be
>> allowed to gamble due to cashflow being dependent on them.
>> --
>> BT
>> The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can
>> participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current situation
>> lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
>> Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a lot
>> of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any "accredited"
>> investor had 20 years ago.
>> It's time for a change.
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
>> The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to invest
>> in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
>> investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch tulips to
>> the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> guys,
>> its not perfect. It never is.
>> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
>> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
>> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
>> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is harder.
>> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
>> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
>> This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
>> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
>> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
>> the time." - Bob Marley
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> pj...
>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
>> records.
>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
>> them up themselves!!
>> peace..
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
>> > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
>> > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
>> > up. I
>> > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
>> > year
>> > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
>> > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to
>> > be
>> > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
>> > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
>> > for
>> > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
>> > "scammers"
>> > out of the system
>> > ..PJ
>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>> >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
>> >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
>> >> financial docs, etc..
>> >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>> >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>> >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
>> >> personally, with great suspicion.
>> >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>> >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
>> >> out over the next X years.
>> >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>> >> less regulated!!
>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
>> >> > invest
>> >> > in
>> >> > startups :)
>> --
>> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com >> Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
>> twitter.com/williamward
If people get ripped off and as a result maintain a "screw he stock market / investments" mentality, some might call that "getting smarter".
Why deny someone that opportunity? The best answer is to prevent a bubble pop. But that seems like an inherent learning process for an economy trying to grow quickly through trading debt. Might as well reform the debt economy if want you want to be equal to all yet avoid bubbles (unlikely to happen). The alternative is that more than 90% of the population is excluded due to income class... and not really based on anything else ("accredited investor").
On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, bruce wrote:
> no..
> the public won't get better over time..
> the public will get ripped off.
> i know it's trendy in the valley to say gov't is the cause of
> society's ills... but gov't plays a role in protecting people who
> might not be able to really protet themselves from foolish behavior..
> regulations can be a good thing...
> would you go into a casino if you didn't know it was regulated...
> same principle here...
> and the rationale for the accredited investor was to have a bit of
> regulation, as well as place some of the risk on the investor...
> this is like fleecing chickens..
> and you're going to set up a generation where people will say screw
> the stock market/investments..
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> > Right, everyone had a part they played. Un-accredited investors should
> > allowed to fail. The public will get better over time.
> > Banks should not be able to gamble with the monetary supply. If everyone is
> > accredited with access to info, there will be more people to call the bubble
> > or problems as they happen. Boiler room set is not good.
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Trussell <brandon...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
> > > The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the controlling
> > > positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks). They
> > > were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they messed it
> > > up for everyone else.
> > > Excluding house flippers from the housing crisis would be the same as
> > > saying, if the combination of the JOBS Act and FundersClub end up creating a
> > > bubble and popping it, that the un-accredited investors had nothing to do
> > > with it.
> > > Yes banks created CDOs in order to get more and more money to lend, and
> > > without that it could not have happened. But one still could have
> > > identified it as a bubble by noticing everyone was suddenly allowed to
> > > invest in it (get mortgages).
> > > The same theorically applies here. It will be congress who has lifted the
> > > restrictions, not un-accredited investors, but the presence of the
> > > un-accredited investors is what will sound the alarms.
> > > Although I think this, the lack of regulation is okay to me. My issue is,
> > > don't bail it out when it fails. THAT is what forces people to be smart with
> > > their money. The exception being banks that print money. They cannot be
> > > allowed to gamble due to cashflow being dependent on them.
> > > --
> > > BT
> > > The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can
> > > participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current situation
> > > lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
> > > Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a lot
> > > of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any "accredited"
> > > investor had 20 years ago.
> > > It's time for a change.
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
> > > The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to invest
> > > in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
> > > investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch tulips to
> > > the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
> > > <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> > > guys,
> > > its not perfect. It never is.
> > > Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
> > > there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
> > > alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
> > > plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is harder.
> > > Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
> > > people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
> > > This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
> > > of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
> > > "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
> > > the time." - Bob Marley
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > pj...
> > > And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
> > > going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
> > > Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
> > > (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
> > > And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
> > > records.
> > > But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
> > > the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
> > > them up themselves!!
> > > peace..
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
> > > > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
> > > > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
> > > > up. I
> > > > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
> > > > year
> > > > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
> > > > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to
> > > > be
> > > > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
> > > > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
> > > > for
> > > > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
> > > > "scammers"
> > > > out of the system
> > > > ..PJ
> > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > and get ripped off even faster!!!!
> > > > > given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
> > > > > ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
> > > > > financial docs, etc..
> > > > > there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
> > > > > class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
> > > > > will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
> > > > > personally, with great suspicion.
> > > > > Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
> > > > > you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
> > > > > out over the next X years.
> > > > > It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
> > > > > less regulated!!
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
> > > > > > invest
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > startups :)
> If people get ripped off and as a result maintain a "screw he stock
> market / investments" mentality, some might call that "getting smarter".
> Why deny someone that opportunity? The best answer is to prevent a bubble
> pop. But that seems like an inherent learning process for an economy trying
> to grow quickly through trading debt. Might as well reform the debt economy
> if want you want to be equal to all yet avoid bubbles (unlikely to happen).
> The alternative is that more than 90% of the population is excluded due to
> income class... and not really based on anything else ("accredited
> investor").
> --
> BT
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, bruce wrote:
> no..
> the public won't get better over time..
> the public will get ripped off.
> i know it's trendy in the valley to say gov't is the cause of
> society's ills... but gov't plays a role in protecting people who
> might not be able to really protet themselves from foolish behavior..
> regulations can be a good thing...
> would you go into a casino if you didn't know it was regulated...
> same principle here...
> and the rationale for the accredited investor was to have a bit of
> regulation, as well as place some of the risk on the investor...
> this is like fleecing chickens..
> and you're going to set up a generation where people will say screw
> the stock market/investments..
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> Right, everyone had a part they played. Un-accredited investors should
> allowed to fail. The public will get better over time.
> Banks should not be able to gamble with the monetary supply. If everyone is
> accredited with access to info, there will be more people to call the
> bubble
> or problems as they happen. Boiler room set is not good.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Trussell <brandon...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
> The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the controlling
> positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks). They
> were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they messed
> it
> up for everyone else.
> Excluding house flippers from the housing crisis would be the same as
> saying, if the combination of the JOBS Act and FundersClub end up creating
> a
> bubble and popping it, that the un-accredited investors had nothing to do
> with it.
> Yes banks created CDOs in order to get more and more money to lend, and
> without that it could not have happened. But one still could have
> identified it as a bubble by noticing everyone was suddenly allowed to
> invest in it (get mortgages).
> The same theorically applies here. It will be congress who has lifted the
> restrictions, not un-accredited investors, but the presence of the
> un-accredited investors is what will sound the alarms.
> Although I think this, the lack of regulation is okay to me. My issue is,
> don't bail it out when it fails. THAT is what forces people to be smart
> with
> their money. The exception being banks that print money. They cannot be
> allowed to gamble due to cashflow being dependent on them.
> --
> BT
> The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can
> participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current situation
> lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
> Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a lot
> of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any "accredited"
> investor had 20 years ago.
> It's time for a change.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
> The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to invest
> in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
> investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch tulips
> to
> the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> guys,
> its not perfect. It never is.
> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is harder.
> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
> This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
> the time." - Bob Marley
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> pj...
> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
> records.
> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
> them up themselves!!
> peace..
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
> Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
> Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
> up. I
> think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
> year
> but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
> I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to
> be
> limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
> forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
> for
> startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
> "scammers"
> out of the system
> ..PJ
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
> financial docs, etc..
> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
> personally, with great suspicion.
> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
> out over the next X years.
> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
> less regulated!!
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
> wrote:
> A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
> invest
> in
> startups :)
> --
> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com > Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
> twitter.com/williamward
Re: the concerns on speculation, doesn't that type speculation require an
open-trade market where you can pump and dump whatever it is you're
trading? This setup wouldn't let you trade your equity after the fact,
would it? So, I don't think it'd bubble in quite the same way.
I mean, sure, people might get scammed or invest in someone who talks great
but can't get stuff done IRL, but as Brandon gets at that's a naivete thing
that solves over time.
Geo
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Akhsar Kharebov <
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Brandon Trussell <brandon...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> If people get ripped off and as a result maintain a "screw he stock
>> market / investments" mentality, some might call that "getting smarter".
>> Why deny someone that opportunity? The best answer is to prevent a bubble
>> pop. But that seems like an inherent learning process for an economy trying
>> to grow quickly through trading debt. Might as well reform the debt economy
>> if want you want to be equal to all yet avoid bubbles (unlikely to happen).
>> The alternative is that more than 90% of the population is excluded due to
>> income class... and not really based on anything else ("accredited
>> investor").
>> --
>> BT
>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, bruce wrote:
>> no..
>> the public won't get better over time..
>> the public will get ripped off.
>> i know it's trendy in the valley to say gov't is the cause of
>> society's ills... but gov't plays a role in protecting people who
>> might not be able to really protet themselves from foolish behavior..
>> regulations can be a good thing...
>> would you go into a casino if you didn't know it was regulated...
>> same principle here...
>> and the rationale for the accredited investor was to have a bit of
>> regulation, as well as place some of the risk on the investor...
>> this is like fleecing chickens..
>> and you're going to set up a generation where people will say screw
>> the stock market/investments..
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> Right, everyone had a part they played. Un-accredited investors should
>> allowed to fail. The public will get better over time.
>> Banks should not be able to gamble with the monetary supply. If everyone
>> is
>> accredited with access to info, there will be more people to call the
>> bubble
>> or problems as they happen. Boiler room set is not good.
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Trussell <brandon...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
>> The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the controlling
>> positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks). They
>> were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they messed
>> it
>> up for everyone else.
>> Excluding house flippers from the housing crisis would be the same as
>> saying, if the combination of the JOBS Act and FundersClub end up
>> creating a
>> bubble and popping it, that the un-accredited investors had nothing to do
>> with it.
>> Yes banks created CDOs in order to get more and more money to lend, and
>> without that it could not have happened. But one still could have
>> identified it as a bubble by noticing everyone was suddenly allowed to
>> invest in it (get mortgages).
>> The same theorically applies here. It will be congress who has lifted the
>> restrictions, not un-accredited investors, but the presence of the
>> un-accredited investors is what will sound the alarms.
>> Although I think this, the lack of regulation is okay to me. My issue is,
>> don't bail it out when it fails. THAT is what forces people to be smart
>> with
>> their money. The exception being banks that print money. They cannot be
>> allowed to gamble due to cashflow being dependent on them.
>> --
>> BT
>> The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can
>> participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current situation
>> lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
>> Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a lot
>> of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any "accredited"
>> investor had 20 years ago.
>> It's time for a change.
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
>> The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to invest
>> in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
>> investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch tulips
>> to
>> the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> guys,
>> its not perfect. It never is.
>> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
>> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
>> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
>> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is harder.
>> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
>> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
>> This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
>> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
>> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
>> the time." - Bob Marley
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> pj...
>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
>> records.
>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
>> them up themselves!!
>> peace..
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
>> Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
>> Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
>> up. I
>> think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
>> year
>> but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
>> I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to
>> be
>> limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
>> forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
>> for
>> startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
>> "scammers"
>> out of the system
>> ..PJ
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
>> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
>> financial docs, etc..
>> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
>> personally, with great suspicion.
>> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
>> out over the next X years.
>> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>> less regulated!!
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
>> wrote:
>> A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
>> invest
>> in
>> startups :)
>> --
>> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com >> Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
>> twitter.com/williamward
> Re: the concerns on speculation, doesn't that type speculation require an
> open-trade market where you can pump and dump whatever it is you're
> trading? This setup wouldn't let you trade your equity after the fact,
> would it? So, I don't think it'd bubble in quite the same way.
> I mean, sure, people might get scammed or invest in someone who talks
> great but can't get stuff done IRL, but as Brandon gets at that's a naivete
> thing that solves over time.
> Geo
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Akhsar Kharebov <
> akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> +1 Brandon.
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Brandon Trussell <brandon...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> If people get ripped off and as a result maintain a "screw he stock
>>> market / investments" mentality, some might call that "getting smarter".
>>> Why deny someone that opportunity? The best answer is to prevent a
>>> bubble pop. But that seems like an inherent learning process for an economy
>>> trying to grow quickly through trading debt. Might as well reform the debt
>>> economy if want you want to be equal to all yet avoid bubbles (unlikely to
>>> happen). The alternative is that more than 90% of the population is
>>> excluded due to income class... and not really based on anything else
>>> ("accredited investor").
>>> --
>>> BT
>>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, bruce wrote:
>>> no..
>>> the public won't get better over time..
>>> the public will get ripped off.
>>> i know it's trendy in the valley to say gov't is the cause of
>>> society's ills... but gov't plays a role in protecting people who
>>> might not be able to really protet themselves from foolish behavior..
>>> regulations can be a good thing...
>>> would you go into a casino if you didn't know it was regulated...
>>> same principle here...
>>> and the rationale for the accredited investor was to have a bit of
>>> regulation, as well as place some of the risk on the investor...
>>> this is like fleecing chickens..
>>> and you're going to set up a generation where people will say screw
>>> the stock market/investments..
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
>>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>>> Right, everyone had a part they played. Un-accredited investors should
>>> allowed to fail. The public will get better over time.
>>> Banks should not be able to gamble with the monetary supply. If everyone
>>> is
>>> accredited with access to info, there will be more people to call the
>>> bubble
>>> or problems as they happen. Boiler room set is not good.
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Trussell <brandon...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
>>> The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the controlling
>>> positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks).
>>> They
>>> were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they
>>> messed it
>>> up for everyone else.
>>> Excluding house flippers from the housing crisis would be the same as
>>> saying, if the combination of the JOBS Act and FundersClub end up
>>> creating a
>>> bubble and popping it, that the un-accredited investors had nothing to do
>>> with it.
>>> Yes banks created CDOs in order to get more and more money to lend, and
>>> without that it could not have happened. But one still could have
>>> identified it as a bubble by noticing everyone was suddenly allowed to
>>> invest in it (get mortgages).
>>> The same theorically applies here. It will be congress who has lifted the
>>> restrictions, not un-accredited investors, but the presence of the
>>> un-accredited investors is what will sound the alarms.
>>> Although I think this, the lack of regulation is okay to me. My issue is,
>>> don't bail it out when it fails. THAT is what forces people to be smart
>>> with
>>> their money. The exception being banks that print money. They cannot be
>>> allowed to gamble due to cashflow being dependent on them.
>>> --
>>> BT
>>> The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can
>>> participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current situation
>>> lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
>>> Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a lot
>>> of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any "accredited"
>>> investor had 20 years ago.
>>> It's time for a change.
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
>>> The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to
>>> invest
>>> in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
>>> investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch
>>> tulips to
>>> the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
>>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>>> guys,
>>> its not perfect. It never is.
>>> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
>>> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
>>> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
>>> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is
>>> harder.
>>> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
>>> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
>>> This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
>>> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
>>> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
>>> the time." - Bob Marley
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> pj...
>>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
>>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
>>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
>>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
>>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
>>> records.
>>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
>>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
>>> them up themselves!!
>>> peace..
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
>>> Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
>>> Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
>>> up. I
>>> think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
>>> year
>>> but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
>>> I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to
>>> be
>>> limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
>>> forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
>>> for
>>> startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
>>> "scammers"
>>> out of the system
>>> ..PJ
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>>> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
>>> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
>>> financial docs, etc..
>>> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>>> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>>> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
>>> personally, with great suspicion.
>>> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>>> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
>>> out over the next X years.
>>> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>>> less regulated!!
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
>>> invest
>>> in
>>> startups :)
>>> --
>>> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com >>> Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
>>> twitter.com/williamward
-- Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
twitter.com/williamward
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
> Available to be purchased by, and being purchased as a fad, are two
> different things. Sure they may be available anyway, but when the masses
> start actually speculating en masse, it makes it become a bubble. Remember
> the fad for flipping houses in the early 2000s? Remember when everyone was
> snatching up tech stocks in the 1990s? When people who don't know anything
> about something start buying into it because they think it's a sure thing,
> that's when things really go crazy. And this feels like that to me.
> The thing is, the accredited investors (or whatever you call them) want this
> to happen because they take those people's money and get out, making huge
> profits.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Leo Susanto <leosusa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But, looking at your examples, those products are available to be
>> purchased by the masses.
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
>> > The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to
>> > invest
>> > in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
>> > investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch
>> > tulips to
>> > the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
>> > <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> >> guys,
>> >> its not perfect. It never is.
>> >> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing.
>> >> Sure
>> >> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is
>> >> our
>> >> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or
>> >> the
>> >> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is
>> >> harder.
>> >> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
>> >> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
>> >> This an important development because it breaks the geographic
>> >> restrains
>> >> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
>> >> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people
>> >> all
>> >> the time." - Bob Marley
>> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> pj...
>> >>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
>> >>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
>> >>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
>> >>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
>> >>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
>> >>> records.
>> >>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
>> >>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
>> >>> them up themselves!!
>> >>> peace..
>> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
>> >>> > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
>> >>> > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to
>> >>> > come
>> >>> > up. I
>> >>> > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > year
>> >>> > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of
>> >>> > summer ?
>> >>> > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't
>> >>> > need
>> >>> > to be
>> >>> > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor.
>> >>> > Looking
>> >>> > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for
>> >>> > opportunity
>> >>> > for
>> >>> > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
>> >>> > "scammers"
>> >>> > out of the system
>> >>> > ..PJ
>> >>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>> >>> >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to
>> >>> >> be
>> >>> >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding
>> >>> >> audited
>> >>> >> financial docs, etc..
>> >>> >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>> >>> >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>> >>> >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the
>> >>> >> "owners"
>> >>> >> personally, with great suspicion.
>> >>> >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>> >>> >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this
>> >>> >> plays
>> >>> >> out over the next X years.
>> >>> >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>> >>> >> less regulated!!
>> >>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
>> >>> >> > invest
>> >>> >> > in
>> >>> >> > startups :)
>> > --
>> > Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com >> > Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
>> > twitter.com/williamward
> --
> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com > Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
> twitter.com/williamward
Some would say you can already pump/dump via the second market
operations that existt for pre IPO stocks now. Hell, I might even
suggest that the guy who got pre FB shares at 18.. and then sold them
in @nd market for 30 did a pump/dump already!!
There's nothing to say that these markets wouldn't quickly become
pump/dump schemes that would attract people that you can't even dream
of regarding the ability to rig the system.
And given that most of the poeple that I've heard pontificate about
these kinds of markets, are peopl who want less regulation, the sheep
are about to get slaughterred.
And if I can rip you off, and not be penaloized, what's my downside again??
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Geo Mealer <geo.mea...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> Re: the concerns on speculation, doesn't that type speculation require an
> open-trade market where you can pump and dump whatever it is you're trading?
> This setup wouldn't let you trade your equity after the fact, would it? So,
> I don't think it'd bubble in quite the same way.
> I mean, sure, people might get scammed or invest in someone who talks great
> but can't get stuff done IRL, but as Brandon gets at that's a naivete thing
> that solves over time.
> Geo
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> +1 Brandon.
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Brandon Trussell <brandon...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> If people get ripped off and as a result maintain a "screw he stock
>>> market / investments" mentality, some might call that "getting smarter".
>>> Why deny someone that opportunity? The best answer is to prevent a bubble
>>> pop. But that seems like an inherent learning process for an economy trying
>>> to grow quickly through trading debt. Might as well reform the debt economy
>>> if want you want to be equal to all yet avoid bubbles (unlikely to happen).
>>> The alternative is that more than 90% of the population is excluded due to
>>> income class... and not really based on anything else ("accredited
>>> investor").
>>> --
>>> BT
>>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, bruce wrote:
>>> no..
>>> the public won't get better over time..
>>> the public will get ripped off.
>>> i know it's trendy in the valley to say gov't is the cause of
>>> society's ills... but gov't plays a role in protecting people who
>>> might not be able to really protet themselves from foolish behavior..
>>> regulations can be a good thing...
>>> would you go into a casino if you didn't know it was regulated...
>>> same principle here...
>>> and the rationale for the accredited investor was to have a bit of
>>> regulation, as well as place some of the risk on the investor...
>>> this is like fleecing chickens..
>>> and you're going to set up a generation where people will say screw
>>> the stock market/investments..
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
>>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>>> Right, everyone had a part they played. Un-accredited investors should
>>> allowed to fail. The public will get better over time.
>>> Banks should not be able to gamble with the monetary supply. If everyone
>>> is
>>> accredited with access to info, there will be more people to call the
>>> bubble
>>> or problems as they happen. Boiler room set is not good.
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Trussell <brandon...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
>>> The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the controlling
>>> positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks).
>>> They
>>> were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they messed
>>> it
>>> up for everyone else.
>>> Excluding house flippers from the housing crisis would be the same as
>>> saying, if the combination of the JOBS Act and FundersClub end up
>>> creating a
>>> bubble and popping it, that the un-accredited investors had nothing to do
>>> with it.
>>> Yes banks created CDOs in order to get more and more money to lend, and
>>> without that it could not have happened. But one still could have
>>> identified it as a bubble by noticing everyone was suddenly allowed to
>>> invest in it (get mortgages).
>>> The same theorically applies here. It will be congress who has lifted the
>>> restrictions, not un-accredited investors, but the presence of the
>>> un-accredited investors is what will sound the alarms.
>>> Although I think this, the lack of regulation is okay to me. My issue is,
>>> don't bail it out when it fails. THAT is what forces people to be smart
>>> with
>>> their money. The exception being banks that print money. They cannot be
>>> allowed to gamble due to cashflow being dependent on them.
>>> --
>>> BT
>>> The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can
>>> participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current situation
>>> lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
>>> Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a lot
>>> of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any "accredited"
>>> investor had 20 years ago.
>>> It's time for a change.
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
>>> The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to
>>> invest
>>> in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
>>> investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch tulips
>>> to
>>> the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
>>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>>> guys,
>>> its not perfect. It never is.
>>> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing. Sure
>>> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is our
>>> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or the
>>> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is
>>> harder.
>>> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
>>> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
>>> This an important development because it breaks the geographic restrains
>>> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
>>> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people all
>>> the time." - Bob Marley
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> pj...
>>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
>>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
>>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
>>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
>>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
>>> records.
>>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
>>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
>>> them up themselves!!
>>> peace..
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
>>> Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
>>> Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
>>> up. I
>>> think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
>>> year
>>> but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
>>> I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need to
>>> be
>>> limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor. Looking
>>> forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
>>> for
>>> startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
>>> "scammers"
>>> out of the system
>>> ..PJ
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>>> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
>>> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
>>> financial docs, etc..
>>> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>>> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>>> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the "owners"
>>> personally, with great suspicion.
>>> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>>> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this plays
>>> out over the next X years.
>>> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>>> less regulated!!
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
>>> invest
>>> in
>>> startups :)
>>> --
>>> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com >>> Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
>>> twitter.com/williamward
No, we should just outlaw all the kinds of crazy mortgages that people who
really shouldn't buy homes were using to speculate on flipping homes.. .oh
wait, we already did that. nevermind.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jake Lyles <jacob.ly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You've convinced me. We should outlaw homeownership for people with
> less than $2million net worth.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
> > Available to be purchased by, and being purchased as a fad, are two
> > different things. Sure they may be available anyway, but when the masses
> > start actually speculating en masse, it makes it become a bubble.
> Remember
> > the fad for flipping houses in the early 2000s? Remember when everyone
> was
> > snatching up tech stocks in the 1990s? When people who don't know
> anything
> > about something start buying into it because they think it's a sure
> thing,
> > that's when things really go crazy. And this feels like that to me.
> > The thing is, the accredited investors (or whatever you call them) want
> this
> > to happen because they take those people's money and get out, making huge
> > profits.
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Leo Susanto <leosusa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> But, looking at your examples, those products are available to be
> >> purchased by the masses.
> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
> >> > The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to
> >> > invest
> >> > in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
> >> > investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch
> >> > tulips to
> >> > the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
> >> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
> >> > <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> >> >> guys,
> >> >> its not perfect. It never is.
> >> >> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing.
> >> >> Sure
> >> >> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is
> >> >> our
> >> >> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or
> >> >> the
> >> >> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is
> >> >> harder.
> >> >> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded
> over
> >> >> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
> >> >> This an important development because it breaks the geographic
> >> >> restrains
> >> >> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
> >> >> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people
> >> >> all
> >> >> the time." - Bob Marley
> >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> pj...
> >> >>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
> >> >>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
> >> >>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
> >> >>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
> >> >>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
> >> >>> records.
> >> >>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to
> do
> >> >>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
> >> >>> them up themselves!!
> >> >>> peace..
> >> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
> >> >>> > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
> >> >>> > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to
> >> >>> > come
> >> >>> > up. I
> >> >>> > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before
> end
> >> >>> > of
> >> >>> > year
> >> >>> > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of
> >> >>> > summer ?
> >> >>> > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't
> >> >>> > need
> >> >>> > to be
> >> >>> > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor.
> >> >>> > Looking
> >> >>> > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for
> >> >>> > opportunity
> >> >>> > for
> >> >>> > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
> >> >>> > "scammers"
> >> >>> > out of the system
> >> >>> > ..PJ
> >> >>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>> >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
> >> >>> >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors
> to
> >> >>> >> be
> >> >>> >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding
> >> >>> >> audited
> >> >>> >> financial docs, etc..
> >> >>> >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
> >> >>> >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more
> people
> >> >>> >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the
> >> >>> >> "owners"
> >> >>> >> personally, with great suspicion.
> >> >>> >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in
> companies
> >> >>> >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this
> >> >>> >> plays
> >> >>> >> out over the next X years.
> >> >>> >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to
> be
> >> >>> >> less regulated!!
> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <
> jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >>> >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K
> can
> >> >>> >> > invest
> >> >>> >> > in
> >> >>> >> > startups :)
maybe we should force the bank that wants to loan you the cash to
gamble on flipping a house to hold/keep the loan on their books, to
absorb the risk.. so if you want to flip with your cash, go for it..
but the system would then restrict that kind of action to people with
a certain amount of cash, and the rationale would be those people
would have the skills to understand their actions...
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Jake Lyles <jacob.ly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You've convinced me. We should outlaw homeownership for people with
> less than $2million net worth.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
>> Available to be purchased by, and being purchased as a fad, are two
>> different things. Sure they may be available anyway, but when the masses
>> start actually speculating en masse, it makes it become a bubble. Remember
>> the fad for flipping houses in the early 2000s? Remember when everyone was
>> snatching up tech stocks in the 1990s? When people who don't know anything
>> about something start buying into it because they think it's a sure thing,
>> that's when things really go crazy. And this feels like that to me.
>> The thing is, the accredited investors (or whatever you call them) want this
>> to happen because they take those people's money and get out, making huge
>> profits.
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Leo Susanto <leosusa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But, looking at your examples, those products are available to be
>>> purchased by the masses.
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
>>> > The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to
>>> > invest
>>> > in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
>>> > investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch
>>> > tulips to
>>> > the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
>>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
>>> > <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>>> >> guys,
>>> >> its not perfect. It never is.
>>> >> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing.
>>> >> Sure
>>> >> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is
>>> >> our
>>> >> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or
>>> >> the
>>> >> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is
>>> >> harder.
>>> >> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
>>> >> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
>>> >> This an important development because it breaks the geographic
>>> >> restrains
>>> >> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
>>> >> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people
>>> >> all
>>> >> the time." - Bob Marley
>>> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> pj...
>>> >>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
>>> >>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
>>> >>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
>>> >>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
>>> >>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
>>> >>> records.
>>> >>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
>>> >>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
>>> >>> them up themselves!!
>>> >>> peace..
>>> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
>>> >>> > Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
>>> >>> > Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to
>>> >>> > come
>>> >>> > up. I
>>> >>> > think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end
>>> >>> > of
>>> >>> > year
>>> >>> > but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of
>>> >>> > summer ?
>>> >>> > I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't
>>> >>> > need
>>> >>> > to be
>>> >>> > limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor.
>>> >>> > Looking
>>> >>> > forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for
>>> >>> > opportunity
>>> >>> > for
>>> >>> > startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
>>> >>> > "scammers"
>>> >>> > out of the system
>>> >>> > ..PJ
>>> >>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> >> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
>>> >>> >> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to
>>> >>> >> be
>>> >>> >> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding
>>> >>> >> audited
>>> >>> >> financial docs, etc..
>>> >>> >> there was a valid reason for a thing called "accredited investor"
>>> >>> >> class. but hey, more power to going down the road where more people
>>> >>> >> will look at investing in companies where they don't know the
>>> >>> >> "owners"
>>> >>> >> personally, with great suspicion.
>>> >>> >> Peter Lynch, used to say, successful investing, invest in companies
>>> >>> >> you personally know/use.. Be interesting to see how all of this
>>> >>> >> plays
>>> >>> >> out over the next X years.
>>> >>> >> It appears that more people want the whole investment process to be
>>> >>> >> less regulated!!
>>> >>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jay Liew <jay.l...@hackerdojo.com>
>>> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> > A plug for our fellow Dojo-er - congrats! Now anyone with $1K can
>>> >>> >> > invest
>>> >>> >> > in
>>> >>> >> > startups :)
>>> > --
>>> > Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com >>> > Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
>>> > twitter.com/williamward
>> --
>> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com >> Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •
>> twitter.com/williamward
Well, I think what I'm asking is whether there'll be a secondary market for
these? You can't really pump/dump unless you can dump.
The FB example is publicly traded, doesn't seem relevant here.
Re: ripping off, not be penalized, etc, fraud's fraud, and is already
illegal. Nobody ever promised you that every investment you make will be
good ones. Some of the requirements for due diligence have to come back to
the investors.
I'm not advocating a completely unregulated market, mind you, but there's
no question that regulation comes at the cost of -some- opportunities for
growth, as it flattens the curve under the weight of checks, re-checks,
entrance requirements, etc. There's a great argument as to whether the JOBS
act moves the line too much, but it sounds more like people are arguing the
line shouldn't be moved at all.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:22 PM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Woa there gy!!!!
> Some would say you can already pump/dump via the second market
> operations that existt for pre IPO stocks now. Hell, I might even
> suggest that the guy who got pre FB shares at 18.. and then sold them
> in @nd market for 30 did a pump/dump already!!
> There's nothing to say that these markets wouldn't quickly become
> pump/dump schemes that would attract people that you can't even dream
> of regarding the ability to rig the system.
> And given that most of the poeple that I've heard pontificate about
> these kinds of markets, are peopl who want less regulation, the sheep
> are about to get slaughterred.
> And if I can rip you off, and not be penaloized, what's my downside again??
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Geo Mealer <geo.mea...@hackerdojo.com>
> wrote:
> > Re: the concerns on speculation, doesn't that type speculation require an
> > open-trade market where you can pump and dump whatever it is you're
> trading?
> > This setup wouldn't let you trade your equity after the fact, would it?
> So,
> > I don't think it'd bubble in quite the same way.
> > I mean, sure, people might get scammed or invest in someone who talks
> great
> > but can't get stuff done IRL, but as Brandon gets at that's a naivete
> thing
> > that solves over time.
> > Geo
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
> > <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> >> +1 Brandon.
> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Brandon Trussell <
> brandon...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> If people get ripped off and as a result maintain a "screw he stock
> >>> market / investments" mentality, some might call that "getting
> smarter".
> >>> Why deny someone that opportunity? The best answer is to prevent a
> bubble
> >>> pop. But that seems like an inherent learning process for an economy
> trying
> >>> to grow quickly through trading debt. Might as well reform the debt
> economy
> >>> if want you want to be equal to all yet avoid bubbles (unlikely to
> happen).
> >>> The alternative is that more than 90% of the population is excluded
> due to
> >>> income class... and not really based on anything else ("accredited
> >>> investor").
> >>> --
> >>> BT
> >>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, bruce wrote:
> >>> no..
> >>> the public won't get better over time..
> >>> the public will get ripped off.
> >>> i know it's trendy in the valley to say gov't is the cause of
> >>> society's ills... but gov't plays a role in protecting people who
> >>> might not be able to really protet themselves from foolish behavior..
> >>> regulations can be a good thing...
> >>> would you go into a casino if you didn't know it was regulated...
> >>> same principle here...
> >>> and the rationale for the accredited investor was to have a bit of
> >>> regulation, as well as place some of the risk on the investor...
> >>> this is like fleecing chickens..
> >>> and you're going to set up a generation where people will say screw
> >>> the stock market/investments..
> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
> >>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> >>> Right, everyone had a part they played. Un-accredited investors should
> >>> allowed to fail. The public will get better over time.
> >>> Banks should not be able to gamble with the monetary supply. If
> everyone
> >>> is
> >>> accredited with access to info, there will be more people to call the
> >>> bubble
> >>> or problems as they happen. Boiler room set is not good.
> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Trussell <
> brandon...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
> >>> The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the
> controlling
> >>> positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks).
> >>> They
> >>> were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they
> messed
> >>> it
> >>> up for everyone else.
> >>> Excluding house flippers from the housing crisis would be the same as
> >>> saying, if the combination of the JOBS Act and FundersClub end up
> >>> creating a
> >>> bubble and popping it, that the un-accredited investors had nothing to
> do
> >>> with it.
> >>> Yes banks created CDOs in order to get more and more money to lend, and
> >>> without that it could not have happened. But one still could have
> >>> identified it as a bubble by noticing everyone was suddenly allowed to
> >>> invest in it (get mortgages).
> >>> The same theorically applies here. It will be congress who has lifted
> the
> >>> restrictions, not un-accredited investors, but the presence of the
> >>> un-accredited investors is what will sound the alarms.
> >>> Although I think this, the lack of regulation is okay to me. My issue
> is,
> >>> don't bail it out when it fails. THAT is what forces people to be smart
> >>> with
> >>> their money. The exception being banks that print money. They cannot be
> >>> allowed to gamble due to cashflow being dependent on them.
> >>> --
> >>> BT
> >>> The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can
> >>> participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current situation
> >>> lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
> >>> Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a
> lot
> >>> of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any
> "accredited"
> >>> investor had 20 years ago.
> >>> It's time for a change.
> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote:
> >>> The definition of a bubble (in my mind) is when the masses start to
> >>> invest
> >>> in something that previously was only available to educated, dedicated
> >>> investors. It's true of every bubble I can think of from the Dutch
> tulips
> >>> to
> >>> the 1929 crash to the recent housing bubble.
> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Akhsar Kharebov
> >>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
> >>> guys,
> >>> its not perfect. It never is.
> >>> Yet the opportunity to raise money for your venture is great thing.
> Sure
> >>> there will be plenty failures, law suits and money lost. Yet what is
> our
> >>> alternative? Moving to one of the hot spots of startups in country or
> the
> >>> plannet - is hard. Then getting to know the people who run it - is
> >>> harder.
> >>> Then convincing some people that you, a new comer should be funded over
> >>> people they already know and who's been there for years - super hard.
> >>> This an important development because it breaks the geographic
> restrains
> >>> of investment, makes it more transparent and democratic.
> >>> "You trick some people some time, but you can't trick all the people
> all
> >>> the time." - Bob Marley
> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> pj...
> >>> And when people realize that investing in "startups" is worse than
> >>> going to vegas.. capitalism will be f*ed!!
> >>> Youve got plenty of people who lost by investing in IPO startups
> >>> (groupon/znga/FB/pandora/inktomi/etc...)
> >>> And these were companies that had legitimate (supposedly) financial
> >>> records.
> >>> But hey.. I predict you're going to have lots of websites setup to do
> >>> the crowdsource/investing model.. hell.. etrade/ameritrade will set
> >>> them up themselves!!
> >>> peace..
> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, PJ Gupta <p...@pjgupta.com> wrote:
> >>> Seems like a passionate debate brewing up...
> >>> Before we jump to conclusions lets wait for the SEC guidelines to come
> >>> up. I
> >>> think the mandate for SEC was to come up with guidelines before end of
> >>> year
> >>> but I heard that its going to do it even sooner i.e. by end of summer ?
> >>> I personally think its great that those who want to invest don't need
> to
> >>> be
> >>> limited by an "arbitrary" amount to be an "accredited" investor.
> Looking
> >>> forward to seeing how this plays out - definately a lot for opportunity
> >>> for
> >>> startups as well as investors and if regulated right should keep
> >>> "scammers"
> >>> out of the system
> >>> ..PJ
> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> and get ripped off even faster!!!!
> >>> given that the JOBS act pretty much opens the gate for investors to be
> >>> ripped off as little regulation is/will be enfored regarding audited
> >>> financial docs, etc..
Skipping some of the discussion, I just wanted to chime in and point out
one thing:
I went to a hardware startup meetup recently. Hardware's hard to get funded
these days, when an app costs way less to make and distribute and investors
see apps as something with nearly infinite possibilities (thanks,
Instagram). So we talked about the JOBS act, and one of the investors
present pointed out that for them, investments are made on probability -
that they make lots of investments based on the probability they think
they'll make money off of it. With JOBS, you can now have a company with a
whole bunch of inexperienced shareholders early on, and professional
investors (in that investors opinion) are probably not going to want to
have anything to do with a company like that. I don't know a lot about
investing myself, but he seemed to think it would just create trouble for
him that isn't worth it. He did mention he might not feel that way if he
was offered preferred stock and everyone else had common stock.
So fair warning - if JOBS all works out and you crowdsource your investors,
it may scare away the "real" investors later on. This may or may not be an
issue for your venture, and surely its better than no investors at all, but
its just something to look into. If you're going to crowdsource your
investors, do whatever you can to get at least a few minutes of facetime
with a professional investor first just to get advice on it. It could save
you from losing a $1m deal in the future.
As far as all this - I think more opportunities can be good. I know I had a
hell of a time finding funding for my startup, even after going to all the
mixers in Silicon Valley. When you're holding down a full time job in the
South Bay, hitting 6:00 events in San Francisco is tough, especially when
your boss doesn't know what you're up to. Throw in something like hardware,
which investors are averse to or at the least unfamiliar with, and
crowdfunding looks good. In my case it was even worse - its hardware, and
its sex toys. Investors are averse to hardware, unfamiliar with the sex toy
market, and even when they see potential, they often still have to avoid it
because of the stigma associated with it (even though sex toys are pretty
much completely mainstream
<http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/27/boink-box/>these days).
In my case, I eventually just decided to level with my boss, tell him I
hate my job and I want to start my own company, and ask him if he wants to
invest. Thank god he agreed. I was getting tired of telling him "a friend
was in town" and I had to leave early to "grab dinner in SF" so I could hit
the startup mixers.
Point is, for many people, traditional funding is hard to come by, so
lowering the bar is great for those people. How low it should be, and the
negative effects we'll see from it... well, that's an interesting
discussion. But I do think some lowering of the bar is a good thing.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Geo Mealer <geo.mea...@hackerdojo.com>wrote:
> Well, I think what I'm asking is whether there'll be a secondary market
> for these? You can't really pump/dump unless you can dump.
> The FB example is publicly traded, doesn't seem relevant here.
> Re: ripping off, not be penalized, etc, fraud's fraud, and is already
> illegal. Nobody ever promised you that every investment you make will be
> good ones. Some of the requirements for due diligence have to come back to
> the investors.
> I'm not advocating a completely unregulated market, mind you, but there's
> no question that regulation comes at the cost of -some- opportunities for
> growth, as it flattens the curve under the weight of checks, re-checks,
> entrance requirements, etc. There's a great argument as to whether the JOBS
> act moves the line too much, but it sounds more like people are arguing the
> line shouldn't be moved at all.
> Geo
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:22 PM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Woa there gy!!!!
>> Some would say you can already pump/dump via the second market
>> operations that existt for pre IPO stocks now. Hell, I might even
>> suggest that the guy who got pre FB shares at 18.. and then sold them
>> in @nd market for 30 did a pump/dump already!!
>> There's nothing to say that these markets wouldn't quickly become
>> pump/dump schemes that would attract people that you can't even dream
>> of regarding the ability to rig the system.
>> And given that most of the poeple that I've heard pontificate about
>> these kinds of markets, are peopl who want less regulation, the sheep
>> are about to get slaughterred.
>> And if I can rip you off, and not be penaloized, what's my downside
>> again??
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Geo Mealer <geo.mea...@hackerdojo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Re: the concerns on speculation, doesn't that type speculation require
>> an
>> > open-trade market where you can pump and dump whatever it is you're
>> trading?
>> > This setup wouldn't let you trade your equity after the fact, would it?
>> So,
>> > I don't think it'd bubble in quite the same way.
>> > I mean, sure, people might get scammed or invest in someone who talks
>> great
>> > but can't get stuff done IRL, but as Brandon gets at that's a naivete
>> thing
>> > that solves over time.
>> > Geo
>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
>> > <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> >> +1 Brandon.
>> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Brandon Trussell <
>> brandon...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> If people get ripped off and as a result maintain a "screw he stock
>> >>> market / investments" mentality, some might call that "getting
>> smarter".
>> >>> Why deny someone that opportunity? The best answer is to prevent a
>> bubble
>> >>> pop. But that seems like an inherent learning process for an economy
>> trying
>> >>> to grow quickly through trading debt. Might as well reform the debt
>> economy
>> >>> if want you want to be equal to all yet avoid bubbles (unlikely to
>> happen).
>> >>> The alternative is that more than 90% of the population is excluded
>> due to
>> >>> income class... and not really based on anything else ("accredited
>> >>> investor").
>> >>> --
>> >>> BT
>> >>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, bruce wrote:
>> >>> no..
>> >>> the public won't get better over time..
>> >>> the public will get ripped off.
>> >>> i know it's trendy in the valley to say gov't is the cause of
>> >>> society's ills... but gov't plays a role in protecting people who
>> >>> might not be able to really protet themselves from foolish behavior..
>> >>> regulations can be a good thing...
>> >>> would you go into a casino if you didn't know it was regulated...
>> >>> same principle here...
>> >>> and the rationale for the accredited investor was to have a bit of
>> >>> regulation, as well as place some of the risk on the investor...
>> >>> this is like fleecing chickens..
>> >>> and you're going to set up a generation where people will say screw
>> >>> the stock market/investments..
>> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
>> >>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>> >>> Right, everyone had a part they played. Un-accredited investors should
>> >>> allowed to fail. The public will get better over time.
>> >>> Banks should not be able to gamble with the monetary supply. If
>> everyone
>> >>> is
>> >>> accredited with access to info, there will be more people to call the
>> >>> bubble
>> >>> or problems as they happen. Boiler room set is not good.
>> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Trussell <
>> brandon...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
>> >>> The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the
>> controlling
>> >>> positions of investment industries (like investment funds and banks).
>> >>> They
>> >>> were so educated and dedicated to making money for themselves they
>> messed
>> >>> it
>> >>> up for everyone else.
>> >>> Excluding house flippers from the housing crisis would be the same as
>> >>> saying, if the combination of the JOBS Act and FundersClub end up
>> >>> creating a
>> >>> bubble and popping it, that the un-accredited investors had nothing
>> to do
>> >>> with it.
>> >>> Yes banks created CDOs in order to get more and more money to lend,
>> and
>> >>> without that it could not have happened. But one still could have
>> >>> identified it as a bubble by noticing everyone was suddenly allowed to
>> >>> invest in it (get mortgages).
>> >>> The same theorically applies here. It will be congress who has lifted
>> the
>> >>> restrictions, not un-accredited investors, but the presence of the
>> >>> un-accredited investors is what will sound the alarms.
>> >>> Although I think this, the lack of regulation is okay to me. My issue
>> is,
>> >>> don't bail it out when it fails. THAT is what forces people to be
>> smart
>> >>> with
>> >>> their money. The exception being banks that print money. They cannot
>> be
>> >>> allowed to gamble due to cashflow being dependent on them.
>> >>> --
>> >>> BT
>> >>> The definition of monopoly or oligopoly is when only a few people can
>> >>> participate. The ones on top have too much power. The current
>> situation
>> >>> lacks competition, thus drive to improve.
>> >>> Over time the masses will be educated and dedicated enough. We have a
>> lot
>> >>> of information at our disposal now days. Much more than any
>> "accredited"
>> >>> investor had 20 years ago.
Yep. There is value created here if successful companies are funded
which wouldn't be funded by following the dominant investor heuristics
of traditional angels. If you think the investment heuristics of the
Valley are suboptimal, then this has the potential to create value.
There's also some value in funding companies that would have gotten
funding anyway while allowing new angels to break into the cap table.
This redistributes some of the gains from investing away from the old
guard. Investing becomes more about judgment and less about who you
know and which parties you go to. Hell, you don't even have to live in
Silicon Valley to be an investor anymore. From the startup's
perspective, if you can raise online it lowers the incentive to move
to SV. That's pretty cool.
On the other hand, funding volume will increase with new ways to
invest. Seed funding isn't exactly scarce right now. So this has the
potential to direct lots of new "dumb money" to marginal investments.
However, if the funding market tightens, we will be thankful to have
one more source of funds.
For most founders, kickstarter is a better deal than this. It's far
better to sell product than to sell equity. But it is a cool funding
platform for products which don't fit well with kickstarter's model.
Congrats to the founders on the launch! Change always comes with
costs. But I'm bullish on the prospect of a more flexible equity
marketplace to drive positive change.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Taylor Alexander <tlalexan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Skipping some of the discussion, I just wanted to chime in and point out one
> thing:
> I went to a hardware startup meetup recently. Hardware's hard to get funded
> these days, when an app costs way less to make and distribute and investors
> see apps as something with nearly infinite possibilities (thanks,
> Instagram). So we talked about the JOBS act, and one of the investors
> present pointed out that for them, investments are made on probability -
> that they make lots of investments based on the probability they think
> they'll make money off of it. With JOBS, you can now have a company with a
> whole bunch of inexperienced shareholders early on, and professional
> investors (in that investors opinion) are probably not going to want to have
> anything to do with a company like that. I don't know a lot about investing
> myself, but he seemed to think it would just create trouble for him that
> isn't worth it. He did mention he might not feel that way if he was offered
> preferred stock and everyone else had common stock.
> So fair warning - if JOBS all works out and you crowdsource your investors,
> it may scare away the "real" investors later on. This may or may not be an
> issue for your venture, and surely its better than no investors at all, but
> its just something to look into. If you're going to crowdsource your
> investors, do whatever you can to get at least a few minutes of facetime
> with a professional investor first just to get advice on it. It could save
> you from losing a $1m deal in the future.
> As far as all this - I think more opportunities can be good. I know I had a
> hell of a time finding funding for my startup, even after going to all the
> mixers in Silicon Valley. When you're holding down a full time job in the
> South Bay, hitting 6:00 events in San Francisco is tough, especially when
> your boss doesn't know what you're up to. Throw in something like hardware,
> which investors are averse to or at the least unfamiliar with, and
> crowdfunding looks good. In my case it was even worse - its hardware, and
> its sex toys. Investors are averse to hardware, unfamiliar with the sex toy
> market, and even when they see potential, they often still have to avoid it
> because of the stigma associated with it (even though sex toys are pretty
> much completely mainstream these days).
> In my case, I eventually just decided to level with my boss, tell him I hate
> my job and I want to start my own company, and ask him if he wants to
> invest. Thank god he agreed. I was getting tired of telling him "a friend
> was in town" and I had to leave early to "grab dinner in SF" so I could hit
> the startup mixers.
> Point is, for many people, traditional funding is hard to come by, so
> lowering the bar is great for those people. How low it should be, and the
> negative effects we'll see from it... well, that's an interesting
> discussion. But I do think some lowering of the bar is a good thing.
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Geo Mealer <geo.mea...@hackerdojo.com>
> wrote:
>> Well, I think what I'm asking is whether there'll be a secondary market
>> for these? You can't really pump/dump unless you can dump.
>> The FB example is publicly traded, doesn't seem relevant here.
>> Re: ripping off, not be penalized, etc, fraud's fraud, and is already
>> illegal. Nobody ever promised you that every investment you make will be
>> good ones. Some of the requirements for due diligence have to come back to
>> the investors.
>> I'm not advocating a completely unregulated market, mind you, but there's
>> no question that regulation comes at the cost of -some- opportunities for
>> growth, as it flattens the curve under the weight of checks, re-checks,
>> entrance requirements, etc. There's a great argument as to whether the JOBS
>> act moves the line too much, but it sounds more like people are arguing the
>> line shouldn't be moved at all.
>> Geo
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:22 PM, bruce <badoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Woa there gy!!!!
>>> Some would say you can already pump/dump via the second market
>>> operations that existt for pre IPO stocks now. Hell, I might even
>>> suggest that the guy who got pre FB shares at 18.. and then sold them
>>> in @nd market for 30 did a pump/dump already!!
>>> There's nothing to say that these markets wouldn't quickly become
>>> pump/dump schemes that would attract people that you can't even dream
>>> of regarding the ability to rig the system.
>>> And given that most of the poeple that I've heard pontificate about
>>> these kinds of markets, are peopl who want less regulation, the sheep
>>> are about to get slaughterred.
>>> And if I can rip you off, and not be penaloized, what's my downside
>>> again??
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Geo Mealer <geo.mea...@hackerdojo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Re: the concerns on speculation, doesn't that type speculation require
>>> > an
>>> > open-trade market where you can pump and dump whatever it is you're
>>> > trading?
>>> > This setup wouldn't let you trade your equity after the fact, would it?
>>> > So,
>>> > I don't think it'd bubble in quite the same way.
>>> > I mean, sure, people might get scammed or invest in someone who talks
>>> > great
>>> > but can't get stuff done IRL, but as Brandon gets at that's a naivete
>>> > thing
>>> > that solves over time.
>>> > Geo
>>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
>>> > <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>>> >> +1 Brandon.
>>> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Brandon Trussell
>>> >> <brandon...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> If people get ripped off and as a result maintain a "screw he stock
>>> >>> market / investments" mentality, some might call that "getting
>>> >>> smarter".
>>> >>> Why deny someone that opportunity? The best answer is to prevent a
>>> >>> bubble
>>> >>> pop. But that seems like an inherent learning process for an economy
>>> >>> trying
>>> >>> to grow quickly through trading debt. Might as well reform the debt
>>> >>> economy
>>> >>> if want you want to be equal to all yet avoid bubbles (unlikely to
>>> >>> happen).
>>> >>> The alternative is that more than 90% of the population is excluded
>>> >>> due to
>>> >>> income class... and not really based on anything else ("accredited
>>> >>> investor").
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> BT
>>> >>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, bruce wrote:
>>> >>> no..
>>> >>> the public won't get better over time..
>>> >>> the public will get ripped off.
>>> >>> i know it's trendy in the valley to say gov't is the cause of
>>> >>> society's ills... but gov't plays a role in protecting people who
>>> >>> might not be able to really protet themselves from foolish behavior..
>>> >>> regulations can be a good thing...
>>> >>> would you go into a casino if you didn't know it was regulated...
>>> >>> same principle here...
>>> >>> and the rationale for the accredited investor was to have a bit of
>>> >>> regulation, as well as place some of the risk on the investor...
>>> >>> this is like fleecing chickens..
>>> >>> and you're going to set up a generation where people will say screw
>>> >>> the stock market/investments..
>>> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Akhsar Kharebov
>>> >>> <akhsar.khare...@hackerdojo.com> wrote:
>>> >>> Right, everyone had a part they played. Un-accredited investors
>>> >>> should
>>> >>> allowed to fail. The public will get better over time.
>>> >>> Banks should not be able to gamble with the monetary supply. If
>>> >>> everyone
>>> >>> is
>>> >>> accredited with access to info, there will be more people to call the
>>> >>> bubble
>>> >>> or problems as they happen. Boiler room set is not good.
>>> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Brandon Trussell
>>> >>> <brandon...@gmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Akhsar Kharebov wrote:
>>> >>> The source of those bubbles were accredited investors at the
