5 ms·

shrug And people jump off bridges. Doesn't mean we stop building bridges. The market is rough, them's the rules, sorry not sorry.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
I mean, we make the rules with government. We can change the rules whenever we want. Maybe a rule should exist for such edge cases to protect unsophisticated investors in a country not known for financial literacy?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Yeah, I tend to agree. This kind of deal with extreme and ridiculous risk is exactly what accredited investor rules are supposed to mitigate - but because Hertz is a public company they don't apply.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    I’d agree accredited investor rules should apply for any public company fundraising while in bankruptcy.
- gruez 6y ago
  You mean something like "accredited investor"?
ardy42 6y ago
> shrug And people jump off bridges. Doesn't mean we stop building bridges. The market is rough, them's the rules, sorry not sorry. But it also doesn't mean we can't put barriers on those bridges that prevent people from jumping off. A rule preventing a company from selling stock when it's pursuing a bankruptcy would be just such a barrier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_barrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_barrier
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Risk is an integral part of the market. Why should people be prohibited from taking risks? I could probably get behind preventing people from taking extreme risks--those that would likely make them dependent on our social safety nets--but why prohibit people from putting a few bucks into a high risk investment (which is what you're doing if you prohibit the sale of stock in companies pursuing bankruptcy)? Even if you're 23 and betting your life savings, you still have an income and retirement account and a lot of working years left before retirement.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Risk is an integral part of the market. Why should people be prohibited from taking risks? Because some people are incompetent at judging risks, and offerings like these seem primarily designed to take advantage of those people.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      You're just rephrasing the original argument, not rebutting my proposal. So I ask again: why prohibit everyone from taking reasonable risks when it's perfectly feasible to prohibit only high risk investments (i.e., those risks that would be financially ruinous i.e. put the investor on social support)?
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > So I ask again: why prohibit everyone from taking reasonable risks when it's perfectly feasible to prohibit only high risk investments (i.e., those risks that would be financially ruinous i.e. put the investor on social support)? 1. These risks aren't reasonable. 2. It's practically simpler to ban this kind of weird and sketchy offering entirely than to implement some kind of control to limit the impact of what people can lose on a particular investment.
        throwaway894345 6y ago

toomuchtodo 6y ago

I mean, we make the rules with government. We can change the rules whenever we want. Maybe a rule should exist for such edge cases to protect unsophisticated investors in a country not known for financial literacy?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Yeah, I tend to agree. This kind of deal with extreme and ridiculous risk is exactly what accredited investor rules are supposed to mitigate - but because Hertz is a public company they don't apply.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  I’d agree accredited investor rules should apply for any public company fundraising while in bankruptcy.
gruez 6y ago
You mean something like "accredited investor"?

ardy42 6y ago

> shrug And people jump off bridges. Doesn't mean we stop building bridges. The market is rough, them's the rules, sorry not sorry. But it also doesn't mean we can't put barriers on those bridges that prevent people from jumping off. A rule preventing a company from selling stock when it's pursuing a bankruptcy would be just such a barrier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_barrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_barrier

throwaway894345 6y ago
Risk is an integral part of the market. Why should people be prohibited from taking risks? I could probably get behind preventing people from taking extreme risks--those that would likely make them dependent on our social safety nets--but why prohibit people from putting a few bucks into a high risk investment (which is what you're doing if you prohibit the sale of stock in companies pursuing bankruptcy)? Even if you're 23 and betting your life savings, you still have an income and retirement account and a lot of working years left before retirement.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Risk is an integral part of the market. Why should people be prohibited from taking risks? Because some people are incompetent at judging risks, and offerings like these seem primarily designed to take advantage of those people.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    You're just rephrasing the original argument, not rebutting my proposal. So I ask again: why prohibit everyone from taking reasonable risks when it's perfectly feasible to prohibit only high risk investments (i.e., those risks that would be financially ruinous i.e. put the investor on social support)?
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > So I ask again: why prohibit everyone from taking reasonable risks when it's perfectly feasible to prohibit only high risk investments (i.e., those risks that would be financially ruinous i.e. put the investor on social support)? 1. These risks aren't reasonable. 2. It's practically simpler to ban this kind of weird and sketchy offering entirely than to implement some kind of control to limit the impact of what people can lose on a particular investment.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago