Gullible Dot Com Investors Not Getting Their Money Back
from the nor-should-they dept
As has been mentioned before, no matter how bad and misleading the various analysts were during the boom years, I have little to no sympathy for the investors who believed them. Investing is a risky sport, and if you're not willing to do the due diligence yourself, you shouldn't be in the game. No one forced people to make these trades, and we're not talking about cases where brokers were running off with someone's money. These are cases where greedy individual investors kept on throwing their money into lame dot coms because they wanted to get rich quick. They'd also have a hard time proving that they made the investments solely on the basis of an analyst's recommendations. So, I think it's a good thing that an arbitration panel has been awarding upset investors $0 for their troubles. Anyone who doesn't realize the money they've invested in the stock market can go away shouldn't be investing. If these investors were being rewarded for not doing their own due diligence, it would set a terrible precedent. It would be rewarding those who didn't do their research, while punishing those who kept their money in wiser investments.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Everything is faith, though.
We buy homes based on the faith that forest fires won't vaporize it, storms won't sink it, earthquakes won't pulverize it, riots won't torch it. How many people give their self-righteous advice about how buying homes is "good" for you? We know home insurance companies don't cover "acts of God", which means just about any event that can destroy your home.
Most people seek to get married and have kids because they have been told throughout life that they should. In today's world though, marriage and kids is a huge economic liability; not only does it impoverish us, it makes us less flexible and thus reduces opportunities for advancement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything is faith, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything is faith, though.
The alternative is having no bank insurance, no home protection, wives and children being "laid off" when times are tough. For those that prefer such "freedoms", there are places like Afghanistan or Rwanda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything is faith, though.
First off, the FDIC only insures accounts up to $ 100,000.00.
You write: " For those that prefer such " freedoms ", there are places like Afghanistan ...
I bet you're the kind of consumer who willing trades all your perceived " freedoms " for a loyalty card, A WallyWorld sticker and 10% off your next purchase @ McSatan ...
If it were not for Americans that stood up for " freedom " you nor I would have a place to spout off our beliefs ...
Explain 1 good reason why the government should be involved in protecting anyone from loss of wealth ?
What your proposing is Socialism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything is faith, though.
First off, the FDIC only insures accounts up to $ 100,000.00."
Yes, so bank accounts for those of us with more than $100k is risky.
"I bet you're the kind of consumer who willing trades all your perceived " freedoms " for a loyalty card, A WallyWorld sticker and 10% off your next purchase @ McSatan ..."
Whatever that means. Where are these cards you describe?
"If it were not for Americans that stood up for "freedom " you nor I would have a place to spout off our beliefs ..."
That's the standard indoctrination we receive. In reality, we live in a highly regulated society with consumer protection laws and such. We do not have the freedom to eat dogs or own slaves here. If we want true freedom in the sense of anarchy, there are places like Angola.
>Explain 1 good reason why the government should be involved in protecting anyone from loss of wealth ?
They already do in many ways, via medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, FEMA, FDIC, etc.
>What your proposing is Socialism
Actually, the people who call themselves capitalists are often the same ones who demand this sort of protection. The developing world has truer forms of laissez-faire capitalism, the kind in which the law offers no protection for the masses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]