In the news

This happens a whole lot in Blockchain.

Groundbreaking ideas that people throw money at despite being cryptographically impossible.

So the backers have no right to beef if they lose out, because bankrolling the next unicorn is just a casino. The backers are greedy and deserve to fail sometimes. Was that how Bernie Madoff thought?

The investors should have done due diligence to check if the proposal had some kind of scientific plausibility.

It seems crazy no one asked can one pin prick of blood give this many test results for a complete health check, when usually you need to see a phlebotomist to get a blood sample taken to assess for one condition.

phlebotomist

Bless you

So it seems that Masayoshi San of SoftBank fame was just a giant scam. I'm shocked.
https://www.ft.com/content/4e709f78-48fc-4713-8904-cf1d8588116c

She will 👍🏻 ( Win a clear and transparent election.)

77 inches of snow in Buffalo New York.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPFs4Sas6wg

Brexit benefit in use right there.

So it seems that Masayoshi San of SoftBank fame was just a giant scam. I'm shocked.

https://www.ft.com/content/4e709f78-48fc­-4713-8904-cf1d8588116c

I'm not sure where you're getting that in the article. Masa is still by far the largest shareholder of SoftBank with a 35% stake worth about $20 bn.

So the backers have no right to beef if they lose out, because bankrolling the next unicorn is just a casino. The backers are greedy and deserve to fail sometimes. Was that how Bernie Madoff thought?

I don't want to come across as a Theranos apologist (because I genuinely am not) but if people did not invest what they could not afford to lose the impact of this sort of shitshow would be far less. Most business investments lose money after all. There is definitely an element of people being exploited but also, allowing themselves to be exploited in this.

When you realise the grift might be up
https://twitter.com/jemmaforte/status/1594271852934959105

The article is strongly hinting it's all leveraged to the hilt with related party transactions and "loans" though, right?

When you realise the grift might be up

https://twitter.com/jemmaforte/status/15­94271852934959105

Thing about that poll is that 55 percent of GB News viewers are now remain. What that translates to in terms of the population is probably quite staggering.

Some of the unwise investors were pension funds, which means that a significant number of ordinary people hurt by this weren't themselves the risk takers. Or are they to blame for not doing enough due diligence in researching the wisdom of their pension fund managers. Just how far do you want to take this?

Most people are not investment-savvy. That doesn't make fraud less of a crime. If anything, it makes the case for heavy punishment of fraud.

That doesn't make fraud less of a crime. If anything, it makes the case for heavy punishment of fraud.

I agree...this sort of crime definitely needs tougher penalties and charging/conviction rates.

I still kind of stand by my statement though...there needs to be greater awareness about responsible investing. The same way there's help out there for gamblers. Its the same thing.

I know a guy who put everything into something roughly analagous to Theranos. And when I say everything I mean everything. His home, his business, his savings. He lost the lot, along with his wife and kids. He ended up living rough in Athens. (We had a whip to get him back on his feet and he is doing great).

We're in an era where everybody seems to want to stick some money into the next Uber, Tesla or Amazon. Access to high risk investments has never been easier or more widespread. More and more people are losing their shirts. I think there needs to be change from both sides. Tougher penalties and more convictions for sure...but also more regulation about investment affordability checks and greater recognition that investments can slip into gambling habit.

People quite regularly start of doing it responsibly, buying what they can afford to lose. They then luck out, see their portfolio grow and get addicted to that feeling. Thats kind of how it starts. I think that investments should at least be covered by rules that match the responsibilites of the gambling industry. I've heard people argue that there should be (quite relaxed) affordability checks either performed by the fund raiser or as a mandatory step in the application process (to force the applicant to actually think about it).

Your logic seems really flawed. Of course 'ordinary people' who got hurt are taking a risk by trusting a pension fund to manage their money. They might not be lacking due diligence but 'past performance does not guarantee future income'.

You have been making a lot of sense in recent posts.

Or, more likely, it was just seized upon by remainers wanting to make GB News look like twats.

Yeah.

Stonks have always been thus, but as you say it’s the ease of access that’s changed things.

It’s gambling.

Is that really Angela Rippon? I thought she was dead, and it also looks like she's been digitally aged and inserted.

I don't see any difference between gambling and investing. Movements on the scale of risk premium. The pension industry is rentier capitalism at its finest. Your proposal would create a new tier of rent seekers. Less alpha, more fees.

I don't see any difference between gambling and investing

I think a workable distinction would be that gambling has negative expected value (the house always wins), whereas investing delivers positive returns over the long run.

It's easy to make a statement like that but staking a bet doesn't alter the chances of a thing happening. Giving a company capital to work with might well alter their chances of success.

If you widen the definition of investment you do come closer to gambling but there's still a difference.

There is a hint of Schrödinger's cat with your ontology.

Don't get smart with me sonny 🙂