-
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'.
Airhead-
They might not be lacking due diligence but 'past performance does not guarantee future income'.
Nobody suggested that anybody with a pension should asume that stocks will always go up. You're the one who has now suggested that they did and that I was blessing that attitude. That's just you entering the discussion in bad faith. This was a discussion about the gravity and impact of Holmes's crime, stonehedge said that people who invested money that they couldn't afford to lose were also at fault and I just pointed out that some people who were hurt didn't make any choice to see their money gambled on Theranos.
'ordinary people'
People whose only contact with the stock market is the pension fund somebody else manages for them, people who don't have the luxury of tracking the market and do have some reasonable expectation that the fund managers be more cautious than some were. Some of them were badly burnt and the losses are more damaging to them than to most of the foolish investors who made direct choices. And some of that blame lies with fund managers as well as with Holmes, but driving a car at 90mph past a school isn't less of a crime if some people don't look left and right before stepping into the road or if the council doesn't install adequate traffic calming measures.
itsbruce
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.