Quote from jmjatlanta:
You're entitled to your opinion, here's mine:
We have enough laws.
If you're willing to give up control of your own money to let someone else manage it, then you can expect to do well based on historical performance. You can also expect to take on more risk than putting it in a savings account. How much reward you want is proportional to how much risk you take. You can't expect to receive this guy's oversized returns without risk.
Too many more laws, and there will be only unlawful games to be played. Caveat emptor. Don't put laws against me because you decided to let someone manage your money without doing your homework.
Do I feel sorry for the people who had their money in there? Yes. Did they have enough disclosure? I don't know. They definitely allowed this guy to bend the rules.
There will always be gamblers willing to give this guy money. They are the all-or-nothing types. I say, let them play. If they want to give their money casino-style, let them.
I manage most of my own money because I believe I can do a better job than someone else. Money is a huge temptation, and I prefer to fight my SIPC insured broker over taking my money than a hedge fund who simply implodes and isn't there to fight.
Yes, I know one could argue that we still fight hedge funds on the floor. I'd say there is a bit more disclosure there than behind the doors of the hedge funds. Even with their dirty floor tricks.
I respect your insightful post. Please don't take this as a flame, take it as another's opinion.
