alt Hacker NewsThe SEC's job isn't to adjudicate on whether Anthropic is a good or bad bet for investors. Its job is to ensure that investors have adequate visibility, and then get out of the way.
It would be VERY BAD if we gave politicians arbitrary veto power over who IPOs and who doesn't. The threat of corruption should be obvious.
Replies
There's middle ground.
Like I would ban controlling share classes. I guess there could be an exception if they had an aggressive conversion provision that turned them into normal shares as the company grew.
You also omit an important constituency in your formulation. Corporations are extended limited liability with the idea that it will benefit the public. The government absolutely should be taking steps to ensure that this is true.
The SEC would beg to differ with your first para. I imagine that "protect" involves "adjudication":
"Founded to help our country respond to the Great Depression, we’re the agency that protects investors from misconduct, promotes fairness & efficiency in the securities markets, and facilitates capital formation for those looking to hire, innovate, and grow."
The SEC should adjudicate more. The entire SPAC era should never have happened.
>isn't to adjudicate on whether Anthropic is a good or bad bet for investors
Gensler spent his entire time at the SEC doing exactly that type of adjudication.
Informed consent is extremely important. Its also exceedingly rare today, and the pandemic response didn't help.
Agreed, some people like to gamble, and it is not in civilizations long-term interest to preserve the fiscal integrity of the irrational.
People will learn risk-aversion vicariously, or end up living with the consequences of an inflated hubris. =3
It's mainly the FTC, but I think the SEC does enforce some rules on pyramid schemes etc. even if the operators of them aren't being misleading. Certain business models are ruled out.
Not that I think that applies here, just that they go beyond making sure everything has accurate filing and disclosure etc. and do have some mandate to look into the business models themselves in some cases.
We should just give the power to people with the most money who pay politicians to give them tax cuts and to not do anything else.
That's VERY GOOD.
Right? Right.
[dead]
If the government shouldn’t press its thumb on the scale at the start (fair to argue!) then it shouldn’t press its thumb on the scale when they demand a bailout.