Everyone views these things differently of course but there is nothing simple about early stage investing and reducing the barriers to entry for this space strikes me as a terrible idea to be avoided. If various barriers are being reduced or eliminated it opens the door to companies with relatively weak investment merits becoming available to a population of investors who may not be able to adequately evaluate such companies.
The building block here is that with an adequate savings a portfolio of a few diverse broad based funds gives a good shot of having enough when you need it, provided panicked reactions are minimized. Note that the context here is not about beating the market it is about having enough money when you need it.
Short post, we are flying out to Boston later today.
4 comments:
Even before analyzing Procter and Gamble, spelling it correctly might be a plan.
yes, oops on my part
Look at the bright side, after it all blows up then we can get a 20,000 page bill from Congress to save us from it happening again.
...but the net effect for individuals that invest will probably be that they get separated from the money they put up....
No truer words were ever spoken. Thanks for posting.
I recall in the 70's getting phone calls for the once in a lifetime opportunity to get in on Texas oil.
I reasoned then (correctly I believe), that if they were down to calling strangers and letting them in, it just had to be a gauranteed way to lose all your money. If it was a good deal, the caller would have loaded his friends and family and the local banks into the deal so strangers money was not needed or desired.
Post a Comment