Re:S.E.C. Gives Small Investors Access to Equity Crowdfunding
by jsprogrammer on Friday October 30, 2015 @08:52PM
(#10481387)
>the lottery whose odds are calculated and defined to not be possible to win
Sorry, but this just isn't true. It is possible to win with a single ticket and the return on that ticket could be $xxxx million : $1.
Re:S.E.C. Gives Small Investors Access to Equity Crowdfunding
by david927 on Friday October 30, 2015 @09:05PM
(#10481412)
Yes, literally, that's true. What I'm saying is that the odds are known and low, whereas with investing the odds are never known, and that itself is a leap.
Re:S.E.C. Gives Small Investors Access to Equity Crowdfunding
by jsprogrammer on Friday October 30, 2015 @09:15PM
(#10481435)
It is an interesting point, but it does contradict your prior claim.
One problem I see is that an investor may actually be dealing with a lottery-like game without knowing. That is, a particular investment may have actual, calculable odds (would depend on the business model) that are as worse as the lottery model, but are, however, unknown (or even unknowable) to an investor.
Re:S.E.C. Gives Small Investors Access to Equity Crowdfunding
by Dylan16807 on Saturday October 31, 2015 @12:14PM
(#10483100)
Even a truly visibly awful business has better odds than a lottery.
Re:S.E.C. Gives Small Investors Access to Equity Crowdfunding
by jsprogrammer on Saturday October 31, 2015 @02:04PM
(#10483487)
I can't imagine that any late investors into Madoff's business had even a chance at a positive outcome. Assuming the lottery ball machine isn't rigged, there is still a chance that your numbers could come up.
Re:S.E.C. Gives Small Investors Access to Equity Crowdfunding
by jsprogrammer on Sunday November 01, 2015 @01:34PM
(#10487511)
Hilarious that this receives any downvotes.
That's actually a great reason why this may work. Apple was Woz and Job's first company and they hadn't finished college, going into a non-existent sector. No current investor would look at them.
I know several startups that are working on something truly revolutionary with either no funding or very little funding, and I know several highly-funded startups that must be the punch line of a joke (honestly).
Software is the next oil. It's the next great explosion, and it has just started. And if anyone tells you that we're funding tech startups properly, they either don't know what they're talking about -- or they're an investor.
Will some people lose their shirts? I hope not. But we let the poor play the lottery whose odds are calculated and defined to not be possible to win. It seems if we know they can't win, we don't mind; it's when they can win that there's a bit of concern.
I don't want people to lose money either, but it's their right to spend $50 on something they find interesting with the hope of making life better for themselves and their children. And it's liberating to startups that they have more choices than suckle at the teat of the current set of angels and VC's or go home. It's like what happened to music: you can either have a sound and look that fits the major labels and their categories or go home. Angels and VC's have to win so they minimize risk. The people who invest in crowdfunded equity, though, are more likely to forgive losing that $50, so they'll take bigger risks.
And what we need right now, in this software and technology explosion, is more risk and experimentation and new ideas. The winner, in the end, may be the future itself.