A 'conversation' built on falsehoods is no conversation at all.
I am less interested in finding some sort of constructive area with you as I am keeping you from misinforming the people who might read your comment and accept it as true.
That is not a waste of time.
If you must have detailed sources and point by point rebuttals, rather than 'vacuous denials' (who's wasting time now?) here you go:
> Rather than remove the exemption, the SEC has effectively removed the disclosure requirement.
Title III created the Securities Act of 1933 Section 4A which states, among other things that "s to reduce the risk of fraud with respect to such transactions, as established by the Commission,
by rule, including obtaining a background and securities enforcement regulatory history check on each officer, director,
and person holding more than 20 percent of the outstanding
equity of every issuer whose securities are offered by such person"
Along with all sorts of information regarding the business including "(I) the income tax returns filed by the issuer
for the most recently completed year (if any); and
(II) financial statements of the issuer, which
shall be certified by the principal executive officer
of the issuer to be true and complete in all material respects;"
And
"financial statements reviewed by a public
accountant who is independent of the issuer, using
professional standards"
And "the name and ownership level of each existing
shareholder who owns more than 20 percent of any
class of the securities of the issuer; "
And "not less than annually, file with the Commission and
provide to investors reports of the results of operations and financial statements of the issuer, a
" And on and on and on.
So, there is a significant discosure requirement despite your assertion to the contrary.
> The rule did not protect naive investors from themselves, it protected them from fraud
That much, at least, is true, but it suggests that the new rules will not which is false as shown above.
> and the economy from bubbles.
This also suggests that the new rules will form bubbles. While that is always a risk, the amount each business can raise and the amount prospective shareholders will be able to invest in these entities is limited, so I don't think this adds significant risk of new or bigger bubbles.
Now the record is straight and those that read these comments will have immediate access to the truth. It might not leave much room for whatever conversation you were planning on having but it is a worthy use of time nonetheless.
I am less interested in finding some sort of constructive area with you as I am keeping you from misinforming the people who might read your comment and accept it as true.
That is not a waste of time.
If you must have detailed sources and point by point rebuttals, rather than 'vacuous denials' (who's wasting time now?) here you go:
> Rather than remove the exemption, the SEC has effectively removed the disclosure requirement.
Title III created the Securities Act of 1933 Section 4A which states, among other things that "s to reduce the risk of fraud with respect to such transactions, as established by the Commission, by rule, including obtaining a background and securities enforcement regulatory history check on each officer, director, and person holding more than 20 percent of the outstanding equity of every issuer whose securities are offered by such person"
Along with all sorts of information regarding the business including "(I) the income tax returns filed by the issuer for the most recently completed year (if any); and (II) financial statements of the issuer, which shall be certified by the principal executive officer of the issuer to be true and complete in all material respects;"
And
"financial statements reviewed by a public accountant who is independent of the issuer, using professional standards"
And "the name and ownership level of each existing shareholder who owns more than 20 percent of any class of the securities of the issuer; "
And "not less than annually, file with the Commission and provide to investors reports of the results of operations and financial statements of the issuer, a " And on and on and on.
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf
So, there is a significant discosure requirement despite your assertion to the contrary.
> The rule did not protect naive investors from themselves, it protected them from fraud
That much, at least, is true, but it suggests that the new rules will not which is false as shown above.
> and the economy from bubbles.
This also suggests that the new rules will form bubbles. While that is always a risk, the amount each business can raise and the amount prospective shareholders will be able to invest in these entities is limited, so I don't think this adds significant risk of new or bigger bubbles.
Now the record is straight and those that read these comments will have immediate access to the truth. It might not leave much room for whatever conversation you were planning on having but it is a worthy use of time nonetheless.