Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It really shouldn't.

At a societal level, the point of having a stock market at all is to increase the amount of investment capital available. An unregulated market where people are at significant risk of big losses due to crime, fraud, etc is one that will not attract nearly as much capital. Less investment capital means less growth and a poorer society.

As proof that regulation is valuable, look at all of the foreign companies that list on the US's highly regulated markets. They are willing to meet US transparency and accountability standards because that's how they get lots of cheap capital. In other words, the marketplace of marketplaces proves the value of highly regulated public markets.



view as:

Fair point on the marketplace of marketplaces. Using taxpayer dollars and prisons to enforce a transparent and accountable market still rubs me the wrong way. Outright fraud (eg. a dishonest broker pocketing the $100 instead of purchasing the stock for his client), I have no problems prosecuting with the full force of the government. It’s the rules that provide an illusion of being something other than buyer beware that I chafe at the idea of government intervention.

From the US perspective, the markets run at a healthy profit; they surely generate far more in taxes than they require in regulatory expenditures. And the exchanges themselves do much of the policing of companies, so the actual costs are low. Public markets require the same sort of policing as public streets if they're to remain reasonably safe and effective for the public.

Legal | privacy