Display:
that is indeed somehting that needs to be looked at.

Using my examples above you mean that early stage investors who gave e.g. seed-money to a silicon valley start-up. That investor has two choices:

  1. if it is a profitable company keep owning it and be happy about the dividend.
  2. Find another investor which doesn't necessarily needs to be using the stock market. There a constantly transactions taking place privately which don't use the stock market. And those are investors who are acutally interested in the company and not just the stock. I could imagine many life-insurance companies would be willing buyers...

Furthermore, don't forget that many IPOs are not important for the companies themselves so from a macro-ecomomic perspective IPOs are almost never necessary and therefore there shouldn't be many IPO investors who would neet to sell their stock later on in the secondary market. Those few companies actually using an IPO to raise capital could do this and e.g. promise to buy back the stock as the investment pays off...

The question which really begs to be asked in the context of your question is really who finances companies early on and during the expansion phase? Are there not enough investors out there who could do without a stock market to be able not have to use venture capital funds which just want to get rich quick by an IPO? Getting relevant historic data would be very interesting but probably nearly impossible...

by crankykarsten (cranky (where?) gmx dot organisation) on Thu Aug 26th, 2010 at 07:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
SO your solution to the problem that the stock markets has captured its regulators is to convert the secondary market into an the kind of entirely unregulated over the counter market, supposedly for large investers, that worked so well for Credit Default Swaps?

Huh? Is this learning the lessons of history or dislearning them?

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Aug 27th, 2010 at 05:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bonus points for hitting the target so well and so often...and in this case, in summary.

I particularly like cranky's idea of a time-lapse workers buy-out, but everything else is laced with what you called up thread, "unintended consequences." As Colman said, a regulated market is required for allowing well-intentioned people to trade their interests.

The hard part to fathom is where to place the mirror so that people recognize that the problem isn't the stock (and commodities) markets, but that the society is rigged so that some people can't survive without a huge return. They've worked all their life, they want to live in the same fashion they have up until retirement, they don't want to sell their assets, so they have to play with their cash.

For the few who have saved a million and only need 40k a year (after taxes), 5% return on their money might do. I know one person who had a million after he retired. Actually, he has more than 2 when he retired, but bad investments left him a million after only 2 years.

Instead of being a way to keep things in balance, there are winners and losers, which appears to be at anything over or under 7%. Of course, being a loser once means that 7% just won't do...to the point where everyone's grandmother now has to be involved and gambling on every 20% potential that can spam our mailboxes.

The problem is not the stock market. The problem is how people are treated. Like many things, the solution turned into a problem.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Tue Aug 31st, 2010 at 06:59:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series