• @grue
    link
    English
    101 year ago

    (maybe a period of time for retail traders to exit gracefully at the locked price).

    That’s… not how stocks work. Retail traders can’t sell without a counterparty to buy from them, and the last thing I would want to do is to set up some kind of government entity buying stocks of criminal companies at artificially-high prices just to bail out investors.

    Besides, even retail investors should’ve done their due diligence and known they were signing up for the possibility of losing their money. If they don’t like being held accountable for their investments, maybe they should call up their legislator and support piercing the corporate veil more often.

    • Froyn
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      If the only complaint about the premise was an attempt to help out non-insiders, with personal assets under 100k, then scratch that MAYBE off and let’s write some legislature.

      • @grue
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        Very few people with personal assets under 100k are buying individual stocks to begin with. Normal working-class people, if they’re saving at all, are very likely just buying mutual funds inside their retirement accounts.

        Frankly, you’d have to really be trying in order to be in the tiny Venn diagram intersection of people who would (a) be screwed by the above commenter’s proposal and (b) deserve sympathy for it. IMO it’s not worth carving out an exception for.

        • @kewjo
          link
          11 year ago

          Companies issue stock grants in lieu of additional salary to incentivise employees to stay. any impact to stocks would also take away money from labor.

          would also open up corporate warfare to who can fund corporate espionage or politicians to close down competitors.