| ▲ | kccqzy 3 hours ago | |||||||
That doesn’t make sense at all. The raison d’être of SEC is to protect regular mom-and-pop investors. A private company just doesn’t allow anyone to invest in them. Why should SEC rules apply? On what legal basis can you force a private company to divulge its financial details? Would you be happy if you, as an individual, have to divulge your account statements if your own net wealth reaches one million? | ||||||||
| ▲ | maxerickson 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
It's a corporation, it exists at society's leisure. It might be necessary to create a legal basis, but it's just a matter of doing it. If the owners don't like it they can dissolve it. | ||||||||
| ▲ | hobofan 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
> The raison d’être of SEC is to protect regular mom-and-pop investors That's not the sole reason. They (should) also enforce a fair even playing field by preventing market manipulation (e.g. how Elon was tweeting about stock prices) and a few other things to "facilitate efficient markets and the formation of capital". > Why should SEC rules apply? Because private companies still fall under the jurisdiction of the SEC? See e.g. Theranos. > On what legal basis can you force a private company to divulge its financial details? On the to-be-created legal basis that aims to prevent bubble formation and the resulting fallout to the wider society? > Would you be happy if you, as an individual, have to divulge your account statements if your own net wealth reaches one million? Sure, why not? It's not a totally unheard of idea. In Norway everyones salary can be looked up. | ||||||||
| ▲ | volkk 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
yeah it's a slippery slope forcing companies to go public at X valuation. who decides that? what number makes sense? etc. but i do think we need to somehow fix massively overpriced companies going public and dumping on retail | ||||||||
| ||||||||