It's a mixed emotion to laugh at the misfortune of others, but this is the most hilarious thing I've read in a long time. (well, at least for today) It's the perfect illustration of panic and greed stomping all over logic and reason.
"I have lost my life savings in the last 15 days and no one in the government or regulators came to help us,'' said Imran Inayat, 45, a protester and a former banker who retired early and said he lost 300,000 rupees ($4,175) on the market."
People, in general, don't understand risk or diversifying.
Yes, but in a system where information is asymmetric and there are governmental statements to invest in one's country, the message of risk is often drowned out and even intentionally so in some unfortunate cases. Consider how the subprime risk was downplayed for years!
A banker who does this though? Yeah, no right to complain.
Why Should We Fear Plunges in Stock Prices, and Why Can't Reporters Ask?
USA Today reports on the SEC's success in slowing short-trading and reversing price declines in several financial stocks. What the article never explains is why the government has an interest in preventing sharp price declines in the affected stocks.
Has the SEC assessed the balance sheets and growth prospects for the affected companies and determined that they are under-valued? If so, will it share this analysis? If not, then why is the SEC intervening to prevent the market from determining the price of the stock of these companies?
Why do we have any more reason to be concerned about a stock's price being driven down by irrational pessimism than being driven up by irrational exuberance? Wasn't it a problem when a junk company like Priceline.com carried a market valuation of more than $150 billion? Why didn't the SEC intervene then?
Most of all, why aren't any reporters asking these questions?
