About how we are limiting the top 1% in the USA

I directly know of several cases. The most blatant one was a local TV network that contracted out advice from consultants for ridiculous amounts (in the $millions). When the paper trail was followed the consultants were the same names as a group on the board, so were advising themselves. Bankrupted the company and the shares went from $13 to 6cents in a month. I had shares but luckily smelled a rat & sold at the peak, pity the poor person who bought them. That loophole has been closed since but too late for many.

The specific suicide one was, a retiring couple put their life savings into a long established rural cooperative association on the Friday (whom they had dealt with for decades), then went back the next week to allocate it out among various investments, but it was all gone as a couple of employees had lost the firm's entire resources on the futures market. In this country we have had a number of high flying investment schemes that have collapsed leaving thousands of investors penniless. In some case financial advisers have talked people into re mortgaging their homes when in their 70s to invest in these "sure things"so they have ended up owning nothing and still owing money.
I strongly disagree that those who lost their savings are at fault. Just because someone is a hardworking butcher, doctor, farmer or whatever doesn't mean that they are financially sophisticated. My portfolio is spread over a wide range of well researched investments, but not all people have these skills.

Both of the situations you describe are criminal in the US, Daryl. Related party transactions must be disclosed. Failure to do so leads to jail. The investment firm that takes the entire savings of retirees and gamles it away in the futures market is guilty of offering unsuitable investments. That is illegal also. A company that does not have safeguards for protecting itself from traders going rogue is guilty of negligence and subject to law suits.

I agree that most investors are not sophisticated. They shouldn't be allowed to invest in highly speculative ventures unless they are able to lose their entire investment. Your post implies that no laws were broken in the case of the retired couple. What sort of investment laws do you have that would allow such a travesty without recourse to the harmed investors?

Daryl wrote:I directly know of several cases. The most blatant one was a local TV network that contracted out advice from consultants for ridiculous amounts (in the $millions). When the paper trail was followed the consultants were the same names as a group on the board, so were advising themselves. Bankrupted the company and the shares went from $13 to 6cents in a month. I had shares but luckily smelled a rat & sold at the peak, pity the poor person who bought them. That loophole has been closed since but too late for many.

The specific suicide one was, a retiring couple put their life savings into a long established rural cooperative association on the Friday (whom they had dealt with for decades), then went back the next week to allocate it out among various investments, but it was all gone as a couple of employees had lost the firm's entire resources on the futures market. In this country we have had a number of high flying investment schemes that have collapsed leaving thousands of investors penniless. In some case financial advisers have talked people into re mortgaging their homes when in their 70s to invest in these "sure things"so they have ended up owning nothing and still owing money.
I strongly disagree that those who lost their savings are at fault. Just because someone is a hardworking butcher, doctor, farmer or whatever doesn't mean that they are financially sophisticated. My portfolio is spread over a wide range of well researched investments, but not all people have these skills.

The term is "had". Both acts are illegal here now, but not 30 years ago.
The later ones involving speculative investment ventures are not quite blanket illegal yet. Bottom line is if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. While not personally connected I've read of a number of suicides from ventures that have been promoted heavily. What they do is invite clients (suckers) to big nights out in groups with lots of evangelical type fervour & sign them up to invest in high gain ventures that return "up to 50%" per annum. The up to is a legal squirrel phrase as losing 100% is in the range. Generally the authorities do eventually crack down on them by which time the funds are in spouses' names in Switzerland, and they are in places where extradition is difficult.
Why people would entrust all their savings plus sometimes a re mortgage of their house to slick strangers who promise to invest it wisely, is beyond me?

Getting back to the original topic, I agree that no normal person should begrudge someone who had raised a large fortune honestly by whatever means (Gates, Jobs, Branson, Buffet, Lucas, etc). My beef is with the pond life who do it by stealing it off those who can't afford to lose it. I know the victims are stupid and greedy, but they don't deserve that.

Daryl wrote:snip

Getting back to the original topic, I agree that no normal person should begrudge someone who had raised a large fortune honestly by whatever means (Gates, Jobs, Branson, Buffet, Lucas, etc). My beef is with the pond life who do it by stealing it off those who can't afford to lose it. I know the victims are stupid and greedy, but they don't deserve that.

I find myself in complete agreement.

You folks might consider adopting some of our investor protection laws. As some of my prior posts suggest, the US has some small degree of experience with predatory investment schemes. As it stands the disincentives for selling inappropriate investments are severe enough to restrict risky but good investments from those without sophistication or wealth.