> I have zero sympathy for him. His investment strategy appears to have been "find a bigger sucker" and, unfortunately for him, he turned out to be the bigger sucker.
While I have no sympathy for him specifically, if a significant risk was deliberately kept from potential investors then I'd support investors more generally (I'm sure there were many who had less silly investment plans, who were genuinely investing in a company to see it and their investment grow long term) if they demanded an investigation into why this did end up staying hidden until after the IPO.
If fb fought to keep the information hidden, the situation can't as easily be filed under "it is the investor's problem that they didn't ask/research" as many stock market moans can be.
The SEC's role is to play devil's advocate. You would think it obvious that FB would fight against that.
To me this article screams: "Waaah, I lost money on FB. Yes, they disclosed all of their risks ahead of time, but I would rather they would have predicted the future so I could go back and not invest".
If you think investing in hype is guaranteed money, you deserve what you get.
While I have no sympathy for him specifically, if a significant risk was deliberately kept from potential investors then I'd support investors more generally (I'm sure there were many who had less silly investment plans, who were genuinely investing in a company to see it and their investment grow long term) if they demanded an investigation into why this did end up staying hidden until after the IPO.
If fb fought to keep the information hidden, the situation can't as easily be filed under "it is the investor's problem that they didn't ask/research" as many stock market moans can be.