Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommaso who wrote (83761)	9/26/2000 12:58:39 AM
From: S. maltophilia	Respond to of 132070

Interesting article about SIPC. But it still leaves me with the question: What should SIPC cover? And who should provide the ultimate backing? As presently constituted, SIPC can only cover the smallest of failures. Imagine a massive fraud at say, Janus or one of the other recently hot funds, or perhaps a failure of one of our favorite analysts' employers, that leads to customers' losses in the tens or hundreds of billions. I see much difficulty in drawing a distinction between the frauds in the article and what many very angry investors will allege to be fraudulent should something like this occur. And will the taxpayers be stuck with the bill, directly or indirectly (via the printing press)? Wouldn't this be a very ugly, socialistic solution? The S&L fiasco was bad enough, but it was a mere 12 digit mess. That's less than the market cap lost in a 10% correction. I realize I'm mixing apples and oranges here, but this is where the article seems to lead.