- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
When I watch videos about the guy who complained to the S.E.C. (U.S. equiv. to ASIC), I'm able to empathize with him. He knew he was right but nobody would listen.
So, it's not always the case that the majority are right, and it may be that the majority are not right in the majority of cases.
When I look at the submissions made to the Senate Finance Inquiry, I'm struck by the fact that only four submissions were made on behalf of the FMF (3 of them mine) and about the same number for the MFS fund.
Storm members made the bulk of the submissions - it's clear that many couldn't use computers because they submitted hand-written letters, some of the writing indicated that the authors were aged - but they made submissions, and as a consequence the Inquiry is probably more widely known as the 'Storm Inquiry'.
In each of the MFS and FMF there are about 10,000 investors - that's 20,000 entities, yet no more than 8 submissions. Contrast that with Storm and it's not difficult to understand why they've taken the front seat at the inquiry.
I'm guessing the subject of 'managed funds' at the Inquiry will fail to gain too much traction at all.
So, if it's obscurity that you want, then you've got it.
If you want to do something for your own benefit, then you have to participate in anything that will get our plight in front of those who matter.
Right now, we simply don't matter - we cannot allow the status quo to continue.
Oh! you say, look at ASIC suing here and there - and they are - but I believe this splurge of activity by ASIC is to dress up their tarnished reputation, in a way not unlike the facade of a building on a movie set.
Yes, it's a hopeful sign and the words are good - but, it can't help us where we are.
The choice is simple, remain in obscurity or put our plight in the limelight.
So, it's not always the case that the majority are right, and it may be that the majority are not right in the majority of cases.
When I look at the submissions made to the Senate Finance Inquiry, I'm struck by the fact that only four submissions were made on behalf of the FMF (3 of them mine) and about the same number for the MFS fund.
Storm members made the bulk of the submissions - it's clear that many couldn't use computers because they submitted hand-written letters, some of the writing indicated that the authors were aged - but they made submissions, and as a consequence the Inquiry is probably more widely known as the 'Storm Inquiry'.
In each of the MFS and FMF there are about 10,000 investors - that's 20,000 entities, yet no more than 8 submissions. Contrast that with Storm and it's not difficult to understand why they've taken the front seat at the inquiry.
I'm guessing the subject of 'managed funds' at the Inquiry will fail to gain too much traction at all.
So, if it's obscurity that you want, then you've got it.
If you want to do something for your own benefit, then you have to participate in anything that will get our plight in front of those who matter.
Right now, we simply don't matter - we cannot allow the status quo to continue.
Oh! you say, look at ASIC suing here and there - and they are - but I believe this splurge of activity by ASIC is to dress up their tarnished reputation, in a way not unlike the facade of a building on a movie set.
Yes, it's a hopeful sign and the words are good - but, it can't help us where we are.
The choice is simple, remain in obscurity or put our plight in the limelight.
