In pushing the barrow for investors rights, the author fails to explain why he believes so strongly that publically-funded governments, in their wisdom, can or should provide private investors with additional protections in their attempts at self-enrichment using their own private capital.

I think there are better ways to spend public money and legislators' time than on protecting the private interests of investors.

As an investor myself, I understand that the only "right" I have is a right to a proportional share in the profits of the enterprise, if any. And potentially I could lose the capital altogether. I risk the capital to gain a share of the reward. I do my homework before deciding where to put the money. If I get rich in the process, good luck to me. If I lose my shirt, well nobody had a gun at my head making me invest in that company. Either way, the responsibility for the decision to invest rests solely with me.

Anybody who doesn't comprehend or doesn't agree with this basic law of investing should leave their money in a capital-guaranteed vehicle in one of the big banks.

Of course, the author would be a bit short of work if everybody followed my advice, which is why I guess we will hear more about "investor rights" in years to come.

two points - I think Mercurius' approach denies the down stream impact corporate failures has on the entire economy - and in particular non-investors - that alone is justification for a more tenacious apprqoch ti be taken by ASIC et al

secondly I will venure to suggest -that as there is no Islamist line in this essay - I predict mine and that of Mercurius might well be the only two hits this article gets

several points:
1. WA has a long and disgraceful history of fraudulent and misleading "mortgage broking" activity, Westpoint is just a more sophisticated example. The antics of those involved including payment of excessive commissions hiding assets and related party transactions were pretty well hidden; nonetheless I was taught in WA in 1966 that anyone offering over 9% interest should be avoided like the plague, good advice.

2. The ethics and morals of law firms who intentionally delay investigations and worse (see Clayton Utz and the Rola McCabe tobacco lung cancer case, need to remember they are officers of the Court and are expected to behave as such, and indeed have a higher duty than the ordinary punter.Hopefully an example will be made "pour encourager les autres"

3. With the best will in the world bureaucrats dislike having to make decisions, and even worse having to actually take action, it is not their nature, so relying on ASIC to protect you in investment decisions is at best unwise. Remember " caveat emptor"

Richard42

OK so I was wrong - mine that of Mercurius and someother guy - but I was close damn it.

But I refer the good readers attention to the piece my B Riggs (24th November) the candidate for Northern in the up coming election - she writ about Child abuse.

Just like this articel - a subject of genuine significance to us as a nation - 2 comments to date - and they are both mine - and the second was was a correction at that!

It will get a small airing - at best as well