What Matt often misses that regulations are not there to prevent stupid investments, they are there to prevent fraud and insider trading. If you want to lose your money by buying $100m deli there should be nothing in the world to stop you losing money that way.
You make an interesting argument about what should be, but are wrong in describing what currently is. The people in charge of those regulations consider this their purpose
> Our focus on Main Street investors reflects the fact that American households ...
> The federal securities laws we oversee are based on a simple and straightforward concept: everyone should be treated fairly and have access to certain facts about investments and those who sell them.
For example, you're required to pass varying levels of quizzes on financial knowledge to be allowed to trade different sorts of things. The goal of this is to protect naive investors from being taken advantage of.
>Small investors who get sucked into these situations are likely to be harmed eventually, yet the regulators – who are supposed to be protecting investors – appear to be neither present nor curious.
then you are incorrectly attributing that to Matt. It was a quote from Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital.
This is a myopic take on both Levine's writing and the external impact that stupidity can have on other market participants, positioned in entirely different assets.
