Readers might also be interested to know that anonymity is one of the things constitutionally guaranteed by the First Amendment right to free speech. This concept has been extensively examined in legal jurisprudence for many years. See, for example, https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
While it may have an extensive legal jurisprudence, this issue is total separate. The rights protected in the constitution relate to the state.
For example, we have a right to assemble and the state can not deny that. However, a private entity can prevent us from assembling on their property.
In the same way we have a right to anonymous speech and the state can not deny that. However, a private entity (Quora) can prevent us from making anonymous speech on their website.
The reason for this is obvious, would you want newspapers to have to allow the rantings of a raving lunatic if he used a pseudonym to sign it because it can't prevent anonymous speech?
"I think that was $342K/year for 99.5th percentile of single filers - you need to take on some risk"
I don't think this is true - all the traditional "low risk" professions have this ability: doctors, dentists, lawyers, investment bankers and fund managers. $300k+ is not unusual for a mid-level person in these industries. Senior people in these industries will hit $1m+ pretty easily without having taken on any significant personal risk. A lawyer 3-4 years out from law school in a large firm is going to be sitting on $200k+ already.
Yes, in the financial context they have a low risk profession. They can have greater than 90% confidence that if they do the same thing they did the previous year (likely, working very hard at a task they are very skilled in), that they will earn about the same amount they earned that year, usually adjusted up for inflation. Do you disagree, or are you using some other definition of risk?
If you don't know much about a given job it looks low risk. But a successful doctor, etc. have taken many risky decisions, with not enough information.
Bearing in mind that we are talking strictly in the financial sense — and not, for example, about risky medical decisions — can you explain what you're talking about further? What major risky investments do doctors make on a regular basis?
1. "But to break the 99th percentile - I think that was $342K/year for 99.5th percentile of single filers - you need to take on some risk. Like ... taking on high-visibility, high-impact projects that may fail - often at the cost of your regular duties - within your day job."
This is the OP.
2. Taking a bad important medical decision will have bad financial consequences - lower reputation, not so good references, patient complains leading to big losses of time - lower income in the future. Also there's stuff like which team do you join, what new technical skills do you get, which part of the world you work in. You take a lot of risk, you can expect higher rewards on success.
Personal risk, yes. Malpractice is covered by insurance. Bankers risk their clients' money, not their own (for the most part). As long as they perform their job competently, there is little risk compared to an entrepreneur who has had to quit their job and invest their personal funds into their venture.
Really? How about the risk, that one won't be able to complete his degree, after investing a lot of money and time? Or that he'll make a mistake, which will get him blacklisted from good jobs.
One knows all the risks involved in his job, and few in other's jobs.
You can bet that Goldman would have got hold of Facebook's financial statements from it before making that investment. You don't invest a few hundred million dollars before kicking the tires first.
But isn't it the responsibility of the sub-investors to do their own due diligence? After all, the entire purpose of accrediting investors is to get them to acknowledge that they are being given less protection from the SEC.
It's a process where the SEC asks the investor, "OK, you have a million dollars. Are you sure you know what you're doing?" And the individual says, "Yes, I'm willing to accept the additional risk that comes along with less oversight (ie. more flexibility)".
If an investor is putting money into the pot based on just the "Very Good Valuation" argument, and they've acknowledged the risks, they are not eligible for certain protections (because those protections also limit certain financial vehicles).
In a similar vein, I feel no sympathy for the majority of the people who gave their money to Bernie Madoff. I do, however, believe that there should be legal consequences for money managers who make those types of investments without proper due diligence.
You try to acquire the relevant information and data. You ask your broker (GS, here), what the information is that they have, rather than just accepting their "Good Value" label. If that information doesn't meet your requirements for "due diligence", then you don't invest in that company.
Also, it's not particularly important to be able to claim due diligence.
That's a valid point, but there is some validation investors get from Goldman and DST investing at that valuation. I think that DST is investing as principal, so it says something that they think it is worthwhile at that valuation (and DST is not a first time investor so they are familiar with FB's financials).
As with all legal matters, you should consult a lawyer to obtain proper legal advice. This comment is, of course, not legal advice and shouldn't be relied on as such, but it may help put you on the right path.
Without reading the contracts, knowing where they were signed, etc., a pretty universal general principle is that if you make a promise to your client, you will be liable if you do not live up to that promise. Some of these promises will be expressly in the contract and some of them may be implied by law.
If you agree to deliver a reliable and accurate system (this is essentially a warranty), then if the system fails to meet that, then you do have a liability exposure there. What constitutes a "reliable and accurate system" is open to interpretation and will affect the extent of your liability, but the point is that the door is open.
Instead of disclaiming the giving of any warranties, often contracts will contain a limitation of liability clause, which caps liability. So, while a software developer may warrant that their system will do what they said it will do, if it doesn't, the most a customer can claim back from them is the capped amount. It is common for this to be limited to the amount the customer paid for the software.
