The article was twisted to show the “plight” of those “poor poor” investors that were stuck. Of course they wouldn’t have complained if there investments were up 50% rather than down 50%.

I don’t know enough about Ritchie to know whether they’re doing right or not, but they are keeping to the terms of the prospectus. My point was to simply to hightlight the irony of these investors chasing down hedge funds begging to get in and then realizing that – unbelievebly – that there is actual RISK involved. Perhaps the Senate in it’s infinite wisdom will pass the Hedge Fund Investor’s Loss Reimbursement Act since they’re so taken lately with giving stipends from the Treasury.

By the way – I loved your work in Wall Street. One of my top 10 favorites.

Thanks for the comment.

perhaps the casinos shouldn’t be allowed to lock in your bet until the roulette wheel stops

Either that or an expose on how unfair it is for people to lose at the casino when they bet on black.

What ever happened to the Risk/Reward tradeoff? Now there’s no such thing as losing money on an investment?

Thanks for the comment.

I get the sense that, like me, you have read this WSJ article more than once, and believe there is more than one side to the story.

I wonder if Susan Pulliam’s next article will be about the poor folks who get penalized for taking money out of their CDs early.

These terms are always set out in the prospectus. But how many investors, when they’re in heat to “get accepted” into a fund, care or actually even read the terms and conditions? My bet is few if any.

So they then get a rude awakening when the market moves against them and they want to cut their losses and run and find that they can’t. Then the Wall Street Journal does a story on the “poor” investors that are “stuck”.

It’s just not fair!!