Special Situation Complications (and a rant)

In my last portfolio update I talked about three special situations I held, I had to sell one of those today.

Steve Madden had a tender offer where I could have tendered my shares for $20 per shares, I purchased my shares at $17.23 so this could have been a 17% return in just a few weeks.

Unfortunately, I have a custodial account so when I called in to tender the shares, I was told the custodian of the account would have to call. By the time I could have reached him and had him call the deal had expired and I just recently sold my shares, fortunately I sold the shares for about $17.80 this morning so I did not have a loss on them.

Currently. I have 4% in cash and 13% in special situations, which includes the 5% in Penn National. For now I will just let that cash sit and wait to see if I find more special situations, or if I decide to average down on K-Swiss.

This next part has nothing to do with investing, is completely about a government control issue, and may be considered political.

A Quick Rant

My real goal in this post is actually less on the portfolio changes, but to argue against another form of government control.

I'm not completely sure if this was just a Scottrade rule, of if it is government mandated regardless I'm pretty sure the government mandates that minors must have a custodial account.

Sorry, if I'm missing something, but in which way does this make any sense?

How does the fact that my age (17, currently) is less than a social norm (18) give the government right to say, "We know what's best for you - you don't and can't manage your money completely."

Wasn't the US government created to, "derive its rights from the people," not to decide that a minor (even one with almost five years of experience) shouldn't be able to call up his broker and ask that stock in a company he owns, with his money rightfully earned, be tendered, or for that mattered should he not be able to use options?

I had this discussion with my dad so I think I understand the sentiment of people. A minor is young and immature and couldn't possibly make a wise investment choice.

Using this to prohibit a minor from making his own choices in regards to money is wrong on so many levels it's maddening.

Regardless of this sentiment why would the government have the power to regulate what minors can and can't do with their money (purely from an investing standpoint, nothing with drugs, alcohol, etc.)? Part of my money is withheld from my paycheck to go to social security and medicare, money I'll likely never see and is squandered by congress on issues where I don't even have the right to vote to somehow try to have a say on where my money ends up.

And even if the government had the power to tell people how to use their money (regardless of age that's what it is doing) - which by the way I think is a partial definition of socialism - isn't beneficial to minors to fail when they are young and learn the lesson instead of making the mistake right after they turn 18 when they may need the money for college. If the minor is able to invest wisely and use options, or whatever else he decides to use, shouldn't he be given as much time to compound as possible, so he could possibly invest the proceeds into ventures in the future that could possibly vastly improve the economy.