Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by jluxenberg on Friday February 19, 2016 @05:05PM (#11137009)

Side note: You're considered an "accredited investor" if you made $200k/year in each of the prior two years and expect a similar income in the current year. https://www.investor.gov/news-alerts/investor-bulletins/inve...

So, not necessarily just "wealthy" individuals.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by personjerry on Friday February 19, 2016 @05:09PM (#11137044)

That's pretty wealthy by most standards, isn't it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by colinbartlett on Friday February 19, 2016 @05:21PM (#11137122)

I think the point was that you don't necessary need wealth (assets) for which the threshold is $1 USD Million excluding the value of your primary residence.

You can instead have a high income (the $200k mentioned) and zero wealth. I suspect that many more people qualify as accredited under the income requirement than qualify under the asset requirement.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by ddlatham on Friday February 19, 2016 @07:43PM (#11137955)

I suspect the opposite

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/news/economy/us-millionaires...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by TuringNYC on Saturday February 20, 2016 @04:38PM (#11142073)

Yes, except in places like SF. That sort of income wont afford you more than a 1br (assuming you want to buy.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by pjlegato on Friday February 19, 2016 @08:39PM (#11138195)

Yes, though in San Francisco it isn't, because the cost of living is so insanely high.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by ojbyrne on Friday February 19, 2016 @06:05PM (#11137443)

Additional side note: if you're married, it's a total of $300k/year for the household.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by ZoF on Friday February 19, 2016 @05:16PM (#11137085)

Heh, I'm not 'poor' but how in the hell is 199k/year not 'wealthy'?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by hyperliner on Friday February 19, 2016 @06:04PM (#11137437)

http://www.newblackmaninexile.net/2011/10/they-aint-wealthy-...

"Shaq is rich; the white man that signs his check is wealthy. Here you go Shaq, go buy yourself a bouncing car. Bling-Bling . . . . I ain’t talking bout Oprah, I’m talking about Bill Gates. OK!. If Bill Gates woke up tomorrow with Oprah’s money, he would jump out a …window. I’m not talking about rich, I’m talking about wealthy

- Chris Rock"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by _yosefk on Saturday February 20, 2016 @12:09PM (#11140890)

Google says Oprah's net worth is $3G, and Shaq's is $350M. If neither is "wealthy", then I guess the word is reserved for Bill Gates (but not that "white man signing Shaq's check", in all likelihood.)

If he weren't a comedian, I'd say Chris Rock is so full of shit it's not even funny, but I guess they're two separate things (meaning that in this instance he's objectively full of shit, but that has nothing to do with him being subjectively not funny to me; there are other comedians who're just as full of shit, but I still find them funny.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by st3v3r on Friday February 19, 2016 @05:19PM (#11137110)

You live in downtown Manhattan.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by mmanfrin on Friday February 19, 2016 @05:28PM (#11137190)

$200k in Manhattan puts you above 84% of people living in Manhattan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by hirsin on Friday February 19, 2016 @06:43PM (#11137662)

But puts you in the top 1.5% nationwide. So, 10x worse off percentage wise, I'd believe that doesn't feel wealthy or even rich. Bad-stats-wise, between 1 in 6 and 1 in 7 people you meet would earn more, compared to 1 in 65 or so elsewhere.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by CydeWeys on Friday February 19, 2016 @06:07PM (#11137457)

Sure, but "wealthy" doesn't just mean the top quintile. "Wealthy" is a more exclusive club than that. When I think "wealthy", I'm thinking top 1%.

But this is one of those words that should probably be set aside for the purposes of debate in favor of something more specific, because arguing over the definition of a term that doesn't actually have a standard definition isn't terribly productive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by ArkyBeagle on Friday February 19, 2016 @07:34PM (#11137900)

Because stocks are not flows.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by zardo on Friday February 19, 2016 @05:14PM (#11137072)

So... "incomey" individuals then?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by tajen on Saturday February 20, 2016 @03:41AM (#11139418)

The 5% percentile of US population in terms of yearly income.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secondary shops flooded with unicorn sellers by atom-morgan on Friday February 19, 2016 @06:32PM (#11137600)

Investors are just like everyone else. They don't want competition.

[ Parent | on HN ]