Re:U.S. Startups Fail to Attract Expected Crowd of Small Inv...
by mljoe on Friday May 19, 2017 @04:28PM
(#14379071)
That makes sense and all, but the definition of accredited investor is tied to net worth and not knowledge. Which means that maybe you can't scam poor people, but there are plenty of gullible rich people with net worth over the $2 million in liquid assets or whatever it is these days.
Maybe treat being an accredited investor like a driver license and not tie it to your net worth?
Re:U.S. Startups Fail to Attract Expected Crowd of Small Inv...
by Frondo on Friday May 19, 2017 @05:15PM
(#14379409)
The difference is that when a millionaire loses $100k, they're not going to feel it the way someone who's taken out a second mortgage would.
Re:U.S. Startups Fail to Attract Expected Crowd of Small Inv...
by notahacker on Friday May 19, 2017 @04:52PM
(#14379265)
Much easier to develop a roughly accurate heuristic for assessing people's ability to afford to misjudge risk or liquidity than to develop a roughly accurate heuristic for assessing their ability not to make such misjudgements.
Re:U.S. Startups Fail to Attract Expected Crowd of Small Inv...
by Qub3d on Friday May 19, 2017 @05:17PM
(#14379422)
How about a terms-based knowledge test, like getting a driver's license? The US loves standardized testing!
Re:U.S. Startups Fail to Attract Expected Crowd of Small Inv...
by lazyasciiart on Friday May 19, 2017 @07:07PM
(#14379994)
Driver testing is run at the state level. The US hates federal organization.
Or alternatively "If you aren't already rich, you don't get marketed at by people offering opportunities so bad they've been passed on by high-risk investors who underperform the returns the non-rich get on less risky asset classes despite working full time on managing their investments whilst having significant power to induce exits in their favour." Or rather, the general public actually does have the opportunity to invest in startups if introduced by genuine friends and family but random mountebanks don't have the right to run slick campaigns to dupe non-rich people into believing that Startup X is a good place to put life savings despite offering lower expected returns than a roulette wheel and zero liquidity. I mean, it'd be nice if the law was as restrictive on more blatant attempts to scam like penny stock pump and dumps and MLM, but it's difficult to argue the general public would be better off for having comparatively sincere people beguile them with Powerpoints involving hockey stick curves.
It's not a "Rich Get Richer" provision when it's obvious that on average the poor will get poorer from random startups being able to present themselves as investment opportunities to them.