No it is not a good idea. The whole "we're protecting you" argument is a line of garbage intended to sway meatheads into thinking that being denied access to o

No it is not a good idea. The whole "we're protecting you" argument is a line of garbage intended to sway meatheads into thinking that being denied access to ownership and prosperity is a good thing. That these these opportunities should only be given to already wealthy people and that the peons are too stupid to understand concepts like "this is pretty risky, you'll probably lose it all, but if it hits you might make a bundle." In the meantime, the lobbyist for every other way to lose your shirt have made sure that all the doors are open to everyone. The poor little peons too stupid to understand if Facebook might have been a good risk are still able to: blow all their money in Vegas, invest in penny stocks, buy Apple at a top and sell at a bottom, buy a virtual spaceship for $10K, buy a house with maximum leverage into a bubbly market, have $100K in credit card and vehicle debt, and on and on. There are a million ways to shoot yourself in the foot and they are all perfectly fine, but if you want to put $1000 into Google pre-IPO then WHOA we gotta protect you from that! I don't know what world you live in, but the accreditation barrier limits investors to the top 1-2% of the US. Very few people make $200K/yr single, $300K/yr married. Plus they changed the net worth provision to exclude home value. How many people do you think there are that have $1M net worth exclusive of their house?