5 ms·

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. htt

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/investor-bulletin-accredited-investors https://www.investor.gov/news-alerts/investor-bulletins/inve... So, not necessarily just "wealthy" individuals.

personjerry 11y ago
That's pretty wealthy by most standards, isn't it?
- colinbartlett 11y ago
  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.
  - ddlatham 11y ago
    I suspect the opposite http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/news/economy/us-millionaires-households/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/news/economy/us-millionaires...
- pjlegato 11y ago
  Yes, though in San Francisco it isn't, because the cost of living is so insanely high.
- TuringNYC 11y ago
  Yes, except in places like SF. That sort of income wont afford you more than a 1br (assuming you want to buy.)
zardo 11y ago
So... "incomey" individuals then?
- tajen 11y ago
  The 5% percentile of US population in terms of yearly income.
ZoF 11y ago
Heh, I'm not 'poor' but how in the hell is 199k/year not 'wealthy'?
- st3v3r 11y ago
  You live in downtown Manhattan.
  - mmanfrin 11y ago
    $200k in Manhattan puts you above 84% of people living in Manhattan. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/27/sal-albanese/does-earning-500000-manhattan-make-you-middle-clas/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/...
    - CydeWeys 11y ago
      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.
    - hirsin 11y ago
      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.
- hyperliner 11y ago
  http://www.newblackmaninexile.net/2011/10/they-aint-wealthy-they-are-rich.html 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"
ojbyrne 11y ago
Additional side note: if you're married, it's a total of $300k/year for the household.
atom-morgan 11y ago
Investors are just like everyone else. They don't want competition.

personjerry 11y ago

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

colinbartlett 11y ago
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.
- ddlatham 11y ago
  I suspect the opposite http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/news/economy/us-millionaires-households/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/news/economy/us-millionaires...
pjlegato 11y ago
Yes, though in San Francisco it isn't, because the cost of living is so insanely high.
TuringNYC 11y ago
Yes, except in places like SF. That sort of income wont afford you more than a 1br (assuming you want to buy.)

zardo 11y ago

So... "incomey" individuals then?

tajen 11y ago
The 5% percentile of US population in terms of yearly income.

ZoF 11y ago

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

st3v3r 11y ago
You live in downtown Manhattan.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  $200k in Manhattan puts you above 84% of people living in Manhattan. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/27/sal-albanese/does-earning-500000-manhattan-make-you-middle-clas/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/...
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    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.
  - hirsin 11y ago
    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.
hyperliner 11y ago
http://www.newblackmaninexile.net/2011/10/they-aint-wealthy-they-are-rich.html 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"

ojbyrne 11y ago

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

atom-morgan 11y ago

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