4 ms·

Umm, this article quotes the numbers on accredited investors from the Business Week article (http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/mar2010/sb20100318_367

by ojbyrne 17y ago

Umm, this article quotes the numbers on accredited investors from the Business Week article (http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/mar2010/sb20100318_367600.htm http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/mar2010/sb20100...) as fact, when it was clear they were poorly thought out speculation. How do people this stupid actually become VCs? Original discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1213658 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1213658

davidw 17y ago
Good point, but perhaps you could remove the name calling? Simply stating that he's using bad numbers as if they were facts is plenty.
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  If it was some anonymous blowhard on the internet I was calling stupid, I'm sure few if any people would object. But it's a member of the elite, and therefore we have to be respectful. It's a stupid uncritical piece that reflects poorly on the writer.
  - davidw 17y ago
    Someone being an "elite" has nothing to do with it. I don't care who it is; you should talk as if you're talking to someone's face. This is a guideline that's been here for a while ("Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.") because it works well in keeping the discussion focused on the issues, rather than degrading into pissing matches.
skmurphy 17y ago
see http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/resources/public-policy/federal-policy-issues/highlights/ http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/resources/public-poli... The Angel Capital association has looked at three sections o Sec 412 (page 380) Adjusting the Accredited Investor Standard for Inflation o Sec 413 (page 381) GAO Study and Report on Accredited Investors o Sec 926 (pages 816-819) Authority of State Regulators Over Regulation D Offerings and concluded "These 3 sections that threaten to reduce the number of accredited angel investors in the United States by about 75 percent and complicate the regulation of Regulation D offerings (which include angel investments) to increase the time needed for entrepreneurs to raise money and make it more difficult to get investors across state lines."
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  A valid opinion, but let's not forget that this is a worst-case scenario from an interested party. I might note in contrast that the SEC has considered this change before and decided against it after public consultation. Now, asking them to review it again in the wake of a serious financial crisis might result in the effects described, but then again it might not. I don't think that the idea of re-examining the regulatory environment is inherently bad. Capital formation is not being singled out, just reviewed as part of a comprehensive regulatory overhaul. And yes, I do support a comprehensive regulatory overhaul, which is not the same thing as a general increase in complexity or strictness. It might even result in simplification of regulation by clarifying some of the ambiguity in existing regulation (bear in mind that regulation D was itself written in the wake of a severe recession). Our financial system has been at the epicenter of a truly severe crisis and I think it's quite appropriate to re-examine the rules it operates under.
  - skmurphy 17y ago
    I think most folks on Hacker News are interested parties. These three sections seem completely unrelated to any of the problems in our financial system.

by ojbyrne 17y ago

davidw 17y ago

Good point, but perhaps you could remove the name calling? Simply stating that he's using bad numbers as if they were facts is plenty.

ojbyrne 17y ago
If it was some anonymous blowhard on the internet I was calling stupid, I'm sure few if any people would object. But it's a member of the elite, and therefore we have to be respectful. It's a stupid uncritical piece that reflects poorly on the writer.
- davidw 17y ago
  Someone being an "elite" has nothing to do with it. I don't care who it is; you should talk as if you're talking to someone's face. This is a guideline that's been here for a while ("Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.") because it works well in keeping the discussion focused on the issues, rather than degrading into pissing matches.

skmurphy 17y ago

see http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/resources/public-policy/federal-policy-issues/highlights/ http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/resources/public-poli... The Angel Capital association has looked at three sections o Sec 412 (page 380) Adjusting the Accredited Investor Standard for Inflation o Sec 413 (page 381) GAO Study and Report on Accredited Investors o Sec 926 (pages 816-819) Authority of State Regulators Over Regulation D Offerings and concluded "These 3 sections that threaten to reduce the number of accredited angel investors in the United States by about 75 percent and complicate the regulation of Regulation D offerings (which include angel investments) to increase the time needed for entrepreneurs to raise money and make it more difficult to get investors across state lines."

anigbrowl 17y ago
A valid opinion, but let's not forget that this is a worst-case scenario from an interested party. I might note in contrast that the SEC has considered this change before and decided against it after public consultation. Now, asking them to review it again in the wake of a serious financial crisis might result in the effects described, but then again it might not. I don't think that the idea of re-examining the regulatory environment is inherently bad. Capital formation is not being singled out, just reviewed as part of a comprehensive regulatory overhaul. And yes, I do support a comprehensive regulatory overhaul, which is not the same thing as a general increase in complexity or strictness. It might even result in simplification of regulation by clarifying some of the ambiguity in existing regulation (bear in mind that regulation D was itself written in the wake of a severe recession). Our financial system has been at the epicenter of a truly severe crisis and I think it's quite appropriate to re-examine the rules it operates under.
- skmurphy 17y ago
  I think most folks on Hacker News are interested parties. These three sections seem completely unrelated to any of the problems in our financial system.