3 ms·

see http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/resources/public-policy/federal-policy-issues/highlights/ http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/resources/public-pol

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.

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.