3 ms·

How many angel investors really have less than $2.3 million in assets? If I had to guess, I'd say that the increase in the cap was to try to cut down on Wall S

by jordanb 17y ago

How many angel investors really have less than $2.3 million in assets? If I had to guess, I'd say that the increase in the cap was to try to cut down on Wall Street shysters ripping off doctors and marketing VPs. People with less than two million in assets are probably not full time investors, but rather are working-wealthy. They have day jobs and they don't have staff accountants or lawyers. But I could be wrong. Maybe this cap will have a negative impact on Angels. If so, the thing for Angel firms to do is contact your California senators, whose votes will be critical in the passage of the bill, and get an amendment

anamax 17y ago
> How many angel investors really have less than $2.3 million in assets? Wealth seems to follow a power law, so there are probably over 2x as many at $1M as there are at $2M. > If I had to guess, I'd say that the increase in the cap was to try to cut down on Wall Street shysters ripping off doctors and marketing VPs. How about some evidence that this is actually occurring? Heck - how about some evidence that "Wall Street shysters" are even trying to get money from angels? Note - Madoff was running a completely different racket, one well within the purview of the SEC, and they didn't catch on for decades. (He was supposedly stock picking.) > If so, the thing for Angel firms to do is contact your California senators, Angels don't have firms. Yes, there are some groups, but most angels aren't in them. Most folks affected this don't even know that it's something that they should be concerned about because they haven't done the angel thing yet. This means that they never will, and the folks who they would have funded likely won't get funded.
anamax 17y ago
> How many angel investors really have less than $2.3 million in assets? There are actually two criteria, assets (not including residences and some other things) and income. The current income threshold for single people is $200k/year. For married couples, it's $300k/year. Both are reasonably common among techsters in SV. Double those thresholds and potential angels are a lot less common.

by jordanb 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> How many angel investors really have less than $2.3 million in assets? Wealth seems to follow a power law, so there are probably over 2x as many at $1M as there are at $2M. > If I had to guess, I'd say that the increase in the cap was to try to cut down on Wall Street shysters ripping off doctors and marketing VPs. How about some evidence that this is actually occurring? Heck - how about some evidence that "Wall Street shysters" are even trying to get money from angels? Note - Madoff was running a completely different racket, one well within the purview of the SEC, and they didn't catch on for decades. (He was supposedly stock picking.) > If so, the thing for Angel firms to do is contact your California senators, Angels don't have firms. Yes, there are some groups, but most angels aren't in them. Most folks affected this don't even know that it's something that they should be concerned about because they haven't done the angel thing yet. This means that they never will, and the folks who they would have funded likely won't get funded.

anamax 17y ago

> How many angel investors really have less than $2.3 million in assets? There are actually two criteria, assets (not including residences and some other things) and income. The current income threshold for single people is $200k/year. For married couples, it's $300k/year. Both are reasonably common among techsters in SV. Double those thresholds and potential angels are a lot less common.