4 ms·
> The bill does not set new requirements at all. It just explicitly authorizes the SEC to adjust the income & net-worth requirements for inflation. Oh really?
by anamax 17y ago
> The bill does not set new requirements at all. It just explicitly authorizes the SEC to adjust the income & net-worth requirements for inflation.
Oh really? Let's look at what the relevant section, 412, actually says.
19 SEC. 412. ADJUSTING THE ACCREDITED INVESTOR STAND20
ARD FOR INFLATION.
21 The Commission shall, by rule—
22 (1) increase the financial threshold for an ac23
credited investor, as set forth in the rules of the
24 Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, by
25 calculating an amount that is greater than the
[page break omitted]
1 amount in effect on the date of enactment of this
2 Act of $200,000 income for a natural person (or
3 $300,000 for a couple) and $1,000,000 in assets, as
4 the Commission determines is appropriate and in the
5 public interest, in light of price inflation since those
6 figures were determined; and
7 (2) adjust that threshold not less frequently
8 than once every 5 years, to reflect the percentage in
9 crease in the cost of living.
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf
If you're going to argue that "shall" doesn't mean that the SEC is being told to compute a number and apply it, please provide supporting evidence.
- blasdel 17y agoI had read it before as authorization, but you're right that it does command the SEC to raise the numbers at least every 5 years starting now, but it leaves the increases completely up to the SEC. The "2.3m" figure is bullshit, the maximum that the SEC could possibly justify.
- anamax 17y ago> it leaves the increases completely up to the SEC. Not at all - it specifies the factor to be used. They seem to have some leeway in the initial bump, but since they've been given their marching orders, it's absurd to think that they'll deviate much. Note that there will be no legal basis for arguing for such a deviation. > The "2.3m" figure is bullshit, the maximum that the SEC could possibly justify. Suppose that they go with $2M instead of $2.3M. Will you regard that "yeah, I was correct, you folks were crying wolf"? I'm serious - what's your "I was wrong" number?