4 ms·
The effect of missing out on an upside is a lot less than taking a huge hit on the downside. It isn't discriminatory, it's protective. It is sad but many peopl
by Cshelton 9y ago
The effect of missing out on an upside is a lot less than taking a huge hit on the downside. It isn't discriminatory, it's protective.
It is sad but many people would put their entire savings and next months rent into a risky investment that is not publicly traded on a regulated market and basically lose their money most of the time because they invest on hype and because their buddy told them.
If an accredited investor loses his money, the nobody feels bad because they had the money in the first place and the means to either hire somebody who knows what they're doing or be responsible themselves.
I'd be fine with zero regulation on it all together, as long as I, as a tax payer, don't have to bail out all the idiots will fall for ponzi scheme after ponzi scheme. But do we let them dye on the streets because they lost everything? Hence why the regulation is in place.
You are also assuming that being an accredited investor gives you access to better investments, which is not entirely true. Many accredited investors lose their lunch on investments. Look at the number of hedge funds that beat a market index fund, it's like 10%. Or look at VC firms where 1 investment makes up for the loss of 10 others. Many never do get that return and just lose money until they're out. The best investment definition varies widely, and in actuality, most accredited investors would be better off just investing in an index fund because believe it or not, they don't know what they are doing most of the time either. Which is why many investments are high risk. So a test would not help either.
- jerguismi 9y ago> It isn't discriminatory, it's protective. I think it is both. The regulation is removing the upside risk as well as the downside risk. Many professional investors are investing to real stupid things and losing their money, it is not that difficult to find examples.
- sanswork 9y agoIs it easy to find examples of ones who have lost so much that they are literally poor?
- mikeyouse 9y agoThat's why these rules exist in the first place.. People like "The Jackal of Wall St.": http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/31/the-best-con-man-you-ve-never-heard-of http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/31/the-best-co... Or the boiler rooms & microcap fraud in the 1980s/1990s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcap_stock_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcap_stock_fraud And yep, it was still happening even before the accredited investor criteria was relaxed; https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/five-defendants-charged-securities-fraud-related-violations https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/five-defendants-charged...
- sanswork 9y agoWhich of those left accredited investors poor and not just down?
- mikeyouse 9y agoAll of them? Boiler rooms and stock frauds don't settle for a little bit of money, when they find someone to swindle, they take all of their money. It got so bad during the Great Depression that people actually hung bankruptcy judges.. Google "stock market fraud life savings" and you can find a litany of people who lost everything to these scams.
- sanswork 9y agoDo you have any actual examples? I googled your suggested term and found a bunch of people outside the US(lots in China a few in the UK, one in Canada) and a bunch of others who wouldn't qualify as accredited investors. The great depression started before the SEC existed and was a completely different world. Back to my original question I asked if it was easy to find examples. I have no doubt that you can find a few since fraud happens. But I think you'll find it difficult to find more than a handful.
- infinite8s 9y agoThe creation of the SEC was a response to the stock market crash that let to the Great Depression.
- kolinko 9y agoThere other ways to protect small investors - education being one example. If someone doesn't know how to manage miney they will lose it one way or another - be it forex, or or penny stocks. ICOs cannot possibly be worse than these legal things.
- mtgx 9y agoYes, but you could make the same argument for companies using toxic substances in their food, too. "We don't need the government to tell us what is toxic and what isn't. Let's people make their own decision about what they eat!" Which I know sounds very attractive, but then 90% of the population will end up ingesting food with lead in it from China, or whatever.
- nunez 9y agowell education is supposed to be an answer to people having unprotected sex without consequence, but here we are, millions of STDs and unwanted pregnancies later if people want to throw in everything they have into speculative currency, then they will. someone's gotta put down the law to at least try and protect damage to the economy when everyone loses their shirts