3 ms·
> Rather than protect the 'investment class' it protects people who can't afford to lose all of their investment. The problem is that this isn't a binary. To p
by hackinthebochs 9y ago
> Rather than protect the 'investment class' it protects people who can't afford to lose all of their investment.
The problem is that this isn't a binary. To protect the hapless grandparents from losing their retirement, it also restricts knowledgeable but not rich people from making informed decisions for themselves.
- spookthesunset 9y ago> To protect the hapless grandparents from losing their retirement, it also restricts knowledgeable but not rich people from making informed decisions for themselves. Welcome to living in society. It is all give and take.
- hackinthebochs 9y agoThat's not an excuse for lazy policy.
- spookthesunset 9y agoCare to do better, taking into account the system that existed before it, the political climate at the time, the priority of the legislation vs other legislation, and all the other complex factors involved. It’s easy to play armchair politician or legislator online....
- erikpukinskis 9y agoHow about: - apply the same financial disclosure rules we use for public exchanges? - or require insurance against failures to properly report risk
- ChuckMcM 9y agoI am not sure I understand your point. Do you feel that accredited investors that lose money on their investments are either not knowledgeable or not informed?
- hackinthebochs 9y agoMy point was pretty clear I think. There are people who are knowledgeable and informed about various investment opportunities who are not in the >$1MM net worth range. There is no good reason that those people should not be able to rationally take on the risk of an early investment. There are better ways to protect the uninformed than a blanket cut off.