4 ms·
"I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption." I feel you
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption."
I feel you really, really do need to make yourself familiar with that before chastising everyone for not agreeing with your position on these regulations. And if you want to argue that they shouldn't apply, then you need to think long and hard about what makes this situation different, and not just because it's "on a computer".
- kodablah 9y agoIt's a bad way to enforce these laws. I didn't chastise anyone for disagreeing nor did I say anything was different because something happens on a computer. And I never said the regulations shouldn't apply, but that I think they should be enforced like, say, tax or employment regulations and punish the offenders instead of artificially limiting the players. Maybe you're referring to someone else's comment? Can you help me become familiar with the historical SEC failure that prevents them from accepting applications for non-accredited investment without strict preemptive oversight? Or more simply why can't I register a security like I register a company? Because my historical understanding is RegD has been there since the beginning of the SEC.
- s73ver_ 9y agoYou can. Look at the JOBS Act. There is a provision allowing you to raise money with far laxer rules than going public. Really the only thing you need is a quarterly audited report. And if you can't get that, then no, you should not be raising money.
- kodablah 9y agoI had read that it costs several thousand per quarter for those audited reports. Still Title IV is a step forward, I agree. Granted others get to raise money from VCs or crowdfunding without those, just not securities.