3 ms·

I think the concept of accredited investor needs to go away though. Why should only the super rich be able to invest in risky ventures? Why do I see so many on

I think the concept of accredited investor needs to go away though. Why should only the super rich be able to invest in risky ventures? Why do I see so many on the left supporting these regulations that only favour the super rich? I'm not just talking about crypto-currencies but any venture really, since the internet at least, anyone with an internet connection should be free to invest as they want. I'm personally not into ICOs or gambling in general but if that's your thing you should be able to do so.

vkou 9y ago
> Why should only the super rich be able to invest in risky ventures? The poor can easily invest in a risky venture. Buy into an index fund.
Sangermaine 9y ago
>I think the concept of accredited investor needs to go away though. Why should only the super rich be able to invest in risky ventures? Because they can afford to take the hit if the investment fails.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  People should be free to take financial risks. There's currently nothing stopping people from investing everything into a small business, or blowing it all at the casinos or on lottery tickets. There's no justification for singling out securities and limiting people's right to invest their money in them.
- beiller 9y ago
  When I first read your comment I agreed, however as I think about it, this type of regulation prevents lower income people from transitioning to a different class. I'd say the funding spent on this type of regulation would be better spent on social safety nets.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Because the rich can afford to lose.
njarboe 9y ago
"I think the concept of accredited investor needs to go away though." At least some modification of who can be an accredited investor. Keep the current 200k income or 1 million in non-residental assets. Add some kind designation where you can declare an asset set aside for more risky (accredited investor level) investments and, after a year of sitting to prevent rash decisions, you are allowed to invest those assets in the risky investments. That would at least prevent people from cashing out there IRAs into obvious bubble situations and pyramid schemes and loosing all of their retirement assets. A lot harder for a con man to keep you fooled for a whole year.
prepend 9y ago
I think because finance is complicated and people can be ripped off or not understand their investment. It would be interesting to revise the accredited investor to allow small investments individually and in total (eg, no more than $1k/year or something). Without this rule, grandma and grandpa would be constantly bilked by investing their $50k into bad investments.

vkou 9y ago

> Why should only the super rich be able to invest in risky ventures? The poor can easily invest in a risky venture. Buy into an index fund.

Sangermaine 9y ago

>I think the concept of accredited investor needs to go away though. Why should only the super rich be able to invest in risky ventures? Because they can afford to take the hit if the investment fails.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
People should be free to take financial risks. There's currently nothing stopping people from investing everything into a small business, or blowing it all at the casinos or on lottery tickets. There's no justification for singling out securities and limiting people's right to invest their money in them.
beiller 9y ago
When I first read your comment I agreed, however as I think about it, this type of regulation prevents lower income people from transitioning to a different class. I'd say the funding spent on this type of regulation would be better spent on social safety nets.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

Because the rich can afford to lose.

njarboe 9y ago

"I think the concept of accredited investor needs to go away though." At least some modification of who can be an accredited investor. Keep the current 200k income or 1 million in non-residental assets. Add some kind designation where you can declare an asset set aside for more risky (accredited investor level) investments and, after a year of sitting to prevent rash decisions, you are allowed to invest those assets in the risky investments. That would at least prevent people from cashing out there IRAs into obvious bubble situations and pyramid schemes and loosing all of their retirement assets. A lot harder for a con man to keep you fooled for a whole year.

prepend 9y ago

I think because finance is complicated and people can be ripped off or not understand their investment. It would be interesting to revise the accredited investor to allow small investments individually and in total (eg, no more than $1k/year or something). Without this rule, grandma and grandpa would be constantly bilked by investing their $50k into bad investments.