4 ms·

Actually, I am. I don't believe that restrictions on private investments make sense. If anything, they perpetuate the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" proble

Actually, I am. I don't believe that restrictions on private investments make sense. If anything, they perpetuate the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" problem. Unaccredited investors are kept out of great potential wealth creation. The problem is not bad investments, it's fraudulent ones. Fraud is still illegal even if you kill the accredited investors restrictions.

kelnos 7y ago
I do generally agree with you that the accredited investor definition should just be scrapped entirely, but the problem with fraud is that you usually don't find out about it until your investment is gone, and prosecutions often aren't able to recover anywhere near enough to make the investors whole again. And even when they do, it can take months or years. Someone with a $20M net worth can deal with losing $1M. It sucks, but it's not going to put them on the streets. Someone who puts all of their savings into a fraudulent investment then becomes one car break-down away from not paying their bills. Consider also if that person is retired and is living on a fixed income. The kind of people in the latter group are probably more likely to fall for a scam or fraud. I would love to lift investment restrictions -- I absolutely agree that this is a "richer get richer, poor get poorer" issue -- but not without a way to better protect more vulnerable investors. The first thing that comes to mind is some sort of government-provided investment fraud insurance. But then I worry about perverse incentives: every time someone's investment tanks, they're incentivized to try to prove that the investment was a fraud.
- ativzzz 7y ago
  It sounds then, instead of accredited investors, we need an accredited capital investment designation. Allow anyone to invest, but require those who would seek investment from anyone to be under more scrutiny. Of course, this is only if the one seeking investment choose to do so.
  - nicd 7y ago
    Isn't this just called a "public company"? (Not sure if your comment was tongue-in-cheek. If not, I'm genuinely unclear how this is different from the current situation.)
    - ativzzz 7y ago
      Hahaha yea you're right, looks like I invented public companies a few hundred years after other people.
- briandear 7y ago
  You should never invest capital you can’t afford to lose.
pochamago 7y ago
I think there's an argument to be made that the current rules create obstacles for Ponzi schemes and other conmen, but I'm genuinely in agreement that restricting action based on personal wealth is a great way to keep the poor from moving up. I think day trading is the worst example, especially when you compare its risks to options which have no such restrictions
lazyasciiart 7y ago
"The law, in its majestic equality, allows the rich as well as the poor to use their resources to bring a fraudulent CEO to justice"

kelnos 7y ago

I do generally agree with you that the accredited investor definition should just be scrapped entirely, but the problem with fraud is that you usually don't find out about it until your investment is gone, and prosecutions often aren't able to recover anywhere near enough to make the investors whole again. And even when they do, it can take months or years. Someone with a $20M net worth can deal with losing $1M. It sucks, but it's not going to put them on the streets. Someone who puts all of their savings into a fraudulent investment then becomes one car break-down away from not paying their bills. Consider also if that person is retired and is living on a fixed income. The kind of people in the latter group are probably more likely to fall for a scam or fraud. I would love to lift investment restrictions -- I absolutely agree that this is a "richer get richer, poor get poorer" issue -- but not without a way to better protect more vulnerable investors. The first thing that comes to mind is some sort of government-provided investment fraud insurance. But then I worry about perverse incentives: every time someone's investment tanks, they're incentivized to try to prove that the investment was a fraud.

ativzzz 7y ago
It sounds then, instead of accredited investors, we need an accredited capital investment designation. Allow anyone to invest, but require those who would seek investment from anyone to be under more scrutiny. Of course, this is only if the one seeking investment choose to do so.
- nicd 7y ago
  Isn't this just called a "public company"? (Not sure if your comment was tongue-in-cheek. If not, I'm genuinely unclear how this is different from the current situation.)
  - ativzzz 7y ago
    Hahaha yea you're right, looks like I invented public companies a few hundred years after other people.
briandear 7y ago
You should never invest capital you can’t afford to lose.

pochamago 7y ago

I think there's an argument to be made that the current rules create obstacles for Ponzi schemes and other conmen, but I'm genuinely in agreement that restricting action based on personal wealth is a great way to keep the poor from moving up. I think day trading is the worst example, especially when you compare its risks to options which have no such restrictions

lazyasciiart 7y ago

"The law, in its majestic equality, allows the rich as well as the poor to use their resources to bring a fraudulent CEO to justice"