3 ms·

Sure: replace all wealth tests with competence tests. Then, no competent poor person would be legally locked out of an investment opportunity, by state enforce

by gojomo 6y ago

Sure: replace all wealth tests with competence tests. Then, no competent poor person would be legally locked out of an investment opportunity, by state enforcement power, that would be legally-encouraged for any incompetent wealthy heir. Requiring that someone has to be able to deliver the funds, sure. Perhaps, that they have to prove competence via some testing certification. Perhaps, that they have to match some scaled risk threshold, when relying on systemic benefits: we only give you tax-advantaged retirement accounts, or full unemployment coverage, if you don't put more than X% of your net worth in 'risky'/non-public securities. Those would at least be objectively-linked to a person's abilities, or the magnitude of risks they're projecting on the community. But wealth tests in state regulation codify a class system: "You can't buy this, even if you have cash-in-hand, even if you're an expert, even if the spillover risks are infinitesimal, unless you're already rich." Such discrimination against the poor should be just as illegal as that based on race, gender, national origin, sexual preference, religion, etc.

icedchai 6y ago
Are you eager to lose money or have it tied up for years and years with almost no likelyhood of ever seeing it again? Yes, there are some good private investments, of course. But the vast, vast majority, at the level you or I are going to see, without a network, are probably junk. You're better off investing in public markets.
- gojomo 6y ago
  I don't believe you know anything about the kinds of deals available to me or where I should best invest. (What's your record & credentials?) I trust my decades in this industry more than your hand-waving assertions-of-futility.
  - icedchai 6y ago
    That's fine. I've been in this industry since the 90's. My opinion is unless you have literally millions of spare cash to make a ton of seed investments (like 50+), it's not worth it. You will probably not see a pay off. I qualify as an accredited investor based on net worth. I have invested in private companies, both through employee stock options and as a preferred seed-stage investor. However, I keep most of my funds in self managed brokerage accounts. I will not quote returns here, I am not here to boast, I'll just say I do beat the S&P by a significant percentage.

by gojomo 6y ago

icedchai 6y ago

Are you eager to lose money or have it tied up for years and years with almost no likelyhood of ever seeing it again? Yes, there are some good private investments, of course. But the vast, vast majority, at the level you or I are going to see, without a network, are probably junk. You're better off investing in public markets.

gojomo 6y ago
I don't believe you know anything about the kinds of deals available to me or where I should best invest. (What's your record & credentials?) I trust my decades in this industry more than your hand-waving assertions-of-futility.
- icedchai 6y ago
  That's fine. I've been in this industry since the 90's. My opinion is unless you have literally millions of spare cash to make a ton of seed investments (like 50+), it's not worth it. You will probably not see a pay off. I qualify as an accredited investor based on net worth. I have invested in private companies, both through employee stock options and as a preferred seed-stage investor. However, I keep most of my funds in self managed brokerage accounts. I will not quote returns here, I am not here to boast, I'll just say I do beat the S&P by a significant percentage.