4 ms·
All in all the changes seem like a good idea. I think the general public is usually frustrated by "missing out" on IPOs as they are gated to accredited investor
by subsubzero 6y ago
All in all the changes seem like a good idea. I think the general public is usually frustrated by "missing out" on IPOs as they are gated to accredited investors/hedgefunds/VC funds. Having a monetary value gating entrance to be an accredited investor(assets over $1 not including house, or income over $300k for 3 consecutive years) seems exclusionary but it really shields the average public from getting pulled in by hucksters selling bad investments. Having these checks in place most times ensures that the person who invests in risky assets is informed and knows what they are doing. That being said people who match the requirements for a AC investor can and do make some really bad investments.
- dsr_ 6y agoDentists. Doctors in general, but especially dentists.
- tptacek 6y agoInvestors don't miss out on IPOs (definitionally, an IPO is what non-accredited investors don't miss out on). They do miss out on VC firms, but they would anyways: VCs don't want your money, because you, as a cohort, are a galactic-scale hassle. In the Majors, funds sell themselves to investments as much as investments sell themselves to funds. So in addition to all the fraud problems, you also have a huge adverse selection problem: the private investments that are available to retail investors are going to be of starkly lower quality than what's available to Bessemer and Index.
- ojbyrne 6y agoYou have a typo ($1) and the income requirement isn't really expressed clearly - It's $200k for individuals or $300k joint income with a spouse. Also it's that limit for 2 previous years, with a "reasonable expectation" for the current year.