4 ms·
I'm not unsympathetic to the liabilities of the brokerages and the difficult position. But this situation exists because in the US you have to be a rich person
by superkuh 6y ago
I'm not unsympathetic to the liabilities of the brokerages and the difficult position. But this situation exists because in the US you have to be a rich person to directly interact with the stock market.
[edit] Don't pay attention to me below. I'm wrong. See responses.
Then the absurd requirements to be an accredited investor that require nearly everyone to use a broker should be lowered. It's only a very small segment of the US population that has a net worth of over 1 million dollars or an income of more than $200k/year. Most accredited investors are not human people at all but instead corporate people. If brokerages are going to act this way then people need to have the rights to bypass them.
- Denvercoder9 6y agoAccredited investors still use brokers to trade on the stock market. Even for them stock ownership isn't transferred magically.
- JumpCrisscross 6y agoThe term "accredited investor" is only meaningful within the scope of unlisted securities. Stocks traded on exchanges are listed securities. "Accredited investors" have nothing to do with public stock exchanges.
- samhld 6y agoThe concept of "accredited investors", itself, is a great data point for why our implementation of capitalism isn't really capitalism. When opportunities are given explicitly to the rich, you don't have a free market. I know that's not 100% relevant but it was therapeutic to write it.