4 ms·
I haven't tried it yet, but based on your statement: The requirement is `or`, not `and`: you are still considered an accredited investor if your net worth exce
by niggler 14y ago
I haven't tried it yet, but based on your statement:
The requirement is `or`, not `and`: you are still considered an accredited investor if your net worth exceeds 1M and you have 0 income for the past two years. You are also still considered an accredited investor if you have 0 net worth yet have income exceeding 200K/300K
The normal way a form is laid out is that it asks you how you are considered an accredited investor (circle one oval) and give the relevant information.
- rdl 14y agoTheir documentation was actually ambiguous until you submitted, too (I used to qualify on income but not assets, now I qualify on assets but not income; I wasn't sure if I'd go through, but did). IMO, I'd probably err on requiring more as an investment market like this, just to avoid the odds of an early lawsuit or other dispute -- $200k/yr AND HNW AND previous investment experience would be totally reasonable. But that obviously makes it harder to recruit people.
- jgj 14y agoI used >< as, literally, "greater than or less than".