4 ms·

To start with, you have to be what is commonly called an "accredited investor." This is a requirement because almost none of the "investments" sold as CDOs are

To start with, you have to be what is commonly called an "accredited investor." This is a requirement because almost none of the "investments" sold as CDOs are registered with the SEC. The accredited investor loop-hole is the one you'll need to invest in hedge funds and the like: it means something like you're a big boy now, and you don't need the feds protecting you from crooks. Alternatively, your organization will need to be qualified as an institutional investor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accredited_investor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accredited_investor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_investor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_investor Ask your broker if they've got any they want to unload.

smanek 18y ago
I'm a bit short of the wealth requirements to be called an accredited investor ... (1M net worth + 200K/year income). That just seems blatantly unfair to me. It's the government setting up a different set of rules for the rich.
- anamax 18y ago
  > I'm a bit short of the wealth requirements to be called an accredited investor ... (1M net worth + 200K/year income). >That just seems blatantly unfair to me. It's the government setting up a different set of rules for the rich. Those rules are set up to protect you from unsafe investments, scams, and the like. After all, you need to have enough money to keep paying taxes....
- gscott 18y ago
  > That just seems blatantly unfair to me. It's the government setting up a different set of rules for the rich. There was one VC here that mentioned how someone emailed him about also investing in 3 of the companies that he had invested in, and how he couldn't let the person do it because the person didn't fit the requirements to be an "accredited investor" then he mentioned what three companies they were. They were all money pits with no path to profitability. I believe the "accredited investor" bit helps people from having there life's savings thrown away on a unregulated bad investment. The ultra rich either inherited money or built a real business from the ground up and sold it. I would suggest one of those paths instead :)
  - gojomo 18y ago
    But doesn't the current crash highlight the superfluousness of the 'accredited investor' limits? Even investments poor people are allowed to make -- like common stock of giant financial institutions, even those with government sponsorship (Fannie/Freddie) -- can essentially go to zero. The general markets are down 45% from their peaks. Why should submillionaires be denied the chance to put 55% of their portfolio in T-Bills, and 45% in highly-risky unregistered private securities? That wouldn't have done any worse than the public stock market... and might do a lot better, if you understand the private companies involved. And if submillionaires are such easy marks, why not any limits on how much they can gamble in casinos or even state lotteries? The 'accredited investor' limits are silly; a phony security blanket at best, an unfair impediment to broad-based entrepreneurship and investing at worst.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  Just a slight quibble. It's 1M net worth or 200k/year. You make it sound like it's "and."

smanek 18y ago

I'm a bit short of the wealth requirements to be called an accredited investor ... (1M net worth + 200K/year income). That just seems blatantly unfair to me. It's the government setting up a different set of rules for the rich.

anamax 18y ago
> I'm a bit short of the wealth requirements to be called an accredited investor ... (1M net worth + 200K/year income). >That just seems blatantly unfair to me. It's the government setting up a different set of rules for the rich. Those rules are set up to protect you from unsafe investments, scams, and the like. After all, you need to have enough money to keep paying taxes....
gscott 18y ago
> That just seems blatantly unfair to me. It's the government setting up a different set of rules for the rich. There was one VC here that mentioned how someone emailed him about also investing in 3 of the companies that he had invested in, and how he couldn't let the person do it because the person didn't fit the requirements to be an "accredited investor" then he mentioned what three companies they were. They were all money pits with no path to profitability. I believe the "accredited investor" bit helps people from having there life's savings thrown away on a unregulated bad investment. The ultra rich either inherited money or built a real business from the ground up and sold it. I would suggest one of those paths instead :)
- gojomo 18y ago
  But doesn't the current crash highlight the superfluousness of the 'accredited investor' limits? Even investments poor people are allowed to make -- like common stock of giant financial institutions, even those with government sponsorship (Fannie/Freddie) -- can essentially go to zero. The general markets are down 45% from their peaks. Why should submillionaires be denied the chance to put 55% of their portfolio in T-Bills, and 45% in highly-risky unregistered private securities? That wouldn't have done any worse than the public stock market... and might do a lot better, if you understand the private companies involved. And if submillionaires are such easy marks, why not any limits on how much they can gamble in casinos or even state lotteries? The 'accredited investor' limits are silly; a phony security blanket at best, an unfair impediment to broad-based entrepreneurship and investing at worst.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
ojbyrne 18y ago
Just a slight quibble. It's 1M net worth or 200k/year. You make it sound like it's "and."