Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

... as opposed to targeting only "qualified investors", thereby shutting out the vast majority of interested parties from participating?

Yes, it's risky. That doesn't mean it should be restricted only to the wealthy.




Where does this bizarre idea come from? There aren't queues of high-quality companies just lining up for piddling investments from nobodies.

If you can't provide them with enough money to be worth their time in lawyer's fees, vetting you as an investor, and accounting... no quality company is interested in you as their 36th investor. If you can provide them with enough money to make that worthwhile, you have enough to be an accredited investor.

Scammers are very happy to take a piddling sum from a nobody, as that ensures you don't have the resources to go after them. And they don't need to vet you as an investor - the fact that you aren't invested in a high-quality company is all they need to know you're a mark.

Accredited investor laws aren't about protecting you from risky investments. They're about protecting you from scams you lack the self-awareness to identify. And given that you can't see that, I'm betting that's a lot of scams.


Right, but the idea is to restrict to those financially sophisticated enough not to be taken for a ride. That after all is what the "qualified investor" concept is actually about, you either are sophisticated enough to know better or wealthy enough to survived not being so. Unfortunately there is no easy way to measure the former, so they take the easy out of something like 1mm liquid assets. Perhaps it should be a cert. instead?


No, as opposed to not marketing into financial anxiety




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: