Sorry to borrow a page from Reddit, but can someone explain like I'm five why I'm not allowed to invest my own money in whatever venture I see fit, just because I'm not rich?<p>I've already "invested" money in Pebble, Reading Rainbow, and a few other business ventures I've seen potential in, but I'm not allowed to benefit from those investments in certain ways because, why, exactly? For my own protection?
The Government seems to have completely forgotten about the JOBS Act[1], which was designed to create a regulatory exemption for crowdfunded investment, democratizing investment allowing everyone an opportunity. Yet instead it appears they want to raise the barrier to entry for investors and limit limit opportunities for start-ups. I mean regulation is needed, we don't want fly by night operations scamming would be investors, but if true this is disgusting.<p>[1]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumpstart_Our_Business_Startups_Act" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumpstart_Our_Business_Startups...</a>
Given that there's been...<p>• …an immense explosion in available knowledge; and…<p>• …many new ways for non-accredited investors to invest and lose all their money in highly-leveraged public equities, real-estate, foreign-exchange, and other vehicles; and…<p>• …no appreciable complaints from existing accredited investors that they wish they'd been prevented from investing their own money in private equities;<p>...thus the SEC <i>must</i> be looking into reducing the thresholds, in the spirit of the JOBS Act, to let more Americans invest in innovative upstarts? Right? Right?
I was hoping this meant that they would lower the bar, but instead they think it's going to be being raised even higher, meaning that existing VCs could close their accreditation.
Wow, this is the definition of nanny-state. This rule should be removed, not tightened!<p>What's next? I don't make enough to trade stocks? To gamble? To spend above my means?
Use of net wealth, rather than a wealth-oblivious measure like skills/certifications, to disqualify people from an important part of the economy should be rejected on economic-rights grounds.<p>Currently you could be professionally certified to advise and manage a millionaire's money, and put it into private ventures, but not be allowed to invest even token amounts into those same ventures yourself, 'cuz you're poor.
Over here in the UK we don't seem to have this restriction.<p>There are lots of other laws about it, but you don't have to be rich to sink some cash in private equity schemes. We even seem to have sprouted a kickstarter for equity in the form of Crowdcube. Which I rather like because kickstarter always felt a bit wrong. If I'm micro-investing, surely I ought to be micro-profiting too, if the company takes off?
"For example, why not allow relevant certified professionals, such as CPAs and CFAs, to automatically qualify as AIs?"<p>This strikes me as an incredibly bad idea. The bar for CPA is painfully low.