letting ordinary people invest in what they please does generate alot of harm for individuals who are indeed too stupid to spend their money wisely. But it also oppresses that class who didn't happen into a $1M.
I'm a college educated, 26 year old programmer. I don't have a million in assets yet and it effects my ability to trade on margin and invest in private or OTC offerings, run an arbitrage bot and a million other things. Using a million dollars in assets as your rationale for whether someone is smart enough to do those things is classist.
You can spend $187 to take the Series 65 exam to prove that you know what you're doing and become an accredited investor that way - unlike the Series 7, you do not need your employer to sponsor you.
Wow, didn't know about this. Thanks! Slightly peaved once i read over the outline of the test tho.... linked below but series 65 assumes and prepares me to give advice on these matters. It includes estate planning and a whole slew of sections on the ethics of giving advice.
Why do i have to be qualified to give advice to unlock my own life first? And how can i just pay my way out of knowing all of this if i inhereted a $1M?
I think the theory with having that much money is that either you have the knowledge or you can afford to hire someone who has it.
It's true that the Series 65 is more than one would need for solo investing. But the alternative was for them to come up with some sort of new test for the very small number of people who want to get into opaque, illiquid, high-risk investments. This seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.
I'm fine with a lot of the established players paying deeply. I think our economy is egregiously over-financialized, devoting incredible amounts of time and brainpower to zero- and negative-sum activity.
However, that in no way suggests I would be in favor of making it easier for grifters to fleece the rubes. Indeed, I favor strongly regulated markets partly because that reduces the rewards for parasitic activity.
