> 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 :)
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.
That just seems blatantly unfair to me. It's the government setting up a different set of rules for the rich.