It's illegal to make private investments in the United States unless you have at least $1 million dollars in assets or...

>it's illegal to make private investments in the United States unless you have at least $1 million dollars in assets or $200k in income
Explain this bullshit

Other urls found in this thread:

equityzen.com/investor/access/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's to protect poor fags from extremely risky, illiquid investments. Rich fags are assumed to know what they are doing.

some rich old time faggot wanted to curb competition and told his politician buddy to 'protect investors'

>what is exemption 506

Not what will let me buy private shares of SpaceX, that's what.

equityzen.com/investor/access/

Were you solicited by Elon Musk personally?
Private offerings aren't public

Because people with less money are poor and tend to be less financial intelligent and got fucked with all the time. Then people lost all their investments and since they didn't have much money to start with they got into deep trouble.

You can buy equity from employees looking to cash out. Or at least if you're wealthy enough.

You can lose just as much money on the public market if you're stupid. That's a bullshit reason IMO.

>some rich old time faggot wanted to curb competition and told his politician buddy to 'protect investors'
Wrong. The rules came into place because too many poorfags (like you) bought into inherently risky investments, and when they lost money, they went into court and cried, "We're just dumb poorfags and didn't know there were any risks. Gib money back plox."

This happened enough times that the SEC decided to put a stop to it by preventing dumb poorfags from investing in anything unless there are massive public disclosures of financials and risks. Which is why every public company spends millions and millions a year on prospectuses, risk factors, 10Ks, 10Qs, 8Ks and all the regulatory bullshit that makes it possible for dumb poorfags to buy investments on an open market without crying too much when they lose money.

But many, many companies are too small (or too smart) to put up with the disclosure and regulatory bullshit. So the SEC passed another set of rules that says if you can prove you're not a poorfag, we'll assume you're not dumb and you can invest in anything. And since richfags are far less likely to run into court and cry ignorance, everyone's happy.

tl;dr The accredited investor rules aren't about helping richfags; they're about keeping out whiny dumb poorfags.

>You can buy equity from employees looking to cash out.
No you can't. Any security that's subject to accredited investor restrictions will have strict transfer limitations. MAYBE, you can give some to your wife, since she's considered the same household. But you can't give or sell your shares to anyone else -- not even your kids -- without approval of the company. Even if you die, your shares can't be transferred if it would violate SEC regulations. Instead, your shares will be bought back by the company, and that cash gets passed along.

>implying this is acceptable
It's just a system designed so that only the rich have easy access to profitable investments

>muh system is rigged
How's bernie doing?

>poor = ignorant
it isn't the 1800s anymore you fucking faggot. Most millenials are poor as shit with multiple degrees (inb4 study STEM lololol). STEM graduates don't have 1 million USD either.
You sound like a trust fund babby faggot.

Hint: holding a STEM degree doesn't mean you know shit about investing. I have a STEM degree and only had one course on basic economics.

Millennials get fleeced out of their money all the time.

Please liquidate your position from this hearth.

>I have a master's degree in aerospace engineering but I'm not smart enough to buy a few private equity shares of SpaceX
uwotm8

Holy fuck you're dumb. A degree in aerospace engineering doesn't make you a good investor.

Are you saying that SpaceX is a bad investment? What about all the other extremely sketchy shit on the public market like Snapchat?

There's no goddamn reason why someone else should be able to stop me from using my own money to buy something.

Clearly you don't know the difference between private and public, which is what this thread is about.

Yeah, you heard me. Knowing the mechanics behind it in no way qualifies you to determine if the actual business is sound.
>There's no goddamn reason why someone else should be able to stop me from using my own money to buy something.
You could make that case on a philosophical level (e.g. I should be able to toss all my money in a pile and light it on fire), but the reason is to serve the public good. Poor-fag invests his life-savings into a private company, then he needs money to cover medical expenses. Uh-oh, sorry poor-fag, can't sell those private shares!

Please share with us your extreme levels of qualification needed to buy something, oh great and mighty Veeky Forums shitposters.

The levels aren't extreme, it's just a different field of knowledge. You need to know how a business operates, how a business makes money, how and when an investor gets paid, etc. If you want to invest in a private company, you really need to up your game. Not only are the mechanics of investing in them different, but the businesses themselves are often pre-revenue, making things just that much more complicated. Knowing the product or service just isn't enough.

>literally 0 arguments
>calls poor people ignorant
>can't even spell "earth"
so you are a literal faggot. You should take a good look at your life and get a ration of reality: you are a complete retard

That was not my point, it was in relation with earning good money after getting education.
Rich people get fleeced out of their money all the time to, has nothing to do with being a millennial or being poor, that's the poor argument from faggot user

The only qualification you need is that you are actually given a private offering. It's not public, you can't publicly traded with the employees. The company needs to validate that they want you in the private offering. What are you, some kind of communist? "They can't choose who they sell it to they must selll it to me bc muh diversity and muh equality"

Yes, rich people get fleeced out of their money all the time too. The difference is that they can usually afford it. Poor people get ruined easily.

>The difference is that they can usually afford it. Poor people get ruined easily.
If you unironically think there aren't rich people that lose all their money, and that they don't invest more money than they can afford you are a complete retard.
>muh poor people
Poor or rich doesn't change anything. Failing isn't tied to how much money you invsted.
Rich people invest more money because they have more, not because they are less retarded.

Please present statistics showing that rich people lose all their money at a rate similar to poor people losing all their money before there were regulations in place to protect them.

>It's just a system designed so that only the rich have easy access to profitable investments
There's nothing about unregistered securities that make them inherently profitable, nor inherently more profitable than publicly traded companies.

You're just whining because you "think" some private company is going to be really profitable, or because your judging some private company with the benefit of hindsight.

Besides, where in the constitution does it say that everyone has the right to invest in anything they think will make them money? You sound like exactly the kind of dumb poorfag that the rules are designed to screen because you'll be the first one in court crying when your investments goes down.

>Most millenials are poor as shit with multiple degrees
Your shitty degrees (earned in a time when no one fails college courses, but that's another issue) don't make you an intelligent investor. History shows that people in their 20's make horrifically stupid financial choices. And Millennials have already proven their the dumbest financial generation in a hundred years.

Posts like yours just help prove my case. Your exactly the kind of investors any private company would be glad NOT to have. Go buy APPL on Robinhood and consider yourself lucky, kid.

You are the one who claimed shit, nigger. Common sense says that having a bigger bank account to invest doesn't mean you will invest it better. It's up to you to prove the opposite by claiming that poor people are inherently subhumans.

>Your shitty degrees (earned in a time when no one fails college courses, but that's another issue) don't make you an intelligent investor.
I never claimed that you illiterate faggot. Why don't you stop strawmanning and carefully read what I wrote instead of acting retarded?
I literally claimed the opposite ffs, why don't you open some books and get an education once in a while instead of LARPing on Veeky Forums?
>History shows that people in their 20's make horrifically stupid financial choices.
History shows that anyone makes stupid financial choices, you are blinded by your own bias.
>And Millennials have already proven their the dumbest financial generation in a hundred years.
I am pretty sure baby boomers were a thousand times worse. Millennials are simply too stupid and thus incapable of fixing the trouble baby boomers created.
>Posts like yours just help prove my case.
posts like yours help me prove mine. You people affected by funcional illiteracy should really get some decency and shut the fuck up once in a while.
>Your exactly the kind of investors any private company would be glad NOT to have
Nigger you probably haven't left your house in months, you don't know shit about investing or private companies. Stop using your bitchy passive aggressive attitude to insult me (like a coward) as if that was an argument. Absolutely pathetic.
>Go buy APPL on Robinhood and consider yourself lucky, kid.
lmao look at this cuck. I don't touch that shit but seeing how buttblasted you are you probably lost money on it in the past and are projecting. I feel ashamed for you.

>You could make that case on a philosophical level (e.g. I should be able to toss all my money in a pile and light it on fire), but the reason is to serve the public good
While I won't pretend the accredited investor rules have some paternalistic intent, the real reason they exist is to prevent legal disputes. Securities laws don't exist in a vacuum, and coupled with agency laws, fiduciary laws, and and other financial regulation, it poses a real problem when unsophisticated people invest in risky things.

As I mentioned above, poorfags do have the right to go into court and complain that they were duped or sold something they didn't understand. And since that does legitimately happen sometimes, and because we want to curb that, we can't really take away those legal rights. So the better choice is to just to throw up a blanket prohibition stopping poorfags from buying things unless the full boatload of disclosures are made (i.e., public companies).

(More accurately stated, the laws do allow companies to let in a small number of poorfags. That way the company can decide who actually knows enough to invest, while keeping out the riffraff like the fags in this thread).

>Please share with us your extreme levels of qualification needed to buy something
Suppose the company you're investing in is a S Corp for tax purposes, has NOL carryforwards, or relies on government contracts, or qualifies for the domestic production credit. Does your STEM degree tell you the things you must do or must not do in order to avoid harming the company and other shareholders in these scenarios?

No? Then fuck off and go learn it. By that time, you'll have a million bucks and can join the crowd.

>Or you won't, in which case nothing of value was lost.

Wrong
It has nothing to do with poor people / net income
A private offering must be a private offering
OP, You can't buy SpaceX because you don't qualify for the public offering because you are not a member of their private circle. A private offering is not a public offering.

>History shows that anyone makes stupid financial choices
No. No it doesn't.
>I am pretty sure baby boomers were a thousand times worse.
ORLY? Go check the net savings rates by generation. Boomers weren't great at savings in their youth, but they look like misers compared to Millennials.

You dimwits invented "YOLO" and then applied it to your financial "planning."

>you don't know shit about investing or private companies
Maybe I do and maybe I don't. I am an accredited investor, however. So there's that....

(mic drop)

don't qualify for the private* not don't qualify for the public

>A private offering must be a private offering
In 20 years when you realize this was the dumbest thing posted on Veeky Forums on this date, you'll laugh.

Until then, we'll be doing the laughing, kid.

That's not an argument friendo

Hard to have an argument with a literal retard. Say something quasi-intelligent that merits a reasoned response, and I'll reply. My posts in this thread prove that.

But when you say ignorant shit like, "A private offering must be a private offering" and think you've made some kind of profound observation, you just sound stupid, high, or both.

A private offering can't be sold to the public
You can't get mad if you can't buy private stock if you don't know higher ups in the company
By the same token there is nothing in the law requiring you to be an accredited investor under regulation 506
What is so hard to understand
How do you think startup founders own stock in their own company

We're all over here debating the merits of the regulations, and you're the idiot in the corner telling us how the law works.

We know how the law works. We certainly don't need your half-ass commentary on it.

So if you have an opinion on the purposes of the regulation, its derivation, its effects on the capital markets, or whether its punitive or curative, feel free to join us at the grown-ups table.

I just told you dumbass
You can't buy a private company if you aren't a part of the private group
Why do you think that anyone cares about its effect on the public
By the definition of the name its a private offering. It doesn't affect the public. A private offering is a private offering

First thread back on Veeky Forums in months and I run into one of these autistic freaks. Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting here.

not
n
argument
fgt

>Explain this bullshit
sure:
>the United States

>Boomers weren't great at savings in their youth, but they look like misers compared to Millennials.
Holy shit you are UNIRONICALLY THIS RETARDED. Millenials are literally born in debt and they can't find decent jobs. No shit they save less than baby fucking boomers.

You are literally confirming me that you are a spoiled brat who never had to work or leave his house his whole life

> I am an accredited investor, however
>(mic drop)

holy shit the cringe. Go back to sleep kiddo, and let the adults talk

>Millenials are literally born in debt
Making exaggerated statements like this just makes you look retarded, even on Veeky Forums.

At most, I'll grant you that Millennials have higher education costs than Gen X and Boomers. That has indeed led to higher debt levels, although even this is misleading. Because when Boomers (and to a smaller degree, Gen X) couldn't afford college they didn't have all the lending options that are available today. They simply skipped college altogether, losing out on the lifetime earnings boost that comes with higher education. Millennials don't have to make that hard choice.

So yes, student loan levels are higher for Millennials. So are the percentage of Millennials with college degrees and all the lifetime earnings that flow from that degree.

So stop bitching, junior.

>holy shit the cringe
Would you like me to prove it? It really doesn't change any argument I've made in the thread, but if you're hung up on the point, I would be glad to prove my assertion.

Am I even in Veeky Forums, or am I in /pol/ right now?

Are you also a lawyer? Can you tell me the difference between a C corporation and an LLC? Maybe show me your imported whiskey?

...

I'm not entirely sure about the differences between a C corp or S corp, but I think I know of a practical use that can involve both an LLC and a corporation for use of running a business. Anyways, I remember reading somewhere that if for example you owned land, and on that land you also owned a building and operated a business, you could have the land owned by the LLC and then the business is owned by the corporation. The reason for doing so would be so that if someone sues you for whatever reason, then they can't somehow fuck you over and take both the land and business out from underneath you since there owned by "separate entities".

All I do is buy on dips and sell on tits. What is all this?

This is to protect stupid people from scams mostly. They want to limit the total amount of cash you can invest into one company or objective to make sure you don't immediately lose it all.

I ran into this issue too for p2p lending programs, mostly housing projects.

I agree the accredited investor rules are retarded. At the very least they could lower the barrier, by a lot.