The best argument for the accredited investor rule is that, in the absence of it, promoters will manufacture companies which are difficult to cost-effectively distinguish from actual businesses but which functionally are not and use them to pick middle class' pockets.
-
-
I have a certain degree of respect for that argument, but to the extent I buy it, it suggests a number of immediate rationalizations of regulations surrounding retail investor participation in the core financial markets.
Show this thread -
They would probably include a) accredited investor or equivalent requirements for options trading rather than the simple self-certification required currently, b) restrictions on broker marketing, and probably c) disallow either all or a subset of single company securities.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If you could enforce minimum diversification levels, minimum bet size regulation would be superfluous. But obviously that's.... tricky?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Best argument for an accredited investor rule, but still skeptical of an income-based rule vs some ‘investment IQ’ based rule. Still not that hard to pick a dentist’s pocket (they just have bigger pockets)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"competent" fashion - as competently as a 23 year old that just moved out of mom's basement a few months ago can go about things I guess.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.