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.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @patio11
you pretty much just described ICOs 2016-2018 in which hundreds of them used the same language and use-cases.
2 replies 0 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @ofnumbers
Yep. The optimized predation machine there—the fact that there was an entire differentiated industry to create a supply chain for investment scams—causes me to be much more cool about abolishing the accredited investor rule than I was previously.
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @patio11 @ofnumbers
If you had asked me in 2008 whether law firms would rent out their letterheads to bless investment scams at scale I would have said "Oh goodness no; that's the entire point of law being a profession."
4 replies 2 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @patio11
good point. i wrote a short oped in the WSJ last year. an early draft & the one I preferred said towards the end: "... the retail public wants seductive narratives and fantastial returns. The supply of fraud will therefore grow to meet that demand." h/t
@codedlogic for wording1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes
Patrick McKenzie Retweeted Patrick McKenzie
Endorsed, although I think we might be slightly overly harsh for retail here:https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1066866093048778752?s=20 …
Patrick McKenzie added,
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.