First, let's kill all the angels: Congress takes aim.

41–42 of 42 posts

Re: First, let's kill all the angels: Congress takes aim.

#41

Post by blasdel » Mon, Apr 19, 2010, 8:47 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #39

blasdel wrote: post #34

Please stop repeating the same bullshit that seemingly every VC pundit is repeating about the Dodd bill. The "2.3m" figure is a total fabrication! The bill does not set new requirements at all. It just explicitly authorizes the SEC to adjust the income & net-worth requirements for inflation. The SEC was already empowered to alter the requirements independently of legislation (since they were not set by legislation),…

> The bill does not set new requirements at all. It just explicitly authorizes the SEC to adjust the income & net-worth requirements for inflation. Oh really? Let's look at what the relevant section, 412, actually says. 19 SEC. 412. ADJUSTING THE ACCREDITED INVESTOR STAND20 ARD FOR INFLATION. 21 The Commission shall, by rule— 22 (1) increase the financial threshold for an ac23 credited investor, as set forth in the r…

I had read it before as authorization, but you're right that it does command the SEC to raise the numbers at least every 5 years starting now, but it leaves the increases completely up to the SEC.

The "2.3m" figure is bullshit, the maximum that the SEC could possibly justify.

Re: First, let's kill all the angels: Congress takes aim.

#42

Post by anamax » Mon, Apr 19, 2010, 11:39 PM UTC

blasdel wrote: post #41

anamax wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bill does not set new requirements at all. It just explicitly authorizes the SEC to adjust the income & net-worth requirements for inflation. Oh really? Let's look at what the relevant section, 412, actually says. 19 SEC. 412. ADJUSTING THE ACCREDITED INVESTOR STAND20 ARD FOR INFLATION. 21 The Commission shall, by rule— 22 (1) increase the financial threshold for an ac23 credited investor, as set forth in the r…

I had read it before as authorization, but you're right that it does command the SEC to raise the numbers at least every 5 years starting now, but it leaves the increases completely up to the SEC. The "2.3m" figure is bullshit, the maximum that the SEC could possibly justify.

> it leaves the increases completely up to the SEC.

Not at all - it specifies the factor to be used.

They seem to have some leeway in the initial bump, but since they've been given their marching orders, it's absurd to think that they'll deviate much. Note that there will be no legal basis for arguing for such a deviation.

> The "2.3m" figure is bullshit, the maximum that the SEC could possibly justify.

Suppose that they go with $2M instead of $2.3M. Will you regard that "yeah, I was correct, you folks were crying wolf"?

I'm serious - what's your "I was wrong" number?

Post reply on HN