I am amazed at the things people find important enough to take action on -- or not. Seems to me, just guessing, can't be sure, but a bill that has these things in it should be the #1 item on HN, and we should be organizing as a community to stop it. I don't care what your politics are, this is a political thing that needs to be stopped. Parallel Haskell is awesome and all, and goodness knows I want to hear more about…
Senator Dodd Reform Bill Could Ruin Angel Investing
41–50 of 55 posts
Re: Senator Dodd Reform Bill Could Ruin Angel Investing
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
sob 'Mandated net worth transaction increase' Please, let's talk about the actual bill. It's at http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf and the relevant regulation is in Sec. 412. It says that the Securities & exchance commission should raise the threshold, using its existing authority, as the Commission determines is appropriate and in the public interest, in light of price inflation since those fig…
> Please, let's talk about the actual bill. It's at http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf and the relevant regulation is in Sec. 412. Yes, let's do that. > It says that the Securities & exchance commission should raise the threshold, using its existing authority, as the Commission determines is appropriate and in the public interest, in light of price inflation since those figures were determined;…
So yes every article that says "The Dodd bill also raises the net worth and income thresholds to $2.3 million and $450,000, respectively" like this WSJ article is dead wrong. The Dodd bill does no such thing.
Re: Senator Dodd Reform Bill Could Ruin Angel Investing
#43I am amazed at the things people find important enough to take action on -- or not. Seems to me, just guessing, can't be sure, but a bill that has these things in it should be the #1 item on HN, and we should be organizing as a community to stop it. I don't care what your politics are, this is a political thing that needs to be stopped. Parallel Haskell is awesome and all, and goodness knows I want to hear more about…
Re: Senator Dodd Reform Bill Could Ruin Angel Investing
#44Congress has not been friendly to startups this past decade. A few results of their well-intended efforts: 1. Startups today have little or no realistic hope of gaining liquidity through an IPO, leaving them in a position where M&A is their only realistic exit, with the result being that valuations are lowered for founder exits (the consequence of Sarbanes-Oxley, among other new laws). 2. Startups today can't simply…
Freddie and Fannie did absolutely nothing to fuel the subprime mess. They were not allowed to invest in any subprime mortgages during the bubble and were later forced by law to invest in them when the crash was already happening, because that was Bush's plan to stop the crisis. This is just an excuse that people that caused the sub-prime mess use.
- In 2000 Fannie buys $600 million, and Freddie buys $18.6 billion, and guarantees 7.7 billion more. - 2002-2006 the GSE's buy 38-90 billion a year in subprime mortagages
As far back as 1999 you can find stories stating that Fannie was being pressured into subprime:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-...
Their activity appears smaller than the market at large, but it's not non-existant. It doesn't seem on face value that they were not allowed to invest. Is there some rule I am missing?
Re: Senator Dodd Reform Bill Could Ruin Angel Investing
#45Congress has not been friendly to startups this past decade. A few results of their well-intended efforts: 1. Startups today have little or no realistic hope of gaining liquidity through an IPO, leaving them in a position where M&A is their only realistic exit, with the result being that valuations are lowered for founder exits (the consequence of Sarbanes-Oxley, among other new laws). 2. Startups today can't simply…
Freddie and Fannie did absolutely nothing to fuel the subprime mess. They were not allowed to invest in any subprime mortgages during the bubble and were later forced by law to invest in them when the crash was already happening, because that was Bush's plan to stop the crisis. This is just an excuse that people that caused the sub-prime mess use.
Re: Senator Dodd Reform Bill Could Ruin Angel Investing
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I seem to recall reading some advice that friends-and-family money is limited to a couple dozen people, and their involvement can make early VC rounds more complicated therefore harder to get. Is there anything to that?
The exception for private placements is not limited as to people or amounts invested. But a lot of lawyers do not like using that exception because it is not entirely certain what constitutes a private placement. So if they are not very close "friends and family" you may get in trouble. Therefore, a lot of lawyers prefer to use other better defined exceptions. Regarding VCs, they dislike any earlier investors, and th…
If they've got a clue they most certainly do. There's few things worse than dealing with a squirrelly non-professional investor (been there, done that, both myself and my father).
Still, if you have to get money somewhere to attract bigger investments and if this bill passes without fixing these problems you may find yourself pretty much limited to "very close "friends and family"".
I.e. if you live in a state where all others are forbidden to invest ... and from that TechCrunch item posted to HN the association of those state regulators may be the entity that's pushing this hard. Which means we may get much less of a fix that we desire/need.
Re: Senator Dodd Reform Bill Could Ruin Angel Investing
#47Re: Senator Dodd Reform Bill Could Ruin Angel Investing
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freddie and Fannie did absolutely nothing to fuel the subprime mess. They were not allowed to invest in any subprime mortgages during the bubble and were later forced by law to invest in them when the crash was already happening, because that was Bush's plan to stop the crisis. This is just an excuse that people that caused the sub-prime mess use.
What is the source of this? If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline and search for subprime you'll see many cases of Freddie and Fannie buying or guaranteeing subprime activity. - In 2000 Fannie buys $600 million, and Freddie buys $18.6 billion, and guarantees 7.7 billion more. - 2002-2006 the GSE's buy 38-90 billion a year in subprime mortagages As far back as 1999 you can find st…
Re: Senator Dodd Reform Bill Could Ruin Angel Investing
#49Congress has not been friendly to startups this past decade. A few results of their well-intended efforts: 1. Startups today have little or no realistic hope of gaining liquidity through an IPO, leaving them in a position where M&A is their only realistic exit, with the result being that valuations are lowered for founder exits (the consequence of Sarbanes-Oxley, among other new laws). 2. Startups today can't simply…
Freddie and Fannie did absolutely nothing to fuel the subprime mess. They were not allowed to invest in any subprime mortgages during the bubble and were later forced by law to invest in them when the crash was already happening, because that was Bush's plan to stop the crisis. This is just an excuse that people that caused the sub-prime mess use.
Re: Senator Dodd Reform Bill Could Ruin Angel Investing
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
sob 'Mandated net worth transaction increase' Please, let's talk about the actual bill. It's at http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf and the relevant regulation is in Sec. 412. It says that the Securities & exchance commission should raise the threshold, using its existing authority, as the Commission determines is appropriate and in the public interest, in light of price inflation since those fig…
> Please, let's talk about the actual bill. It's at http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf and the relevant regulation is in Sec. 412. Yes, let's do that. > It says that the Securities & exchance commission should raise the threshold, using its existing authority, as the Commission determines is appropriate and in the public interest, in light of price inflation since those figures were determined;…
But consider that the SEC has been responsive to input on this very subject after previous consultation - and I really don't think a policy review is inappropriate, in the wake of a financial meltdown. And while 412 does indeed have 2 parts, it's clearly a placeholder directive, pending a year long review of both accreditation and regulation of private capital by the Comptroller's office mandated in 413.
Now here's how I look at it: Goldman and other large institutions are politically radioactive right now. We could debate whether or not that's fair, but there it is. Public support for Wall Street is at a low ebb, and Congressional Republicans have decided to debate financial reform rather than fight the tide. The big issues are bank liquidation, derivatives markets, and who will regulate consumer finance - neither the GOP nor the White House are too hot on creating a new agency that might get into fights with existing ones. this investor accreditation issue is way down the list. You should certainly call your senator to express opposition if that's how you feel, but: a) for the many tech startups & VCs in California, that's Dianne Feinstein who is unlikely to empathize; and b) it's easier for Congress to delegate the nitty-gritty details to the agencies. Frankly, I'm surprised the bill isn't more prescriptive on this issue.
So suppose it passes. Two new factors come into play. One is that the SEC will hold their public consultation as discussed, and we can predict a negative reaction from startups, angels and VCs. Given the parallel review and the weak recovery so far, it's possible - I think likely - that the SEC will prefer not to introduce job-killing rule changes that would block access to capital in the short term, but wait on the other agency.
----
EDIT: I mixed myself up royally earlier, talking about the 'Comptroller of the Currency' when what I should have written was 'Comptroller General' - part of the GAO. I then looked back to my own text for further reference, perpetuating the mistake through two more paragraphs to no meaningful purpose. Sorry.
I do still think that the year-long review of accreditation and fund regulation is important to HN readers.
New factor two is that in August, John C Dugan will finish his term as head of the OCC (main commercial bank regulator
[... EPIC ACCURACY FAIL....]
small business is something that's easy to sell for both Democrats and Republicans.
----
So again, I respect your skepticism about the bill as a whole; but passage of it could increase opportunity rather than just cost.