Live data from Hacker News

The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

wefunder.com

51–60 of 107 posts

Re: The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

#51
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you make an actual argument, please? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say if you've got something to say other than snarky one-liners.

First of all, it's none of anyone's business what some individual wants to invest their money in. It's a moral obscenity to forcibly prevent him from investing. It's not only presumptuous to say "if someone's not rich, they must not be smart enough to invest", it's a self-fulfilling kind of thing, isn't it? Nothing prevents people from gambling in Vegas. So clearly these laws are not about protecting fools from their…

We could use this argument to remove warning labels from all dangerous things.

If you want to drive your vehicle without a seatbelt, who am I to force you to? Your seatbelt choices have no impact on anyone else except you, right?!

Re: The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

#52
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you make an actual argument, please? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say if you've got something to say other than snarky one-liners.

He's insinuating that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their money and that any protection via regulation must be bad. However, if you are someone who isn't an arbitrager(investor isn't the right term) in their daily job, the pressure to join the tulip buyers is a lot heavier than the available knowledge. The root of this problem is lies, because the tulip sellers are always going to give false…

And yet, these people are perfectly free to buy (goverment run) lottery tickets, or walk into a casino and put their entire life savings on the roulette wheel, both of which have a guaranteed negative expected value. At least with a startup investment, there is some small chance that they'll make money.

At the very least, regulations designed to protect the financially unsophisticated from themselves are massively hypocritical.

Re: The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an expert, but if a few of those engineers pooled their money together into an investment club, wouldn't that club be able to meet the accredited investor requirement?

I don't believe the club would have to meet the requirement. I think if you do your investing via an LLC or Corporation you could subvert that rule but I'm not really sure.

The "club" would have to have at least $5 million in assets, according to current SEC guidance: http://www.sec.gov/answers/accred.htm .

Re: The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

#54
post #8

I think this is a mixed blessing. I agree that the ban has been a hindrance on people trying to find investors but lifting it may not be the best solution. If you look at the way YC demo day works, its a pretty reasonable way for potential investors to find startups which are compatible with their investment goals. I think this addresses the challenge of the general solicitation rule (finding the startups) without th…

My instinct is to lash out against this move. General solicitation lowers the amount of social vetting a manager must go through before being able to raise funds. It also makes un-accredited investors more aware of the investment barriers around them, which could loosen resolve for maintaining those walls. But 2013 isn't 1933. The average sophisticated investor is more versed in finance, more wary of solicitation if…

>average sophisticated investor

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that the average investor is now more sophisticated, or that the average sophisticated investor now is more sophisticated than the average sophisticated investor then?

If the former, if the average invested amount drops to $1-2K and the number of investors booms, wouldn't that have an effect on the average sophistication?

IMO the average investor is only investing in the house that they live in, and judging by the last 10 years doesn't seem to have the math skills to defend against a charming salesman.

edit: just noticed that this doesn't open up investment to unaccredited investors, it's just about solicitation. "Average sophisticated" makes sense now:)

Re: The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

#55
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you make an actual argument, please? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say if you've got something to say other than snarky one-liners.

First of all, it's none of anyone's business what some individual wants to invest their money in. It's a moral obscenity to forcibly prevent him from investing. It's not only presumptuous to say "if someone's not rich, they must not be smart enough to invest", it's a self-fulfilling kind of thing, isn't it? Nothing prevents people from gambling in Vegas. So clearly these laws are not about protecting fools from their…

Corporations are afforded civil protections in return for civil responsibilities imposed on them by law. These responsibilities include restrictions on types of investment. Nobody's stopping an individual from starting a business, investing via entering a partnership, or investing by making some personal guarantee with another individuals. Corporations aren't people. When you make a deal with a corporation, you're actually making a deal with society, at least in part, so your deal will be upheld on paper. In order to reduce the risk of malfeasance and cost to itself in the form the consumption of legal resources, society imposes restrictions on corporations that include types of investment.

You can make the case that the regulations may or may not be the best for what society wants, but to say that they're somehow a moral obscenity seems silly to me.

I think it's strange to say that you're prevented from investing in a corporate structure because of legal limitations when the same legal limitations are what enable you to invest in the corporate structure in the first place. It's why I don't subscribe to this viewpoint on investing.

I agree with you on the gambling bit, to an extent. Government-backed lottery really preys on a certain class of people and I don't care for it so much. Private casino-style gambling is viewed by many as an entertainment outlet. Like drinking, for example. It's generally understood that you go to the casino to have a good time....and lose your money. Winning is understood to be an aberration. That doesn't stop people from blowing everything, though.

Re: The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

#56
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you make an actual argument, please? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say if you've got something to say other than snarky one-liners.

First of all, it's none of anyone's business what some individual wants to invest their money in. It's a moral obscenity to forcibly prevent him from investing. It's not only presumptuous to say "if someone's not rich, they must not be smart enough to invest", it's a self-fulfilling kind of thing, isn't it? Nothing prevents people from gambling in Vegas. So clearly these laws are not about protecting fools from their…

>Nothing prevents people from gambling in Vegas.

The only reason that people gamble in Vegas is because every other place created laws to protect fools from their own foolishness. Vegas, a city built by organized crime figures who normally had to operate illicitly, didn't.

Re: The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

#57
post #30

I think this is a positive step, but doesn't go far enough. It looks like investing is still limited to accredited investors (individual income above $200k, household income above $300k, or net worth above $1M). So basically, most engineers who work at these companies can't invest in companies in their industry, but inexplicably their doctor can. I'm not one to beat the drum of deregulation, but I think the accredite…

[deleted]

Re: The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

#58
post #57
post #30

I think this is a positive step, but doesn't go far enough. It looks like investing is still limited to accredited investors (individual income above $200k, household income above $300k, or net worth above $1M). So basically, most engineers who work at these companies can't invest in companies in their industry, but inexplicably their doctor can. I'm not one to beat the drum of deregulation, but I think the accredite…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

#59
post #11

I've been a bit out of this loop, but what kinds of protections remain in place to protect small investors from hucksters "starting a company"? Is it pretty much caveat emptor or is there stuff not mentioned in this article? I think this approach is pretty cool, but there are these drawbacks. Are there going to be limits, protections, or restraints? Is the solicitation still only limited to qualified investors or how…

There are no new protections for accredited investors. To be accredited you need to either have over $1m in net worth (excluding your primary residence) or have earned an income of $200k/yr as an individual (or $300k/yr as a joint couple) for the past two years. The philosophy here is and has been: if you're wealthy then you can probably take care of yourself. The last remaining piece of the JOBS act is Title III, th…

To amend: two new rules were proposed as investor protections. They will have their own comment period and may or may not be adopted. They are:

    - Companies need to file with the SEC 15 days prior to generally soliciting.
    - Companies need to provide additional information about the offering.

Re: The SEC Just Voted To Lift The Ban On General Solicitation

#60
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you make an actual argument, please? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say if you've got something to say other than snarky one-liners.

He's insinuating that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their money and that any protection via regulation must be bad. However, if you are someone who isn't an arbitrager(investor isn't the right term) in their daily job, the pressure to join the tulip buyers is a lot heavier than the available knowledge. The root of this problem is lies, because the tulip sellers are always going to give false…

> yet you hear stories about the Maddoff's of the world running 30 year schemes which very much hit 'sophisticated' investors.

Proving that the scam artists will find a way no matter what the regulations say.

Post reply on HN