Ask HN: Why do investors need to be accredited?
I recently read an article[1] which stated that companies are only allowed to solicit investments from accredited investors. What's the reasoning behind this? Why can't anyone, including myself[2], who is willing to risk their own money invest in a startup?
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/sec-announces-crowdfunding-rule-to-allow-startups-to-raise-1-million-from-unaccredited-investors-2013-10#ixzz2iaskUpYm
[2] http://blog.atommorgan.com/investors-need-to-be-accredited
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] threadI am generally not for regulation to "protect people from themselves", but I generally agree with the creation of those laws. The crash in 2008 proves we do need regulation of securities to protect ourselves from destroying the global economy. Having said that, I am glad the JOBS act makes it possible for regular people to invest in private companies. I have always thought it was wrong that only rich people and founders can benefit so greatly from a startup's acquisition or IPO.
If you don't generally solicit, theoretically, under Rule 506(b), you can have up to 35 non-accredited investors. BUT, if you even take one you have to provide IPO level disclosure. Ridiculously expensive. See this blog post: http://www.startuplawblog.com/2013/01/14/cant-i-let-non-accr...
SEC wants to strengthen the validation requirements, which would increase compliance costs a lot, and so generally business world is against this.
The more striking limitations are around solicitation - how you actually find your investors. "General solicitation" is vaguely defined (here's looking at you, angel.co). But basically, it's like the first rule of Fight Club, no one ever talks about it, yet somehow more people keep showing up!
http://undergroundeconomist.com/post/22847068021