January 29, 2007
If you want to increase the Gap between the rich and poors pass the new law
I do not reject the fact that Alternative investments can be a little more sophisticated and bear more risk than plain vanilla mutual funds but overall their flexibility help fund managers to benefit way better from market opportunities.
Why would you allow only the riches and big money to benefit from those alternative investments.
I think not only you should not increase the minimums to invest in those but encourage new funds with lower limits for the masses so that as any diversification anybody is allowed to have money invested in alternative investments (and benefit from hedge fund strategies, private equity exposures...). I understand that the $1,000,000 was set in 1982 so way more households fall into that category 8.5% instead of 1.87% but is it really a bad thing? The average person I am sure knows way more about finance than in 1982 so you have to take into account a better knowledge and technology that surrounds us nowadays compared to 1982
It seems to me that since Sarbanes Oxley this administration is trying to come up with more ways to disadvantage corporate America and makes us less competitive. In the case of Sarbanes Oxsley look how it undermined our capital markets in favor of European and EMG ones. This morning I read they are thinking about new laws to change retirement for executives increasing taxes overall. Sometimes loopholes help economies prosper (cf creation of Eurodollar market in London...). Current choices are going to undermine US capital markets in the long run...