Subject: File No. 4-692
From: Michael K Smith

January 23, 2018

I feel like the term accredited investor is nothing more than a means of control. If I do not make over a certain amount of money over a specified time, then I am incapable of using my own money, that I earned, to make a decision of how I can spend it? This is proposterous. I understand that I may never see that money again. It is my money, my decision. This is nothing more than suppression. If somebody inherits $5M as an inheritance at age 23, they would be an accredited investor, but some 50 year old restaurant general manager who only makes $60k/yr, and has a 10+% profit margin off $1M net sales annually isnt? This terminology needs to be revamped, reworked, or gotten rid of all together Who is this law trying to protect, exactly? Anybody and everybody should know if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The way it says now, it only favors people with money(sophistication). Apparently many of us are too ignorant to understand that there is a risk of losing your money when you give it to somebody else. It kind of reminds me of how our social security works. The only difference is, we were forced to contribute to that investment. Interesting how we are made to invest through whom the government says, and you have to be over the $200k/yr threshold to do it yourself. Hypocrisy? Freedom?