September 27, 2014
I read the article re: the SECs proposed changes for angel investing and found it outrageous, though I'm not a anti-government person, this just seems absurd on so many levels.
First it's contradictory to the JOBS act. But when I thought about in the larger sense of what do people do with their money, what are they "allowed" to do with their money, I really thought some kind of petition should be set up broadly.
We allow anyone to DONATE as much money as they want. No proof of assets or income. We don't restrict the amount of money people can use to buy lottery tickets. We don't ask for proof of assets or income for people who donate to public candidates or political causes. So why do we regulate more when it comes to investing money? It makes no sense. And are we also going to regulate a person's time and tell him or her he can't start a business because he doesn't have enough income to do so?
I think the SEC has a strong burden of proof to show both that the existing guidelines have caused significant harm, as well that the proposals under the JOBS act will cause harm. At most, they should have higher qualifications related not to proportion of income but by amount - over $250K for example.
Cynically the SEC is going after the little guys because they've failed to corral the big guys. How many people lost their savings in the "Great Recession" due to misbehaved bankers that the SEC didn't go after, how much was the economy hurt by the banks? Now they want to say that angel angel investors,etc are some how comparable with no proof? They're applying the Dodd-Frank act in the wrong place.