February 9, 2007
While I meet the current and propsed requirement for "Accredited"
I disagree with the proposed rule change regarding the defintiion of "Accredited".
Being an "Accredited" investor does not imply a level of sophisitication - there exist many individuals who are
very sophisticated and more than able to determine for themselves whether an investment is sound who would not meet
the minimum net worth requirement. These include people working at investment consultant firms or on behalf
of plan sponsors, for instance. This rule would only serve to limit investment options for these individuals.
The net worth requirement is only serving to protect someone from losing all their money -
another example of the nanny state interevening to protect their subjects from themselves.
This further encroachment in our personal liberties is abhorant.
Finally, there are plenty of other investment vehicles available that are as speculative as
various hedge fund strategies, yet these are not under consideration.