I should be able to invest in _whatever I want_ no matter my net worth. It's my goddamn money and they have no right, after taking almost half of it, to then tell me that I can't spend it as I please. The worst part is I'm _paying_ (via taxes) for them to then tell me what I can't do.
It's no coincidence that the US has strong enforcement and is also a top international destination for investment. If anything the SEC and the CFTC should be more vigorous, and I'm happy to pay to support them.
If you personally really are too smart to need protection, they broadened the accredited investor definition last year, so there are a variety of ways to meet it: https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-reso...
However, that in no way suggests I would be in favor of making it easier for grifters to fleece the rubes. Indeed, I favor strongly regulated markets partly because that reduces the rewards for parasitic activity.
I'm a college educated, 26 year old programmer. I don't have a million in assets yet and it effects my ability to trade on margin and invest in private or OTC offerings, run an arbitrage bot and a million other things. Using a million dollars in assets as your rationale for whether someone is smart enough to do those things is classist.
Why do i have to be qualified to give advice to unlock my own life first? And how can i just pay my way out of knowing all of this if i inhereted a $1M?
https://www.nasaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Series-65-T...
It's true that the Series 65 is more than one would need for solo investing. But the alternative was for them to come up with some sort of new test for the very small number of people who want to get into opaque, illiquid, high-risk investments. This seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.
I, not anyone else, need big daddy government to protect me.
We are the dominant global power in decline, our recent excursion into the nanny state is evidence against not for your hypothesis.
As an example, I used to write software for a company that traded derivatives. The markets we were on all had extremely strong internal regulation. Everybody who traded knew not to fuck with the exchanges. And that's what made them great places to trade: you could trust the outcomes.
It's very similar with investing. Investors are putting in money in exchange for a piece of something with clear risks. The murkier the risks get, the harder it is to get investment money. If, e.g., half of NYSE stocks were scams, investors would put in a lot less money, because their risks would go up, and that risk would apply to every stock in the exchange, because bad actors would of course try to make scams look like good companies.
So it really isn't about you or your daddy issues. It's in the NYSE's interests to keep scammers stocks off their exchange. It's also in the interest of most people who list or trade on that exchange. The same pattern applies more broadly to national markets as well.