YES, if you make investing possible, some investors may get exposed to swindles! Deal with it! It's worth it for investing to be possible!
I mean, that has to be the debate, right? Do we allow small, private investors access to investments with a bimodal distribution of outcomes, and if so what amount of regulatory overhead do we impose? With the understanding that every additional quanta of regulatory overhead a) kills some would-be companies at the margin and b) makes some deals inaccessible to small private investors at the margin.
I could go to a casino and blow $20,000 in a weekend. You're telling me that I can't put it into a startup that takes 2 years to fail? Hell, even if I know its going to fail, getting a board seat there and doing my darndest to help it not fail might be worth $20k for me. Or, say its my best friend from high school, whose always had this crazy idea, he's been plugging away for a decade at it, and he wants to make it happen... I believe in him and want to put up my $50k, $500k, $1M, $5M, whatever. We both know that its a longshot, but if it works, its worth $5B. Who are "you" to say that I can't spend my money that way?
The fundamental problem is not risk. Its this idea that government gets to decide who gets to invest.
They don't do this to protect people from risk, but to keep small investors out of these types of investment. All of this kind of regulation is not to protect people-- that's just the pitch. "won't anyone think about the children?"
Like all regulation the real purpose of this is to protect the larger entities-- the Venture Capital firms and the angels, from competition. And of course, politicians get money by threatening to change the regulations-- I'm sure this crowd funding bill has already raised a great deal of funds for the politicians who are using its passage as a threat against those who would lose the protection from competition.
Imagine if I could be an angel!
I have enough from a previous exit to have put small amounts-- YC level seed funding-- into 10-20 startups. Assuming one of them was successful, I'd have a sustainable seed fund there.
But I'm not able to be accredited given the way the law is written, and I know there are a lot of other people in my position.
Also, for what its worth, I am able to deal with extremely risky investments-- Well out of the money stock option spreads where the upside is %500 and the downside is a %100 loss. I've done this for years, and have consistently made money at it. I'm pretty sure picking startups would be easier, but even if I'm wrong....
Isn't it MY money to risk?
(not attacking you, just using your choice of phrase as a springboard-- people think this is something legitimate to regulate, but it is not. There are casinos across the country. This regulation is nonsense, and its immoral. Who is the government to tell me how I can spend my money? By what right?)
Huh? So how about if I created a roulette game where you spin a wheel and one time out of 50 you get in on a hot startup. The other times you lose your money. Would that be acceptable?
I read the article, desperately trying to find something redemptive. I think the key statement is here:
..."The idea that a company could do this with no oversight is frightening because there are plenty of people out there who are willing to separate investors from their money," says Melanie Senter Lubin, Maryland's securities commissioner. "We are concerned about anything where investors have the potential of losing money or where they're making an investment without the information they need to make an informed investment decision."...
So you put a up big huge disclaimer that says you have an extremely small chance of ever seeing your money again.
I think that pretty much covers it, doesn't it? How much more informed do we have to be to spend our own money?
The rules don't generally prohibit per se certain investments from taking place. They require companies that take such investments (e.g. from unaccredited, unsophisticated investors) or that solicit investment from the general populace (i.e. not your best friend from high school), to comply with the regulations pertaining to publicly traded companies.
Politicians have a vested interest in avoiding large blocks of unhappy voters, and vote to optimize their lives, not yours.
A quick back-of-envelope calculation shows my mom having spent at least 100 grand on lottery tickets (and that's just 20 years of playing), and she's still basically living paycheck to paycheck.
How much would it be worth it to buy a share of YC S12?
It seems like there are only 2 sides to this argument. The "leave it all alone and let people learn the hard way" (which has been shown to collapse economies, create bubbles, and get manipulative corrupt / stupid tyrants into office) and "regulate everything to down the subatomic level" (which stagnates human progress and creates a society comfortable and stupid enough to drink anything that doesn't have a warning label on it).
I lost money in Bitcoin and it was MY fault, not the government's. I'm glad I had the opportunity and freedom to make that mistake. Rather than keep people safe from risk we should allow risk but FORCE warnings. When you explicitly tell grandma and grandpa that 93% of startups go out of business in their __ year and the company they're investing in can go belly up and leave their pockets empty at any moment, you've done your job. If they still invest their ENTIRE retirement into a YouTube clone there's nothing you can really do for them. It's sad but it's reality.
People already rack up $3,000 of credit card debt, $100,000 of student loans. Call it the Financial Darwin Awards. What can you do? What should you do? Personally I believe in a "Educate Against but Allow" philosophy. Humanity must be allowed to make mistakes, it is the universal way to learn and grow. The same way we MUST be exposed to bacteria and viruses otherwise our immune systems go to shit. (Google: "washing your hands too much")
Anyway, if these "hand holding legislators" put as much effort into fixing the country's broken and inadequate drivers license tests as much as they try to prevent anyone from taking a financial risk, 40,000 people in the USA wouldn't die every year from auto related accidents. I wish they'd over-regulate something that needed it.
People are capable of reason. Whether or not they actually apply reason in their own lives is a matter of choice.