Accredited Investor definition

[Amy Wan]

I came across a funny article this morning.

Your SEC Investor Advocate--who is supposed to advocate on behalf of investors--doesnt seem to think that non-accredited investors want to invest in private offerings, and that private companies don't want non-accredited investor money. This is in context of a discussion to revise the definition of accredited investors.

Funny thing is, I feel like every other day lately, there's been someone asking on a forum about finding syndication deals that will take non-accredited money. I guess some of you have to write your Investor Advocate.

Letter here:
https://cdn.crowdfundinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/RIck-Fleming-Concept-Release-Comment-s70819-5800855-187067-1.pdf

[John Corey]

Originally posted by @Tj Hines:

@Amy Wan, fact of the matter is, there is more non-accredited investor money available in the market than accredited investor money. Here's another fact ... There are more Reg D 506(B) offerings that are filed with the SEC, than  Reg D 506(C), which only accepts accredited investors.
Simply put there are a ton of non-accredited "sophisticated" investors who want to invest in private offerings/syndications, but may not be aware of the available opportunities out there.

While I see you point of view, it could also be said the sophisticated investors who are not accredited represent less wealth (cash to invest) than the people who are accredited.

The SEC is not there to help people grow their wealth. It was put in place to reduce the number of scams naive investors are exposed to. If that means protecting people from some stuff which might have turned out well, so be it. Consumer protection first. Accredited investors are effectively excluded from the protections. Too many consumers complain when they make a bad choice and there are enough of them to influence elections.