Originally posted by @Andrew Buchanan:@Nicholas M - Was your comment in direct response to my above response?  

There are a lot of Denver investors who should be able to weigh in directly here.

But, these are bad, long-term, because they inflate prices and rents, by prohibiting the market, directly or indirectly, from creating supply to meet demand. 

A gross commission of 0.6% has sex appeal, but it can’t include the direct and indirect costs of listing, plus buyer commission, plus bundling title/mortgage services, plus a reasonable profit margin.

I've been getting a card or two a year to increase my limit (indirectly lowers utilization as well if you don't charge it up) - it does hurt the overall credit age though 

But, assuming that an investor was sold units and did NOT provide sufficient proof of accreditation then (1) they can file a complaint with the SEC (which may only indirectly enhance their ability to recover their investment) and / or they can institute a civil suit for recovery of their losses.  

I will say however, that there may be an indirect benefit to not APPEARING to hold many valuable assets.  

As a quieter person, it’s reassuring to know that others will enjoy sharing their journey, and I’ll definitely use that approach.Also, I’m glad you commented on this post because I actually found this meetup indirectly through your podcast with Andrew Freed.

Central to my argument would be that making sweeping changes to the covenants themselves or changing how the covenants have been historically enforced only addresses the current problem indirectly. 

However investing in DIRECT real estate investments differs considerably from investing in mutual funds, index funds, bonds, money market and REITs that most investors are familiar with.