[aliston]

Are there really that many angel investors that fall within the 1M to 2.3M net worth range? My initial gut reaction is that this seems to be a bit of an overblown issue. In the bay area at least, virtually anyone with a home on the peninsula probably has a net-worth of around 1M. If the average angel investment is around 100K (not scientific, just a hunch), someone with a net worth of 1M would be investing 10% of their net worth in a really risky investment venture... I would think, therefore, that most angel investors have a significantly higher net-worth in that case.

[anamax]

> In the bay area at least, virtually anyone with a home on the peninsula probably has a net-worth of around 1M.

You're forgetting that most of those folks also have hefty mortgages, so their net ownership of their houses is considerably less than the value of their house. (I doubt that the median price of houses in the valley is high enough that "virtually all" are worth >$1M.)

However, none of this matters because the definition of "net worth" used for determining whether someone is an "accredited investor" specifically excludes many things, including residences.

There's a huge drop-off from $1M to $2M in assets, no matter how defined. These things obey power laws.

[rosser]

Even if the overwhelming majority of potential angels were worth more than the new base threshold, the 120-day SEC review period remains deal-breaker enough.