[elamje]

> Of course, I do think it can serve a useful purpose, but there is reason early-stage, private investment is restricted to qualified investors.

The expected value of early stage investing is certainly higher than lotteries in the US. Every poor Joe can spend thousands on lottery tickets that expire worthless, but cannot invest thousands in real companies that Joe believes will do very well in the future. Shouldn't Joe have access to companies earlier, if he currently can access lottery games?

[eanzenberg]

Yes, and he can become an accredited investor which has regulations tied around it. Safeguards are needed so your Average Joe doesn't squander his family's $500k retirement and become dependent on the govt's teat.

[thaumasiotes]

Wouldn't those safeguards be at least as necessary for lottery tickets?

[eanzenberg]

Only degenerates throw $500k away at lottery tix, while significant amounts of the population invest their entire $500k in funds as found in 401k's or IRAs (or whatever). So yeah, I'd rather shield most of the country from the volatility of early stage shitfests, and make that bar high to climb if they really truly want to invest in early-stage.

[elamje]

Then you can do marginal accredidation based on income and/or net worth rather than nothing or anything at 200k income/2MM net worth.

It would be easy to regulate for anyone that makes, or is worth, less than "accredited" levels can only put in X% of their net worth. Doesn't need to have this arbitrary cutoff. I'd wager there are quite a few dumb people making over 200k.

An aside: Income as a method of determining "accredited"-ness is quite arbitrary. Many SWE in the valley easily qualify, where an equivalent SWE in Midwest US would not qualify, just because cost of living/wages are lower.

[icelancer]

Most mutual funds available at retail are borderline scams as-is. It is highly unlikely you will find one that has a true ROI / Sharpe Ratio above investing in basic Vanguard Index Fund ETFs, yet the public is still allowed to throw away 2% per year in management funds + loads + fees for buying garbage mutual funds and ETFs from enormous companies that sell at retail.

[riffraff]

There is still a significant difference between earning less than you could in your retirement savings and wiping half of them because you put them in a bad investment though.

[conanbatt]

Not if you aggregate the amounts stolen. Im sure that 2% is a staggering amount of money, maybe more than all the cash robberies that are reported to the police yearly.

[dev_throw]

Then make them take some tests to get accredited rather than an arbitrary income barrier, or net worth gatekeeping. According to that logic, someone with $2M net worth is just as likely to lose their shirt as someone with $50k net worth if they put their entire worth into a losing fund.

[elliekelly]

It’s not about knowledge, it’s about the amount of risk and the amount at risk.

Two equally skilled investors each looking to invest $10,000 in the same company. Investor A is worth $10,000,000 while Investor B is worth $100,000.

Those two investments look the same on paper but the risk for each investor is wildly different. A test won’t solve for that.

[thaumasiotes]

I don't think you have a good sense of who's buying how many lottery tickets. By your measure here, amount invested as percentage of net worth, the lottery should definitely be illegal.

[thaumasiotes]

But the revenue from Joe would then go to early-stage companies, not the government.

[sokoloff]

I think what you'd find is that Joe's money would go to shysters who are today turned off by the prospect by forfeiting their money and sitting the rest of their lives in federal prison (so they become telemarkets, roofing repair dudes that follow hurricanes around, or late-night TV hucksters).

[CPLX]

> The expected value of early stage investing is certainly higher than lotteries in the US.

That’s arguable.

State lotteries are highly regulated and transparent and typically return 50% of their capital to participants.

[elamje]

That’s fair. For the overall game you can expect to lose 50% though, with a handful of outsized windfalls going to 1/1000000 people.

In principle it’s more about why a poor person can access lotteries but not private investments, not the exact math on E[X]