[bluecalm]

It's not in the your best interest to have access to more profitable but more risky investments until you have a lot of money available. If it isn't obvious to you just think of the shape of utility of money curve.

More profitable but more risky is the most you can hope for. There is competition in private equity market so it's not like it's profitable unicorns for everyone who has access to those opportunities. If anything you should be able to invest in a private equity firm to begin with so they can balance the risk for you by investing in portfolio of assets and guess what - you can do just that as some are publicly traded!

It's really not an evil plan. The regulation is just common sense to protect you from big risk of going bankrupt.

There is plenty of opportunity in public market btw. Some examples of x20s from recent years: SHOP, AMD, TESLA. Some examples of very recent although smaller multipliers: NET (really, if you just read HN once a week you know they are awesome), Unity. I mean if you are so confident about picking Uber it shouldn't be rocket science to pick one of the above either.

[barnabee]

Sounds like nonsense not common sense. It's not in my best interest for anyone but me to decide what's in my best interest. Not everyone measures their life by the same metrics.

The risk of going bankrupt is part and parcel of trying to suceed and live the life you want, whether in business, investing, day trading, or even just getting a university education in some places…

[vorpalhex]

> The risk of going bankrupt is part and parcel of trying to suceed

You probably don't have a sustainable investment strategy if bankruptcy is a likely outcome. You may have a gambling problem that involves securities, but that would not be "investment".

[errantmind]

That isn't for you to decide for someone else.

[bluecalm]

Every culture has some level of commonly accepted paternalistic policies. Forcing people to wear seatbelts, banning certain drugs etc.

Not allowing small investors to buy shares in non-public (and therefore not needing to disclose much information) companies doesn't sound like an especially radical idea. You just need resources to do due diligence to invest in such companies and as a small investor you don't. There is a common interests in preventing people from being idiots in the investment world.

[errantmind]

I disagree with each of your examples.

First, just because people do it doesn't mean it 'should' be done. See the naturalistic fallacy.

Second, just because smaller investors lack resources, doesn't imply they should be prevented from acting with less information. This doesn't follow from your final claim that there is a common interest in preventing them from participating and this is unsubstantiated.

Let people make their own mistakes, you don't get to decide for them.

[jimkleiber]

> Let people make their own mistakes, you don't get to decide for them.

I struggle with this. I wish my mistakes didn't impact other people, and for a lot of things, they don't. But for some things, they really do.

What do you think we should do when one person's mistake impacts many others?

[jimkleiber]

Maybe the stronger argument is that it's not in the best interest of the community for a member to go bankrupt, even if it's what that one member believes is in their own best interest. Maybe bankrupt is not the best example, because bankruptcy law actually is a social safety net to help people not get indebted for life, or even pass on all that debt to future generations.

That being said, I think the individual vs communal risk decision and regulation is complex and really depends on the situation.