[thematt]

Yet it has solved nothing, because we still have investment scams all over the place. Those investment scams are already illegal, so prosecute them. Why do I need another law to "protect" me? This reminds me of taxi regulations. Local governments are trying to prevent your use of Uber and Lyft because of some regulations on the books that are meant to prevent you from unscrupulous drivers. Yet the actions of those unscrupulous drivers were already illegal, so prosecute them.

This is something the market can easily sort out. We don't need to throw out the good with the bad.

[exelius]

Many "professional investor" level assets would be rightfully considered scams if sold to a less-knowledgeable investor: often times, individual positions within a fund are leveraged dozens of times to where a small move in the underlying asset can wipe out large portions of the capital in a fund.

If you used dozens of stocks as collateral to finance the borrowing of money to purchase other assets, which you then use as collateral to buy more assets, it would be considered a scam -- but not in a hedge fund. This can lead to large swings in volatility and hedge funds should only be used as part of a portfolio investment strategy -- a professional investor will use them to cancel out risk in other areas of their portfolio.

The risk is that a non-professional investor uses these instruments as primary investment vehicles without understanding their purpose. Because many hedge funds do operate very similar to the ways that illegal stock scams run: the difference is that the investors know exactly how and why these funds can implode and are willing to take that risk.

EDIT: That said, the specific qualifications for a "professional investor" definitely need some work.

[tonnesoffun]

I'm hoping we'll see some sort of test or exam that ties Investment Acumen with intelligence, not wallet (or estate) size.

Somebody suggested allowing Financial Analysts that have been, in some capacity, verified by FINRA/SEC for their understandings of markets. I would be on board for this.

[chimeracoder]

> Those investment scams are already illegal, so prosecute them.

Uber and Lyft are a different case, but here the regulations (as pointed out elsewhere) don't prevent you from investing your money per se; they just require you (well, the company) to register the securities with the SEC and fill out some paperwork detailing the investment.

The reason they do this is specifically so that they can prosecute any illegal actions down the line; it's basically impossible for them to enforce the existing laws without also requiring the filings and registration, because otherwise they don't know the terms of what was offered in the sale (and who offered it, so they can be identified later).

I'm oversimplifying somewhat, but the point is that this isn't "another law to 'protect'" you - it's required to make the exact prosecutions you're referring to.

[EGreg]

But what is the cost of registering the securities with the SEC?

And I think that, with a private placement memorandum, and all the info disclosed, ANYONE not just accredited investors can invest. Is that right? How much does such a thing cost to do, and what is involved?