Retail Investor Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08
Retail Investor
N/A
The elevation of chosen investors, creating the “accredited investor” designation that can be achieved solely on the measure of a one's wealth or income was an egregious, unmistakable step toward oligarchy. With existing rules already in place, governmental agencies are now using a wealth/income-based designation to reserve high-risk, high-reward investment opportunities and products for wealthy investors ONLY. This is another unmistakable step towards oligarchy. Now, FINRA seeks to create a DELIBERATELY undefined, arbitrary category known as “Complex” with the express purpose of excluding "retail" and all other non-accredited investors. This designation would be, almost unbelievably, based on FINRA's assumption that non-accredited investors will not due their due diligence and/or "won’t fully understand them." This is FINRA apparently attempting to "protect" less-wealthy investors, from themselves and let only grown-ups (the wealthy) invest in these high-risk, high-reward products. This the just one more proposed step in a decent into oligarchy. Regulators are now openly shielding “accredited investors” from having to compete with non-accredited investors in a supposedly free market. In addition, regulators would now like to do this arbitrarily, with any investment, at their discretion by giving themselves the right to designate an opportunity as being too “complex” for people with certain income/wealth to understand. It is unacceptable that FINRA has deliberately avoided defining "Complex Product" but would like to use it to eliminate certain investors' rights based on it. This entitles regulators to subjectively, arbitrarily remove the rights of certain investors based on their level of wealth/income, to participate in any product regulators choose to reserve for wealthy investors, and wealthy investors alone. This, on the basis that regulators feel? think? believe? it is too "complex" for non-accredited investors to understand. This is another bite at the apple of oligarchy. I strongly object to regulators creating any UNDEFINED categories of investments with the expressed goal of excluding less-wealthy investors from competing/participating. I also object to eliminating the rights of any investors to participate in ANY product deemed fit to be in the marketplace. So-called “accredited investor” rules should not include an income/wealth criteria, and any subsequent exclusions of any investors based on wealth/income should be ended post haste. We certainly do not need any NEW rules that give even more undue advantage to wealthy investors. Any new rule or regulation that employs this abomination of a designation is obviously objectionable, especially one that attempts to "protect" investors from nebulous concepts like "complexity" which amounts to protecting investors from themselves. And finally, if the government would like to “protect” the less-fortunate investor from “complexity” they should start with the most complex instrument any investor will ever face - the US tax code.
Retail Investor Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08
The elevation of chosen investors, creating the “accredited investor” designation that can be achieved solely on the measure of a one's wealth or income was an egregious, unmistakable step toward oligarchy. With existing rules already in place, governmental agencies are now using a wealth/income-based designation to reserve high-risk, high-reward investment opportunities and products for wealthy investors ONLY. This is another unmistakable step towards oligarchy. Now, FINRA seeks to create a DELIBERATELY undefined, arbitrary category known as “Complex” with the express purpose of excluding "retail" and all other non-accredited investors. This designation would be, almost unbelievably, based on FINRA's assumption that non-accredited investors will not due their due diligence and/or "won’t fully understand them." This is FINRA apparently attempting to "protect" less-wealthy investors, from themselves and let only grown-ups (the wealthy) invest in these high-risk, high-reward products. This the just one more proposed step in a decent into oligarchy. Regulators are now openly shielding “accredited investors” from having to compete with non-accredited investors in a supposedly free market. In addition, regulators would now like to do this arbitrarily, with any investment, at their discretion by giving themselves the right to designate an opportunity as being too “complex” for people with certain income/wealth to understand. It is unacceptable that FINRA has deliberately avoided defining "Complex Product" but would like to use it to eliminate certain investors' rights based on it. This entitles regulators to subjectively, arbitrarily remove the rights of certain investors based on their level of wealth/income, to participate in any product regulators choose to reserve for wealthy investors, and wealthy investors alone. This, on the basis that regulators feel? think? believe? it is too "complex" for non-accredited investors to understand. This is another bite at the apple of oligarchy. I strongly object to regulators creating any UNDEFINED categories of investments with the expressed goal of excluding less-wealthy investors from competing/participating. I also object to eliminating the rights of any investors to participate in ANY product deemed fit to be in the marketplace. So-called “accredited investor” rules should not include an income/wealth criteria, and any subsequent exclusions of any investors based on wealth/income should be ended post haste. We certainly do not need any NEW rules that give even more undue advantage to wealthy investors. Any new rule or regulation that employs this abomination of a designation is obviously objectionable, especially one that attempts to "protect" investors from nebulous concepts like "complexity" which amounts to protecting investors from themselves. And finally, if the government would like to “protect” the less-fortunate investor from “complexity” they should start with the most complex instrument any investor will ever face - the US tax code.