Thank you for the interesting analysis and link. It seems that the issues are:
* SEC registration is meant to protect investors.
* SEC registration is so expensive only large corporations can
afford it.
* Companies can be exempt from the SEC registration requirement if
everyone who purchases their securities meets certain minimum
net worth or income requirements (this does not apply to
35 purchasers, which apparently need meet no minimum standard
at all). Purchasers who meet these minimum requirements
are called "accredited investors".
* The justification for allowing the accredited investment
exemption seems to be a desire to allow investment while at
the same time recognizing that certain well-off investors don't
need the protection SEC registration offers.
* The threshold for being an accredited investor is being raised.
My own responses and concerns about all this are:
* Is it really true that SEC registration is so expensive that
only large corporations can afford it? Just how expensive is
it? Why is it so expensive? Can the expense be made any more
affordable for smaller companies?
* What rationale is being used to justify setting the threshold
for being an "accredited investor" at any level whatsoever?
What makes investors worth $1 million any more able to do
without the protection provided by SEC registration any more
than an investor who is worth only $500,000? Given what we've
seen in the recent financial crisis (where even the wealthiest
investors suffered or even went bankrupt), isn't it clear that
even wealthy investors need more protection?
* Does SEC registration of any given corporation really only
protect the direct investors in that corporation? Or does SEC
registration benefit society and the economy as a whole?
Perhaps we should be thinking of ways to make more corporations
subject to SEC registration, not less. If this can be done in a
way that smaller corporations can afford, why not?
