Lawyer: Raising money will get harder

September 13, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Entrepreneurs considering raising money by selling stock to individual investors should get moving before regulators step in and make the process more difficult.

That’s the take of Jeremy Hill, who chairs the emerging business group at law firm Bingham McHale. Within two years, quite possibly sooner, the government’s definition of an “accredited investor” is likely to be further tightened, shrinking the pool of people who can invest without the need for expensive documents designed for unsophisticated investors.

Accredited investors are considered to have enough sophistication to not need thickly detailed disclosures.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, otherwise known as the bank reform bill, eliminated the value of an investor’s house from the equation, meaning an investor has to have a net worth of $1 million without counting their primary residence.

Left untouched in the July 21 legislation was the net-income threshold—$200,000 a year for individuals and $300,000 for an individual and their spouse—in each of the past two years.

As it puts the bill into effect, the Securities and Exchange Commission will probably increase the net-income requirement, Hill says.

Hill believes the stripping of primary residences from the net-worth test was a shot across the bow that too many people were being allowed to make investments with too little sophistication.

“This is clearly the first of things to come,” he says.

Hill thinks the reforms are overdue. While the real estate collapse for now has tempered the practical results of the net-worth test, many people had seen values of their properties rise so high that they suddenly could pass for accredited investors. Too many were anything but sophisticated, he says.

Hill thinks the income threshold should be increased by about 50 percent.

New regulations could arrive in a few months, he believes.

What are your feelings about raising the standards? Were they too low?

Any other thoughts about bank reform?
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT