Lawyer: Raising money will get harder

September 13, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT