Apparently, anyone who is registered and in good standing with the series 7, 65 or 82, would be considered an accredited investor. Unless I am missing something, if a person is a CFA charterholder or a Certified Financial Planner you are not considered an accredited investor. This does not make much sense to me. I think most states waive the requirement to take the 65, if you have one of these designations.
Trending Content - Off Topic Forum
Career Resources
They should include Series 79.
CFA - Maybe, but a CFA isn't necessary for a lot of real world complex investing.
CFP - The vast majority of financial planners only work with stocks. Maybe bonds.
That's just the starting point - they gave themselves flexibility to consider more down the road, and most likely will. Start out with some easy ones - registered folks - then move on from there. I'd suspect that some of those other 'non registered' type things - CFA, CAIA will be included at some point. You know how all this goes - start with a few, see how it goes, then open it up further.
I guess they are starting with people under FINRA’s regulatory authority but then why not the series 79, or the 86/87?
Maybe most bankers already meet the financial requirement? Haha - sorry, it's one of those days already. Bad jokes.
It's the measured approach - their words actually. Starting with those more 'obvious', widely held licenses and then work their way down the list as time goes on. Probably as long as there aren't material, adverse impacts from these changes the committee will take their criteria and apply to others. The 82 makes sense (privates) - 7 and 65 covers sales of all types of products, etc. But realistically I'd guess those are in aggregate the most widely held, so they started there with the intention of adding more.
I'd also wager that in this environment if they moved too quickly to include everything they'd be accused of not 'protecting' investors or some shit.
SO what does this actually mean? We can invest in private placements now? Anything else?
This is actually old news. FinTwit was talking about this last Wednesday.
Honestly, beginning with 7 and 65 holders is a bad idea I used to frequently deal with FAs that had 7s all the time, and even before that I was in a large office where everybody had their 65. There are a LOT of people who hold those licences that have no business anywhere near PE. A CFP basically means that you are generally one of the better FAs out there, and probably know enough to make the investments, or to know that you don't know enough and to stay away. Starting with people that hold some of the more impressive designations like the CFA Charter and say the FRM or CAIA (feel free to create your own list) would probably have been the best idea, since they are probably some of the least likely to unintentionally get themselves into trouble. Probably even less likely than current ''accredited investors.'
We are both probably a little biased here because we are both CFA charterholders. With that said, the 65 is waived in many states if you have either of those designations. In other words, you would not have to take 65 due to having completed a rigorous program but you are still not accredited.
Mollitia omnis repudiandae voluptatum placeat odit qui. In asperiores repellat sequi voluptas et. Magnam et tenetur autem sint repellendus deserunt voluptate. Atque modi quia explicabo quae iusto quis et sit. Facere officia dolorum placeat illo. Voluptatem aut repudiandae et sed. Ut non atque eum iste et aut qui.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...