House bill would expand the pool of people who can buy certain investments — if they can pass an SEC test
The U.S. House of Representatives Monday approved a bill to expand the definition of who can qualify as a so-called "accredited investor" under federal securities laws. Accredited investors are permitted to invest in a wider range of assets, including pre-IPO companies, private credit and equity, venture capital and hedge funds.
The Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act of 2025 would direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to create a test that individuals can take to qualify as an accredited investor, without regard to their wealth or income.
Currently, to qualify as accredited, investors generally need an annual earned income of $200,000 for individuals, or $300,000 for married couples. Individuals or couples can also qualify with a total net worth of at least $1 million, not including the value of their primary residence. (Those thresholds are not pegged to inflation and haven't changed in decades; as a result, more households have become accredited over the years as wealth and incomes grow.)
"In my view, wealth alone is not a particularly strong judge of whether someone should be an accredited investor, or not," Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., the bill's sponsor, said on the House floor. "A better one is whether someone has the knowledge to accurately weigh the benefits and risks of private offerings."
The bill must still pass the Senate and be signed by the President before it can become law.
Accredited investor rules are about consumer protection: The limits "ensure that all participating investors are financially sophisticated and able to fend for themselves or sustain the risk of loss," according to the SEC's Investor.gov.
Private securities are less liquid, harder to value and more volatile than publicly-traded assets, experts say.
The bill asks that the SEC test be designed to determine whether an individual understands different types of securities, financial statements and risks associated with private assets, including their limited liquidity and disclosures, subjective valuations and longer investment horizons.
"The exam created by this bill is meant to strike the right balance between rigorously testing for sophistication and not being set to such a difficult standard that even an intelligent investor could not pass it," Flood said.
The proposal is also aimed at getting more money into the hands of start-up businesses.
"Small business leaders say that it's not a lack of ideas, but a lack of capital that holds them back," Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Del., co-sponsor of the bill, said on the floor. "This bill opens up new sources of funding from a pool of investors more reflective of the community, so that these founders can turn their vision into jobs and economic growth."Companies are already gearing up for more investors to be qualified to participate in private markets.
"I think this is really a great first step in terms of opening up what has otherwise been a walled garden," said Eric Satz, founder and CEO of Alto, a self-directed IRA platform. "We have to give everyone the opportunity to participate as if they were an ultra-high net worth investor or a large financial institution."
Many financial advisors are lukewarm on private investments, and explore them with high-net-worth clients only after all the basics are covered.
"I would argue that a lot of investors shouldn't go anywhere near this," said certified financial planner Catherine Valega, founder of Green Bee Advisory, a Boston-based financial advisory firm. "Probably 95% of the country doesn't even have an emergency savings fund, and now you're going to tell them, if they're smart enough, I can invest in private securities. That does not make sense to me."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
PCAOB slams Hong Kong auditor of Luckin Coffee
This story was originally published on CFO Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily CFO Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board sanctioned a Hong Kong accounting firm and its owner for disregarding rules and standards when auditing the books of Luckin Coffee and two other companies operating in China. Centurion ZD CPA & Co and its sole partner, Chan Kam Fuk, failed to properly perform risk assessments and obtain sufficient evidence when testing for several types of risks, including in the 2021 audit of Luckin Coffee, the PCAOB said Tuesday. In 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission fined Luckin $180 million for fraudulently overstating its 2019 revenue, costs and expenses. The PCAOB permanently revoked Centurion's PCAOB registration, set a permanent bar against Chan and imposed a $75,000 penalty, the board said. Centurion and Chan neither admitted nor denied the findings, the PCAOB said. Dive Insight: Under Erica Williams — PCAOB chair from January 2022 until her resignation on Tuesday — the audit watchdog gained access to investigate China-based accounting firms for the first time and bring enforcement actions against violators. The PCAOB in recent years held China-based firms accountable for falsifying audit reports, failing to maintain independence, improperly depicting the work of another accounting firm as their own and sharing test answers during mandatory internal training courses. 'The PCAOB is committed to using the tools the U.S. Congress entrusted to it, and the access that the PCAOB spent years negotiating, to hold accountable auditors in China that audit Chinese companies,' Williams said in a statement Tuesday before leaving the board at the request of SEC Chair Paul Atkins. Luckin hired Centurion as its auditor soon after settling the SEC's fraud charges. Yet in the audit for the following year, Centurion and Chan failed to use information about the company's bogus accounting when assessing risks of misstatement or to design audit procedures aimed at averting fraud, the PCAOB said. Centurion also violated auditing standards in the audits of two public companies operating in China, Greenpro Capital and Moxian, including by failing to make required communications with the companies' audit committees, the PCAOB said. Moreover, the PCAOB's investigation of Centurion revealed that its quality control system did not provide sufficient assurance that the firm assigned work to staff with technical skills aligned with PCAOB standards, and ensure staff involved in the audit showed a level of skepticism required by PCAOB rules, the board said. The SEC appointed George Botic to serve as acting PCAOB chair, effective Wednesday. Botic, a certified public accountant, joined the audit watchdog shortly after it was formed in 2002, taking the position as manager of inspections in the division of registration and inspections in August 2003, according to his LinkedIn profile. Botic became a PCAOB board member in 2023 after serving as director of the division of registration and inspections. In that role he oversaw the registration and inspection of all domestic and foreign accounting firms registered with the PCAOB as well as all broker-dealer audits. Botic also served as the PCAOB director of the office of international affairs and special advisor to former Chair James R. Doty, and deputy director of the registration and inspections division. Earlier in his career, Botic was employed by PwC as a senior manager. Recommended Reading SEC approves new PCAOB audit confirmation standards targeting fraud Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
