Report on the Review of the Definition of “Accredited Investor”

This is a report by the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Commission 

has expressed no view regarding the analysis, findings or recommendations contained herein.

_____________________________

December 18, 2015
i

Table of Contents

I. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1

A. Background.................................................................................................................................1

B. Accredited Investor Definition ..................................................................................................2

C. Reasons for the Report...............................................................................................................4

D. Goals of the Accredited Investor Definition.............................................................................5

E. Scope of the Report.....................................................................................................................6

F. Recommendations.......................................................................................................................7

II. History of the Accredited Investor Definition ................................................................................8

A. Securities Act Section 4(a)(2) and Judicial Precedent...........................................................10

B. Small Business Exemptions Prior to Regulation D................................................................12

C. The Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980 ..........................................................14

D. Regulation D..............................................................................................................................15

III. Other Regulatory Approaches.......................................................................................................21

A. Qualified Client.........................................................................................................................23

B. Qualified Purchaser Under the Investment Company Act...................................................25

C. Qualified Purchaser Under the Securities Act.......................................................................27

D. Qualified Institutional Buyer...................................................................................................29

E. Qualified Investor .....................................................................................................................30

F. Eligible Contract Participant...................................................................................................31

G. Uniform Securities Act of 2002................................................................................................32

H. Franchise Laws.........................................................................................................................32

I. International Approaches........................................................................................................34

IV. Accredited Investor Attributes ......................................................................................................40

A. Current Definition....................................................................................................................41

B. Criticisms of the Current Definition.......................................................................................43

C. Potential Adjustments to Income and Net Worth..................................................................46

D. Potential New Criteria..............................................................................................................57

V. Should the Accredited Investor Definition Be More Flexible? ...................................................67

A. Opportunities for Scaling.........................................................................................................68

B. Advantages and Disadvantages of Scaling .............................................................................71

VI. Spouses and Spousal Equivalents..................................................................................................72

VII. Accredited Investor Entities...........................................................................................................76

A. Current Framework.................................................................................................................76

B. Certain Entities Not Included in the Current Definition ......................................................79

C. Alternative Frameworks..........................................................................................................83

VIII. Implications Outside of the Regulation D Context.......................................................................85

IX. Recommendations...........................................................................................................................88

X. Impact of the Potential Approaches on the Pool of Accredited Investors..................................97

A. Impact of Potential Approaches..............................................................................................99

B. Non-Quantifiable Approaches...............................................................................................103

C. Combined Impact of Quantifiable Approaches...................................................................104

D. Number of Accredited Investors that May Invest in Regulation D Offerings ..................107

E. Profile of Accredited Investor Pools Qualifying Under Current Standards and 

Recommended Standards ......................................................................................................109

F. Geographic Distribution of Accredited Investor Households.............................................112

G. Future Indexing for Inflation ................................................................................................114
1

REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF “ACCREDITED INVESTOR”

I. Introduction

A. Background

Absent an available exemption, the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) requires 

that offers and sales of securities be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the “Commission”). Registration is intended to provide investors with full and fair disclosure of 

material information so that they are able to make their own investment decisions.

1

 Congress, 

however, recognized that in certain situations there is no practical need for registration or the 

public benefits from registration are too remote.2

 Accordingly, the Securities Act contains a 

number of exemptions to its registration requirements and authorizes the Commission to adopt 

additional exemptions. The exemptions in Regulation D3 are the most widely used transactional 

exemptions for securities offerings by issuers. Issuers using these exemptions raised over $1.3

trillion in 2014 alone, an amount comparable to what was raised in registered offerings.

4

 

1 See, e.g., Commissioner Francis M. Wheat, Disclosure to Investors - A Reappraisal of Federal 

Administrative Policies under the ’33 and ’34 Acts (Mar. 1969) (often referred to as the “Wheat Report”).

2 H.R. Rep. No. 73-85 (1933).

3 Regulation D – Rules Governing the Limited Offer and Sale of Securities Without Registration Under the 

Securities Act of 1933, 17 CFR 230.500 through 230.508.

4 See Scott Bauguess, Rachita Gullapalli and Vladimir Ivanov, Capital Raising in the U.S.: An Analysis of 

the Market for Unregistered Securities Offerings, 2009-2014 (Oct. 2015) (the “Unregistered Offerings 

White Paper”), available at http://www.sec.gov/dera/staff-papers/white-papers/unregistered-offering10-

2015.pdf. Underlying data in the Unregistered Offerings White Paper was obtained from Form D filings. 

While Rule 503 of Regulation D (17 CFR 230.503) requires the filing of a notice on Form D no later than 

15 days after the first sale of securities, the filing of a Form D is not a condition to a Regulation D safe 

harbor or exemption. Consequently, it is possible that some issuers do not make Form D filings for 

offerings relying on Regulation D and the available data on Regulation D offerings could underestimate the 

actual amount of capital raised through those offerings.
2

B. Accredited Investor Definition

The “accredited investor” definition is a central component of Regulation D. It is 

“intended to encompass those persons whose financial sophistication and ability to sustain the 

risk of loss of investment or ability to fend for themselves render the protections of the Securities 

Act’s registration process unnecessary.”5 Qualifying as an accredited investor is significant

because accredited investors may, under Commission rules, participate in investment 

opportunities that are generally not available to non-accredited investors, such as investments in 

private companies and offerings by hedge funds, private equity funds and venture capital funds. 

Issuers of unregistered structured finance products and debt securities also may rely on 

Regulation D. Investors in unregistered offerings can be subject to investment risks not 

associated with registered offerings because some securities law liability provisions do not apply 

to private offerings, issuers of unregistered securities generally are not required to provide 

information comparable to that included in a registration statement and Commission staff does 

not review any information that may be provided to investors in these offerings.

6

Regulation D originated as an effort to facilitate capital formation, consistent with the 

protection of investors, by simplifying and clarifying existing rules and regulations, eliminating 

unnecessary restrictions those rules and regulations placed on issuers, particularly small 

businesses, and achieving uniformity between federal and state exemptions.

7

 While it is 

 

5 Regulation D Revisions; Exemption for Certain Employee Benefit Plans, Release No. 33-6683 (Jan. 16, 

1987) [52 FR 3015] (the “Regulation D Revisions Proposing Release”).

6 See, e.g., SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Investor Alert: Private Placements Under 

Regulation D (Sept. 24, 2014), available at http://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alertsbulletins/ib_privateplacements.html.

7 See Revision of Certain Exemptions From Registration for Transactions Involving Limited Offers and 

Sales, Release No. 33-6389 (Mar. 8, 1982) [47 FR 11251] (the “Regulation D Adopting Release”).
3

particularly useful for small businesses, issuers of all sizes conduct offerings in reliance on 

Regulation D, in general, and Rule 506(b)8 in particular.

9

 Under the accredited investor 

definition, natural persons are accredited investors if their income exceeds $200,000 in each of 

the two most recent years (or $300,000 in joint income with a person’s spouse) and they 

reasonably expect to reach the same income level in the current year.10 Natural persons are also 

accredited investors if their net worth exceeds $1 million (individually or jointly with a spouse), 

excluding the value of their primary residence.11 Certain enumerated entities with over $5 

million in assets qualify as accredited investors,12 while others, including regulated entities such 

as banks and registered investment companies, are not subject to the assets test.13

In addition to being a historical cornerstone of Regulation D, the accredited investor 

definition plays an important role in other federal and state securities laws contexts and has taken 

on increased significance as a result of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS 

Act”).

14 For example, the JOBS Act required the Commission to revise Rule 50615 to permit

general solicitation and general advertising in offerings where all purchasers are accredited 

 

8 17 CFR 230.506(b).

9 See Unregistered Offerings White Paper.

10 17 CFR 230.501(a)(6).

11 17 CFR 230.501(a)(5).

12 17 CFR 230.501(a)(1), (3) & (7).

13 17 CFR 230.501(a)(1), (2) & (8).

14 Pub. L. No. 112-106, 126 Stat. 306 (2012).

15 17 CFR 230.506.
4

investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify their accredited investor status.

16 In 

addition, the accredited investor definition served as a model for an exemption under the 

Uniform Securities Act of 2002.

17 

C. Reasons for the Report

Section 413(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”)18 directs the Commission to review the accredited investor 

definition as it relates to natural persons every four years to determine whether the definition 

should be modified or adjusted for the protection of investors, in the public interest and in light 

of the economy. Section 413(b)(2)(A) specifies that this review shall be conducted not earlier 

than four years after enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act and no less frequently than once every 

four years thereafter. The staff has prepared this report in connection with the first review.

The Dodd-Frank Act also required the Comptroller General of the United States to 

conduct a study on the appropriate criteria for determining the financial thresholds or other 

criteria needed to qualify for accredited investor status and eligibility to invest in private funds.19 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office published its report (the “GAO Report”) in July

2013.20

 

16 JOBS Act § 201(a). The Commission revised Rule 506 in July 2013. See Eliminating the Prohibition 

Against General Solicitation and General Advertising in Rule 506 and Rule 144A Offerings, Release No. 

33-9415 (July 10, 2013) [78 FR 44771] (the “Rule 506(c) Adopting Release”).

17 Uniform Securities Act of 2002 §§ 102(11)(F) through 102(11)(K), 102(11)(O) & 202(13), National 

Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (also known as the Uniform Law Commission). The 

Uniform Law Commission provides states with model legislation in areas of state statutory law when 

uniformity is desired and practicable. The Uniform Securities Act of 2002 is a model state securities law.

18 Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

19 Dodd-Frank Act § 415.

20 U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-13-640, Alternative Criteria for Qualifying As An 
5

Although regulators and market participants increasingly rely on the accredited investor 

definition, it has not been comprehensively re-examined since its adoption in 1982. Since that 

time, general inflationary effects have expanded significantly the pool of persons that qualify as 

accredited investors. In addition, developments such as increased informational availability, as 

well as changes in the way investors communicate, have altered the investing landscape. 

Further, financial product and process innovation over the past three decades have led to more 

complex financial markets while greatly expanding the set of available investment opportunities. 

Consequently, the financial criteria identified in 1982 may no longer serve as the most effective 

proxies for determining when investors do not require the protections that come from registration 

under the Securities Act. Altering the financial thresholds contained in the definition may not,

by itself, be sufficient to adapt to the current investing environment.

D. Goals of the Accredited Investor Definition

The accredited investor definition attempts to identify those persons whose financial 

sophistication and ability to sustain the risk of loss of investment or ability to fend for themselves 

render the protections of the Securities Act’s registration process unnecessary.21 An overly 

narrow definition that limited the number of accredited investors could risk restricting 

businesses’ access to a crucial source of capital and be inconsistent with the Commission’s 

capital formation mandate. An overly broad definition, on the other hand, could potentially be 

inconsistent with the Commission’s investor protection mandate and run counter to one of the 

 

Accredited Investor Should Be Considered (July 18, 2013). The GAO Report recommended that the 

Commission consider alternative criteria to help determine an individual’s ability to bear and understand 

the risks associated with investing in private placements.

21 See Regulation D Revisions Proposing Release.
6

basic tenets of the Securities Act by failing to provide investors in need of protection with 

adequate disclosures before they make an investment decision.

Additionally, a fundamental objective of the accredited investor definition is to create

bright-line tests that allow market participants to readily determine an investor’s status under the 

definition. The need for clarity is particularly important because an issuer relying on an 

exemption from registration carries the burden of proving that the exemption is available. 

Clarity and certainty in the accredited investor definition foster greater confidence in 

unregistered markets and ultimately could reduce the cost of capital, thereby promoting 

increased capital formation, particularly for small businesses. Indeed, Regulation D was 

adopted, in part, to bring a greater degree of clarity for small businesses than was present under 

the prior exemptive scheme.22

E. Scope of the Report

Section 413(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Commission to review the 

accredited investor definition, in its entirety, as it applies to natural persons. In the interest of 

providing a comprehensive analysis of the definition, this report also addresses aspects of the 

definition as it applies to entities. This report provides background information on the origins of 

the accredited investor definition, changes to the definition since its adoption and recent 

Commission proposals for further amendments to the definition. It describes relevant comments 

 

22 See Proposed Revision of Certain Exemptions from the Registration Provisions of the Securities Act of 

1933 for Transactions Involving Limited Offers and Sales, Release No. 33-6339 (Aug. 7, 1981) [46 FR 

41791] (the “Regulation D Proposing Release”). In the context of small business hearings held in the late 

1970s, commenters indicated that small businesses had frustrations with the subjective determinations 

former Rule 146 required. Commenters indicated that the uncertain applicability of the rule complicated 

legal opinions and increased transaction costs. See Summary of Comments Relating to Small Business 

Hearings and Proposed Form S-18, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, File No. S7-734.
7

on the definition received in prior Commission rulemakings, academic literature on the topic and 

recommended changes to the definition from a variety of sources. It also considers alternative 

approaches under federal and state securities laws for identifying types of financially 

sophisticated investors and considers the impact any definitional changes may have outside the 

context of Regulation D. Finally, this report examines alternative approaches to defining the 

term “accredited investor” and provides staff recommendations for updates and modifications to 

the existing definition.

F. Recommendations

The staff recommends that the Commission consider any one or more of the following 

methods of revising the accredited investor definition:

• The Commission should revise the financial thresholds requirements for natural 

persons to qualify as accredited investors and the list-based approach for entities to 

qualify as accredited investors. The Commission could consider the following 

approaches to address concerns with how the current definition identifies accredited 

investor natural persons and entities:

o Leave the current income and net worth thresholds in place, subject to investment 

limitations.

o Create new, additional inflation-adjusted income and net worth thresholds that are 

not subject to investment limitations.

o Index all financial thresholds for inflation on a going-forward basis.

o Permit spousal equivalents to pool their finances for purposes of qualifying as 

accredited investors.

o Revise the definition as it applies to entities by replacing the $5 million assets test 

with a $5 million investments test and including all entities rather than 

specifically enumerated types of entities.

o Grandfather issuers’ existing investors that are accredited investors under the 

current definition with respect to future offerings of their securities.

• The Commission should revise the accredited investor definition to allow individuals 

to qualify as accredited investors based on other measures of sophistication. The 
8

Commission could consider the following approaches to identify individuals who 

could qualify as accredited investors based on criteria other than income and net 

worth:

o Permit individuals with a minimum amount of investments to qualify as 

accredited investors.

o Permit individuals with certain professional credentials to qualify as accredited 

investors.

o Permit individuals with experience investing in exempt offerings to qualify as 

accredited investors.

o Permit knowledgeable employees of private funds to qualify as accredited 

investors for investments in their employer’s funds.

o Permit individuals who pass an accredited investor examination to qualify as 

accredited investors.

Section IX describes these recommendations in detail.

II. History of the Accredited Investor Definition

The Securities Act and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder define the term 

“accredited investor” in the following places:

• Securities Act Section 2(a)(15)23 and Rule 215 under the Securities Act24 define 

accredited investor for purposes of Section 4(a)(5).25 Section 4(a)(5) exempts nonpublic offers and sales of up to $5 million made solely to accredited investors. The 

definition of accredited investor in Section 2(a)(15) enumerates certain categories of 

persons and authorizes the Commission to prescribe additional categories. Pursuant 

to this authority, the Commission has prescribed additional categories in Rule 215.26

• Rule 501(a) under the Securities Act27 defines accredited investor as that term is used 

 

23 15 USC 77b(a)(15).

24 17 CFR 230.215.

25 15 USC 77d(a)(5).

26 This report focuses on the accredited investor definition as used in Regulation D, with the understanding 

that any revisions to the definition should be made to the Rule 215 definition as well.

27 17 CFR 230.501(a).
9

in Regulation D.28

Regulation D relates to transactions exempted from the registration requirements of 

Section 529 of the Securities Act under Rules 504,30 505,

31 506(b) and 506(c).32

• Rule 504 provides an exemption for the public offer and sale of up to $1 million in a 

twelve-month period. General solicitation and general advertising are permitted if the 

offering is registered in a state requiring the use of a substantive disclosure document 

or sold exclusively to accredited investors under a corresponding state exemption.

• Rule 505 provides an exemption for the offer and sale of up to $5 million in a twelvemonth period to an unlimited number of accredited investors and up to 35 additional 

persons.

• Rule 506(b) is available for sales of unlimited amounts of securities to accredited 

investors and up to 35 non-accredited, but sophisticated, investors. Offerings relying

on Rule 506(b) cannot involve general solicitation or general advertising. 

• Rule 506(c) allows issuers to use general solicitation and general advertising, 

provided all purchasers are accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps 

to verify their accredited investor status. Issuers may sell unlimited amounts of 

securities under Rule 506(c).

The presence of non-accredited investors in Regulation D offerings has implications for

the type of disclosures that issuers are required to provide. Under Rules 505 and 506(b), issuers 

must provide the financial and non-financial information specified in Rule 502(b)33 to any non-

 

28 Rules 215 and 501(a) are identical except that Rule 501(a) permits reasonable belief by an issuer and 

includes banks, insurance companies, investment companies, business development companies and small 

business investment companies in the definition and permits additional entities to be fiduciaries for benefit 

plans that are accredited investors. The accredited investor definition in Securities Act Section 2(a)(15) 

contains banks, insurance companies, investment companies, business development companies and small 

business investment companies and employee benefit plans with banks, insurance companies or registered 

investment advisers as fiduciaries.

29 15 USC 77e.

30 17 CFR 230.504.

31 17 CFR 230.505.

32 17 CFR 230.506(c).

33 17 CFR 230.502(b). Issuers generally must furnish investors with information comparable to that which 
10

accredited investors.

34

The accredited investor definition reflects movement away from general principles and 

standards towards bright-line tests. This section discusses the background and history of the 

accredited investor definition, from the legislative history of the Securities Act through the 

original small business exemptions and the introduction of the term to the Securities Act, and 

concludes with a description of the definition under Regulation D and its subsequent 

amendments.

A. Securities Act Section 4(a)(2) and Judicial Precedent

The legislative history of the Securities Act indicates that Congress’s main objective was

to provide full and fair disclosure in connection with the offer and sale of securities. Congress

recognized, however, that there were certain situations in which the protections afforded by the 

Securities Act were not necessary. The House report stated that “[t]he Securities Act carefully 

exempts from its application certain types of ... securities transactions where there is no practical 

need for its application or where the public benefits are too remote.”35

Securities Act Section 4(a)(2),

36 an exemption from the registration requirements of 

Section 5 of the Securities Act, provides that “the provisions of Section 5 shall not apply to ... 

transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.” The Securities Act does not define 

the phrase “transactions ... not involving any public offering.” Accordingly, it has been left to 

 

would be included in a registration statement for a registered offering.

34 The note to Rule 502(b)(1) states that when an issuer provides information to non-accredited investors it 

should consider providing such information to accredited investors as well, in view of the anti-fraud 

provisions of the federal securities laws.

35 H.R. Rep. No. 73-85 (1933).

36 15 USC 77d(a)(2).
11

court decisions and Commission interpretations to define the scope of the exemption.

In S.E.C. v. Ralston Purina Co.,

37 the Supreme Court established the basic criteria for 

determining the availability of Section 4(a)(2). The Court held that the availability of Section 

4(a)(2) should turn on whether the particular class of persons affected need the protection 

afforded by the Securities Act. The Court found that an offering to those who are shown to be 

able to fend for themselves is a transaction not involving any public offering. The Court further 

observed that offerings to persons who have access to the same kind of information that the 

Securities Act would make available in the form of a registration statement may come within the 

exemption.

Section 4(a)(2) was traditionally viewed as a way to provide “an exemption from 

registration for bank loans, private placements of securities with institutions, and the promotion 

of a business venture by a few closely related persons.”38 In 1962, prompted by increased use of 

the exemption for speculative offerings to unrelated and uninformed persons, the Commission 

clarified limitations on the exemption’s availability.39 The Commission stated that “[w]hether a 

transaction is one not involving any public offering is essentially a question of fact and 

necessitates a consideration of all surrounding circumstances, including such factors as the 

relationship between the offerees and the issuer, the nature, scope, size, type and manner of the 

offering.”40

 

37 346 U.S. 119 (1953).

38 See Non-Public Offering Exemption, Release No. 33-4552 (Nov. 6, 1962) [27 FR 11316].

39 Id.

40 The Commission also noted that public advertising would be incompatible with a claim of a private 

offering. Id.
12

B. Small Business Exemptions Prior to Regulation D

Securities Act Rule 146

The Commission adopted Rule 146 in 1974 in an effort to provide greater certainty in the 

application of the Section 4(a)(2) exemption.

41 The rule was available to all issuers and could be 

used to raise an unlimited amount of capital. Use of Rule 146 was conditioned on the following:

• Offers and sales could be made only to persons the issuer reasonably believed had the 

requisite knowledge and experience in financial matters to evaluate the risks and 

merits of the prospective investment or who could bear the economic risks of the 

investment.

• Sales could not be made to persons who did not have the requisite knowledge and 

experience in financial matters unless they had a representative who was capable of 

providing the requisite financial knowledge and experience.

• Offerees must have had access to, or been furnished with, information comparable to 

what a registration statement would contain.

• No more than 35 purchasers could participate in an offering.

• General advertising and general solicitation were not permitted.

In the adopting release, the Commission identified two goals for Rule 146. First, the rule

would deter reliance on the Section 4(a)(2) exemption for offerings to persons who were unable 

to fend for themselves in terms of obtaining and evaluating information about the issuer and, in 

certain situations, of assuming the economic risk of investment. Second, the rule would reduce 

uncertainty and provide more objective standards upon which to rely when raising capital.

 

41 See Transactions By an Issuer Deemed Not To Involve Any Public Offering, Release No. 33-5487 (Apr. 

23, 1974) [39 FR 15261]. If all the conditions of Rule 146 were met, the offer and sale of securities were 

deemed to not involve any public offering within the meaning of Section 4(a)(2). The Commission 

rescinded Rule 146 in 1982 in connection with the adoption of Regulation D.
13

Securities Act Rule 240

In 1975, the Commission adopted Rule 24042 for the purpose of benefiting small 

businesses that did not have other exemptions available to them.43 Rule 240 required issuers to

have no more than 100 beneficial owners both before and after the offering, limited the aggregate 

amount of securities sold in a twelve-month period to $100,000 and prohibited general 

advertising and general solicitation.

Securities Act Rule 242

Despite the adoption of Rules 146 and 240, the uncertainty surrounding private 

placements and small business offerings continued. Beginning in 1978, the Commission 

conducted an extensive evaluation, including public hearings,44 into the impact of its rules and 

regulations on the ability of small businesses to raise capital.45 Primarily as a result of the views 

expressed at the hearings, the Commission took several significant actions designed to ease the 

impact of the federal securities laws on small businesses consistent with the protection of 

investors, including adopting Rule 242.46 Rule 242 provided a limited offering exemption under 

 

42 See Exemption For Closely Held Issuers, Release No. 33-5560 (Jan. 24, 1975) [40 FR 6484]. The 

Commission rescinded Rule 240 in 1982 in connection with the adoption of Regulation D.

43 See Examination of the Effects of Rules and Regulations on the Ability of Small Businesses to Raise 

Capital and the Impact on Small Businesses of Disclosure Requirements Under the Securities Acts; Release 

No. 33-5914 (Mar. 6, 1978) [43 FR 10876] (the “Small Business Study Release”).

44 During April and May of 1978, the Commission held 21 days of public hearings in six cities across the 

country.

45 See Small Business Study Release.

46 See Exemption of Limited Offers and Sales by Qualified Issuers, Release No. 33-6180 (Jan. 17, 1980) [45 

FR 6362]. The Commission rescinded Rule 242 in 1982 in connection with the adoption of Regulation D. 

Other actions included amending Regulation A to increase the aggregate offering amount of securities that 

could be sold thereunder during a twelve month period from $500,000 to $1.5 million and amending Rule 

146 to relax the disclosure requirements for offerings not in excess of $1.5 million. See also Simplified 

Registration and Reporting Requirements for Small Issuers, Release No. 33-6049 (Apr. 3, 1979) [44 FR 
14

Section 3(b)(1) of the Securities Act47 for offerings up to $2 million. It also introduced the 

accredited investor concept into the federal securities laws. Rule 242 allowed certain domestic 

and Canadian corporate issuers to sell their securities to an unlimited number of accredited 

persons and up to 35 non-accredited persons. Rule 242 did not require issuers to make any 

subjective determination about the sophistication or financial condition of offerees and 

purchasers. Rather, issuers were required to determine only whether potential investors were 

accredited or non-accredited persons based on the objective criteria set forth in the rule. Rule 

242 defined “accredited person” as a person purchasing $100,000 or more of the issuer’s 

securities, a director or executive officer of the issuer or a specified type of entity.48 If only 

accredited persons were involved in an offering, there was no specific requirement to furnish 

them with information, based on the assumption that accredited persons were in a position to ask 

for and obtain the information they believed was relevant to an offering.49 Like Rule 146, Rule 

242 prohibited general advertising and general solicitation.

C. The Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980

Congress responded to the need to reform the federal securities laws to facilitate small 

business access to the capital markets by enacting the Small Business Investment Incentive Act 

 

21562].

47 15 USC 77c(b)(1).

48 Specified entities were banks (whether acting in their individual or fiduciary capacities), insurance 

companies, employee benefit plans (with investment decisions made by plan fiduciaries), investment 

companies, and licensed Small Business Investment Companies.

49 See Consideration of the Impact of the Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980 on Certain 

Exemptions From the Registration Provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, Release No. 33-6274 (Dec. 23, 

1980) [46 FR 2631] (the “Small Business Investment Incentive Act Impact Release”).
15

of 1980 (the “Incentive Act”).50 The Incentive Act exempted from Securities Act registration 

non-public offers and sales of up to $5 million made solely to accredited investors51 and added 

the accredited investor definition to Section 2(a)(15) of the Securities Act.

Section 2(a)(15)(i)52 defined accredited investor to mean certain enumerated entities53 and 

Section 2(a)(15)(ii)54 authorized the Commission to adopt additional categories based on “such 

factors as financial sophistication, net worth, knowledge, and experience in financial matters, or 

amount of assets under management.” The Commission has used this authority to expand the 

types of persons that qualify as accredited investors.55 The Incentive Act also increased the 

ceiling on the Commission’s authority to create small offering exemptions from $2 million to $5 

million56 and authorized the Commission to work with the states to develop a uniform exemption 

from registration for small issuers.57

D. Regulation D

Prompted by the enactment of the Incentive Act, on December 23, 1980, the Commission 

published an advance notice of rulemaking and announced that it was considering the 

 

50 Pub. L. No. 96-477, 94 Stat. 2275 (1980).

51 Securities Act § 4(a)(5).

52 15 USC 77b(a)(15)(i).

53 Banks (whether acting in their individual or fiduciary capacities), insurance companies, registered 

investment companies, business development companies, licensed Small Business Investment Companies, 

and employee benefit plans (with investment decisions made by plan fiduciaries).

54 15 USC 77b(a)(15)(ii).

55 For example, in 1988 the Commission expanded the definition to include corporations, among other 

entities. See Regulation D Revisions, Release No. 33-6758 (Mar. 3, 1988) [53 FR 7866] (the “Regulation 

D Revisions Adopting Release”).

56 Securities Act § 3(b)(1).

57 Securities Act § 19(d)(3).
16

relationship between the Securities Act exemptions from registration and the capital formation 

needs of small businesses.58 The Commission asked commenters to focus on the 

interrelationship between the statutory exemption from registration for sales to accredited 

investors created by the Incentive Act and the Commission’s other exemptive rules, especially 

Rules 146 and 242.

Regulation D was the product of the Commission’s evaluation of the impact of its rules 

and regulations on the ability of small businesses to raise capital.59 Promulgated in 1982, 

Regulation D was a series of six rules that established two exemptions and one non-exclusive 

safe harbor from the registration requirements of the Securities Act and replaced the exemptions 

existing under Rules 146, 240 and 242. Rule 506 replaced Rule 146 and provided a nonexclusive safe harbor under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Rules 504 and 505 replaced 

Rules 240 and 242, respectively, and provided exemptions to registration under Section 3(b)(1) 

of the Securities Act.

The Commission designed Regulation D to simplify existing rules and regulations, 

particularly for small businesses, and achieve uniformity between state and federal exemptions to 

facilitate capital formation consistent with the protection of investors. A significant achievement 

in the adoption of Regulation D was the unification of much of the Commission’s exemptive 

scheme into a single regulation with common definitions, terms and conditions.60

 

58 Small Business Investment Incentive Act Impact Release.

59 Regulation D Adopting Release.

60 See Manning Gilbert Warren, III, A Review of Regulation D: The Present Exemption Regimen For Limited 

Offerings Under The Securities Act of 1933, 33 AM. U. L. Rev. 355 (1984).
17

The accredited investor definition is a cornerstone of Regulation D.

61 Rule 501 defines 

the term by listing eight categories of persons and entities that qualify as accredited investors. 

As originally constructed, certain institutional investors, private business development 

companies, charitable organizations, company insiders, purchasers of more than $150,000, 

natural persons with substantial net worth or income and entities, all of whose equity owners 

were accredited, qualified as accredited investors. The concept intended to encompass those 

persons and entities whose financial sophistication and ability to sustain the risk of loss of 

investment or ability to fend for themselves render the protections of the Securities Act’s 

registration process unnecessary.62

The accredited investor definition originally included persons who purchased at least 

$150,000 of the securities being offered where the total purchase price did not exceed twenty 

percent of the person’s net worth. The premise behind the $150,000 minimum purchase 

requirement was that individuals capable of investing large amounts of capital in an offering 

should be considered accredited investors because of their bargaining power.63 The Commission 

 

61 See Regulation D Proposing Release; Regulation D Adopting Release. Like its predecessor, Rule 242, the 

principal requirements of Regulation D depend upon whether or not an investor is accredited. An issuer 

need not make a determination about an accredited investor’s sophistication, although an issuer is required 

to make a determination about a non-accredited investor’s sophistication under Rule 506(b). Issuers may 

sell to an unlimited number of accredited investors under Rules 505 and 506(b), but may sell to no more 

than 35 non-accredited investors. Under Rules 505 or 506(b), issuers have no disclosure delivery 

requirement if sales are exclusively to accredited investors. Regulation D relies upon the same assumption 

employed by Rule 242 that accredited investors are in a position to ask for and obtain the information they 

believe is relevant. Only if an issuer sells to a non-accredited investor do Rules 505 and 506(b) require 

delivery of a specified disclosure document. Disclosures are required to the extent material to an 

understanding of the issuer, its business and the securities being offered.

62 See Regulation D Adopting Release; Regulation D Revisions Proposing Release; Regulation D Revisions 

Adopting Release.

63 See Regulation D Proposing Release; Regulation D Adopting Release.
18

rescinded this provision in 198864 because of an anomaly with the $1 million net worth test and 

concerns that purchase size alone, particularly at the $150,000 level, did not assure sophistication 

or access to information.65

Like Rule 242, the accredited investor definition includes an issuer’s directors and 

executive officers, but unlike Rule 242, also includes the general partners of an issuer and the 

directors, executive officers, and general partners of a general partner of the issuer. These 

insiders are deemed not to need the protections provided by registration because their positions 

should provide them with access to information about the issuer and the securities offered.66

Income and Net Worth Tests

Regulation D established bright-line tests for individuals to qualify as accredited 

investors based on their income or net worth. The income and net worth tests, respectively, 

currently read as follows:

• Any natural person who had individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the 

two most recent years or joint income with that person’s spouse in excess of $300,000 

in each of those years and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income 

level in the current year.67

• Any natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s 

 

64 Regulation D Revisions Adopting Release.

65 The provision permitted a natural person with as little as $750,000 of net worth to be considered accredited 

with a $150,000 purchase while a $1 million net worth was required to accredit a natural person for a 

smaller purchase. See Regulation D Revisions Proposing Release.

66 After soliciting public comment, the Commission decided not to accredit sophisticated officers who are not 

executive officers because it was not persuaded that, absent a policy-making function characterizing an 

executive officer position, other officers and employees would have sufficient access to information and the 

ability to bear the risk necessary to achieve the status of accredited investor. See Regulation D Revisions 

Adopting Release.

67 17 CFR 230.501(a)(6). The test is designed to exclude persons who have nonrecurring income spikes for 

one or two years.
19

spouse, exceeds $1 million.

68

Other than expanding the income test to include a joint income component69 and 

excluding the value of one’s primary residence from the net worth calculation,

70 the Commission 

has not revised the income and net worth tests since 1982.

2006 Accredited Natural Person Proposal

In 2006, the Commission proposed, but ultimately never adopted, rules under the 

Securities Act that would have created a new category of accredited investor called an 

“accredited natural person.”71 The new category would have been applicable only to offers and 

sales of securities issued by companies relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company 

Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”).72 “Accredited natural person” would have been 

defined as any natural person who met the Regulation D net worth or income tests and owned at 

least $2.5 million in investments. The term “investments” would have been defined based on the

definition used in Investment Company Act Rule 2a51-1(b).73

2007 Proposal to Amend the Accredited Investor Definition

In 2007, the Commission proposed, but ultimately never adopted, significant revisions to 

 

68 17 CFR 230.501(a)(5).

69 See Regulation D Revisions Adopting Release.

70 See Net Worth Standard for Accredited Investors, Release No. 33-9287 (Dec. 21, 2011) [76 FR 81793] (the 

“Primary Residence Adopting Release”). Section 413(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act directed the Commission 

to adjust the net worth calculation by excluding the value of a person’s primary residence.

71 Prohibition of Fraud by Advisers to Certain Pooled Investment Vehicles; Accredited Investors in Certain 

Private Investment Vehicles, Release No. 33-8766 (Dec. 27, 2006) [72 FR 400] (the “Private Pooled 

Investment Vehicle Release”).

72 15 USC 80a-3(c)(1).

73 17 CFR 270.2a51-1(b).
20

the accredited investor definition as it applies to natural persons to:

74

• add an alternative “investments-owned” test of $750,000 that could be used instead of 

the net worth or income tests;

75

• define a new term, “joint investments,” that would include only 50% of any 

investment held jointly with a spouse unless both spouses sign and are bound by the 

investment documentation;76 and

• establish an inflation adjustment for all dollar-amount thresholds on a going-forward 

basis with adjustments every five years to reflect any changes in the value of the 

Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (or any successor index 

thereto), as published by the Department of Commerce, rounded to the nearest 

multiple of $10,000.

Exclusion of Primary Residence from Net Worth Calculation

Section 413(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act excluded the value of a person’s primary residence 

from the net worth calculation and directed the Commission to adjust similarly any accredited 

investor net worth standard in its Securities Act rules. In 2011, the Commission revised Rules 

215 and 501 to exclude any positive equity individuals have in their primary residences.77 The 

revised calculation requires that any excess of indebtedness secured by the primary residence 

over the estimated fair market value of the residence be considered a liability for purposes of 

determining accredited investor status on the basis of net worth. The Commission also added a 

60-day look-back period to prevent investors from artificially inflating their net worth by 

 

74 See Revisions of Limited Offering Exemptions in Regulation D, Release No. 33-8828 (Aug. 3, 2007) [72 

FR 45116] (the “2007 Proposing Release”).

75 The proposed definition of “investments” was based on Rule 2a51-1 of the Investment Company Act of 

1940, which defines “investments” for purposes of defining “qualified purchaser” in Section 2(a)(51)(A) of 

the Investment Company Act.

76 In contrast, the current accredited investor definition includes all assets an individual owns jointly with a 

spouse or that are part of a shared community interest in the net worth calculation.

77 See Primary Residence Adopting Release.
21

incurring incremental indebtedness secured by their primary residence, thereby effectively 

converting their home equity into cash or other assets that would be included in the net worth 

calculation.

Rule 506(c) of Regulation D

Section 201(a) of the JOBS Act directed the Commission to eliminate the prohibition 

against general solicitation and general advertising under Rule 506 where all purchasers of the 

securities are accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that the 

purchasers are accredited investors. To implement Section 201(a), the Commission added 

paragraph (c) to Rule 506.78 Under Rule 506(c), an issuer may offer securities using general 

solicitation and general advertising, provided that:

• all purchasers in the offering are accredited investors;

• the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify the purchasers’ accredited investor status;

and

• certain other conditions in Regulation D are satisfied.

The determination of the reasonableness of the steps taken to verify accredited investor status is 

an objective assessment. Issuers are required to consider the facts and circumstances of each 

purchaser and the transaction. The final rule also provides a non-exclusive list of methods that 

issuers may use to satisfy the verification requirement.

III. Other Regulatory Approaches

The federal securities laws and other regulatory regimes use a number of distinct 

standards, including the accredited investor definition, to identify persons who are not in need of 

certain investor protection features contained in those laws and regimes. While other standards 

 

78 See Rule 506(c) Adopting Release.
22

may provide useful context for considering the accredited investor definition, each serves a 

different specific regulatory purpose. Table 3.1 compares the different standards for natural 

persons, their corresponding financial thresholds and regulatory purposes.

Table 3.1 Comparison of Regulatory Standards

Standard Financial Threshold

for Natural Persons

Regulatory Purpose

Accredited Investor

(Securities Act Rule 501(a))

$200,000 in income

$300,000 in joint income

$1 million in net worth, 

excluding the value of a 

primary residence

Exemption from Securities Act 

registration for offers and sales to 

accredited investors

Qualified Client

(Advisers Act Rule 205-3)

$1 million in assets 

under management with 

an investment adviser

$2 million in net worth, 

excluding the value of a 

primary residence

Subject to inflation 

adjustment every 5 years

Exemption from Advisers Act’s 

prohibition on charging performance 

fees to clients

Qualified Purchaser

(Investment Company Act

Section 2(a)(51)(A))

$5 million in investments Exemption from Investment 

Company Act registration for sales to 

qualified purchasers

Qualified Investor

(Exchange Act Section 

3(a)(54))

$10 million in assetbacked securities and 

loan participations

$25 million in other 

investments

Exemption from broker-dealer 

registration for banks that sell certain 

securities to qualified investors

Eligible Contract Participant

(Commodity Exchange Act 

Section 1a(18))

$10 million in 

investments

$5 million in investments 

if hedging

Eligible contract participants are able 

to engage in certain derivatives and 

swaps transactions
23

This section provides more detailed descriptions of the standards in the above table as 

well as other approaches to identifying individuals who do not need certain investor protections. 

Many of the standards described in this section use thresholds based on the amount of an 

individual’s investments. In contrast, the accredited investor definition uses income and net 

worth.

A. Qualified Client

The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) generally prohibits 

investment advisers from charging performance fees to clients.79 Rule 205-380 under the 

Advisers Act provides a limited exemption from that prohibition when a client meets the 

definition of “qualified client.” A “qualified client” is a natural person who, or a company that:

• has at least $1 million in assets under management with the adviser immediately after 

entering into an investment advisory contract with the adviser;

• the adviser reasonably believes has a net worth (together with assets held jointly with 

a spouse) of more than $2 million immediately prior to entering into an advisory 

contract;

• the adviser reasonably believes is a “qualified purchaser” as defined in Section 

2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act81 at the time an advisory contract is 

entered into;

• is an executive officer, director, trustee, general partner, or person serving in a similar 

capacity, of the adviser; or

• is an employee of the adviser who participates in the investment activities of the 

 

79 Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act (15 USC 80b-5(a)(1)) restricts an investment adviser from entering 

into, extending, renewing or performing any investment advisory contract that provides for compensation 

to the adviser based on a share of capital gains on, or capital appreciation of, the funds of a client.

80 17 CFR 275.205-3.

81 15 USC 80a-2(a)(51)(A).
24

adviser, and has performed investment activities for at least twelve months.

By providing relief from the Advisers Act’s general prohibition against linking adviser 

compensation to gains or appreciation of assets under management, Rule 205-3 recognizes that 

some clients are financially experienced and able to bear the risks of performance fee 

arrangements.

82 In adopting Rule 205-3, the Commission explained that it is consistent with 

investor protection and the purpose of the Advisers Act to permit clients who are financially 

experienced and able to bear the risks associated with performance fees to have the opportunity 

to negotiate compensation arrangements which they and their advisers consider appropriate.

When proposing the qualified client definition, the Commission noted that an objective 

financial means test would ensure that clients entering into performance fee contracts could bear

the risks associated with performance fees.83 The Commission has adjusted this test over time. 

In 1998, the Commission adopted a rule that increased the assets-under management test from 

$500,000 to $750,000, and the net worth test from $1 million to $1.5 million.84 These changes 

adjusted for the effects of inflation since 1985. More recently, Section 418 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act required the Commission to adjust the thresholds for inflation between 1998 and 2010 and 

every five years thereafter. In 2011, the Commission issued an order that increased the threshold 

 

82 See Exemption To Allow Registered Investment Advisers to Charge Fees Based Upon a Share of Capital 

Gains Upon or Capital Appreciation of a Client’s Account, Release No. IA-996 (Nov. 14, 1985) [50 FR 

48556].

83 See Conditional Exemption To Allow Registered Investment Advisers To Charge Fees Based Upon a Share 

of Capital Gains Upon or Capital Appreciation of a Client’s Account, Release No. IA-961 (Mar. 15, 1985) 

[50 FR 11718].

84 See Exemption To Allow Investment Advisers To Charge Fees Based Upon a Share of Capital Gains Upon 

or Capital Appreciation of a Client’s Account, Release No. IA-1731 (July 15, 1998) [63 FR 39022].
25

amounts for both tests to their current levels85 and in 2012 revised Rule 205-3 to provide for 

inflation adjustments every five years.

86 In tandem, the Commission also amended the rule to 

exclude the value of a person’s primary residence from the test of whether a person meets the net 

worth requirement. The Commission noted that excluding the primary residence was similar to 

the approach in the most recent amendments to the accredited investor definition and was 

responsive to commenters who urged the Commission to promote regulatory consistency in the 

treatment of primary residences.

B. Qualified Purchaser Under the Investment Company Act

Congress determined that the amount of a person’s investments should be used to 

measure a person’s financial sophistication for purposes of the Investment Company Act when it 

enacted the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”).87 NSMIA 

created a new exception from the definition of “investment company” for issuers that sell their 

securities solely to qualified purchasers.88 The term qualified purchaser means:

• natural persons who own not less than $5 million in investments;

• family-owned companies that own not less than $5 million in investments;

• certain trusts; and

 

85 See Order Approving Adjustments for Inflation of the Dollar Amount Tests in Rule 205-3 Under the 

Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Release No. IA-3236 (July 12, 2011) [76 FR 41838].

86 See Investment Adviser Performance Compensation, Release No. IA-3372 (Feb. 15, 2012) [77 FR 10358]. 

This release added Rule 205-3(e), which provides for inflation adjustments every five years based on the 

Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (or any successor thereto) as published by the 

United States Department of Commerce (the “PCE”). This release also codified the inflation-adjusted 

amounts set in the 2011 order.

87 Pub. L. No. 104-290, 110 Stat. 3416 (1996).

88 NSMIA § 209(a); Investment Company Act § 3(c)(7)(A).
26

• persons, acting for their own accounts or the accounts of other qualified purchasers, 

who in the aggregate own and invest on a discretionary basis, not less than $25 

million in investments (e.g., institutional investors).

89

The legislative history of NSMIA indicates that reliance on the exemption under Section 

3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act90 was to be limited to private investment companies 

consisting solely of investors with a high degree of financial sophistication who are in a position 

to appreciate the risks associated with investment pools that do not have the protections afforded 

by the Investment Company Act.91 The legislative history suggests that Congress viewed these 

investors as capable of evaluating on their own behalf matters such as a fund’s management fees, 

governance provisions, transactions with affiliates, investment risk, leverage and redemption

rights.

Congress tasked the Commission with defining the term “investments” for purposes of 

the qualified purchaser definition92 and the Commission adopted a broad definition.93 Investment 

Company Act Rule 2a51-1(b)94 defines “investments” to include securities (other than 

controlling interests in certain issuers), real estate held for investment purposes, commodity 

 

89 NSMIA § 209(b); Investment Company Act § 2(a)(51)(A).

90 15 USC 80a-3(c)(7).

91 See S. Rep. No. 104-293 (1996). See also Private Investment Companies, Release No. IC-22405 (Dec. 18, 

1996) [61 FR 68100].

92 NSMIA § 209(d)(2).

93 See Privately Offered Investment Companies, Release No. IC-22597 (Apr. 3, 1997) [62 FR 17512] (the 

“Privately Offered Investment Companies Adopting Release”). The Commission indicated that NSMIA’s 

legislative history suggests that Congress intended for the “investments” definition to be broader than 

securities, but that not every type of asset should be included. The Commission also indicated that the 

legislative history suggests that an asset included in the definition should be held for investment purposes 

and the nature of the asset should indicate that its holder has the investment experience and sophistication 

necessary to evaluate the risks of investing in unregulated investment pools.

94 17 CFR 270.2a51-1(b).
27

interests held for investment purposes, physical commodities held for investment purposes, 

financial contracts entered into for investment purposes and cash and cash equivalents held for 

investment purposes.

NSMIA also directed the Commission to prescribe rules permitting knowledgeable 

employees of a private fund (or knowledgeable employees of the fund’s affiliates) to invest in 

the fund without causing the fund to lose its exemption from registration under the Investment 

Company Act.95 This provision permits individuals who participate in a fund’s management to 

invest in the fund as a benefit of employment.

C. Qualified Purchaser Under the Securities Act

NSMIA realigned the federal and state regulatory partnership governing securities 

regulation. The legislative history of NSMIA indicates that Congress intended to preempt state 

registration of certain offers and sales of securities for the purpose of providing uniform, 

nationwide exemptions from registration and qualification requirements at the state level.96

Among other changes, NSMIA added Section 18(b)(3) to the Securities Act,97 which 

provides an exemption from state securities registration and qualification requirements for 

securities offerings and sales to “qualified purchasers.”98 Section 18(b)(3) of the Securities Act 

further provides that “the Commission may define the term ‘qualified purchaser’ differently with 

respect to different categories of securities, consistent with the public interest and the protection 

 

95 NSMIA § 209(d)(3).

96 See H.R. Rep. No. 104-622 (1996). See also Defining the Term “Qualified Purchaser” Under the Securities 

Act of 1933, Release No. 33-8041 (Dec. 19, 2001) [66 FR 66839] (the “Qualified Purchaser Proposing 

Release”).

97 15 USC 77r(b)(3).

98 NSMIA § 102(a).
28

of investors.”

In 2001, the Commission proposed to define the term “qualified purchaser” to mean an 

“accredited investor,” as defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D, for purposes of Section 

18(b)(3).

99 The proposed definition was not limited to any particular type or class of security, or 

transaction in such security. Rather, the Commission explained that the proposed definition

identified well-established categories of persons it previously determined to be financially 

sophisticated and therefore not in need of the protection of state registration. The Commission 

did not, however, adopt a qualified purchaser definition.

Title IV of the JOBS Act added Section 3(b)(2) to the Securities Act,100 which directed 

the Commission to adopt a new exemption from registration for securities offerings of up to $50 

million in a twelve-month period.101 Additionally, Title IV added Section 18(b)(4)(D)(ii) to the 

Securities Act,102 which provides that Section 3(b)(2) securities are covered securities for 

purposes of Section 18 if they are “offered or sold to a qualified purchaser, as defined by the 

Commission pursuant to [Section 18(b)(3)] with respect to that purchase or sale.”

In March 2015, the Commission adopted rules to implement Title IV of the JOBS Act by 

amending Regulation A103 to create two tiers of exempt offerings:

• Tier 1 for offerings of up to $20 million in a twelve-month period, including no more 

than $6 million offered on behalf of selling securityholders that are affiliates of the 

issuer; and

 

99 See Qualified Purchaser Proposing Release.

100 15 USC 77c(b)(2).

101 JOBS Act § 401(a).

102 15 USC 77r(b)(4)(D)(ii).

103 Regulation A – Conditional Small Issues Exemption, 17 CFR 230.251 through 263.
29

• Tier 2 for offerings of up to $50 million in a twelve-month period, including no more 

than $15 million offered on behalf of selling securityholders that are affiliates of the 

issuer.

104

All purchasers in a Tier 2 offering must be either accredited investors or persons who limit their 

investment amounts to no more than 10% of the greater of their annual income or their net 

worth.105 Consistent with the authority provided in Sections 18(b)(3) and 18(b)(4)(D) of the 

Securities Act, and in light of the total package of investor protections included in amended 

Regulation A,106 the Commission defined the term “qualified purchaser” for purposes of 

Regulation A offerings to mean any person to whom securities are offered or sold in a Tier 2 

offering.

107

D. Qualified Institutional Buyer

In 1990, the Commission defined “qualified institutional buyer” (“QIB”), another 

category of financially sophisticated investors as part of Rule 144A108 under the Securities Act.

109 

Rule 144A provides a safe harbor exemption from the registration requirements of the federal 

securities laws for resales of restricted securities to QIBs. The term “qualified institutional 

 

104 Amendments for Small and Additional Issues Exemptions Under the Securities Act (Regulation A), 

Release No. 33-9741 (Mar. 25, 2015) 80 FR 21806 (the “Regulation A+ Adopting Release”).

105 For non-natural persons, the investment limitation is 10% of the greater of annual revenues or net assets at 

fiscal year end. The investment limitation does not apply to investments in securities that will be listed on 

a national securities exchange upon qualification.

106 In addition to investment limitations, Tier 2 offerings include a substantive disclosure document, including 

audited financial statements, that must be reviewed and qualified by Commission staff, bad actor 

disqualification provisions and ongoing reporting obligations.

107 17 CFR 230.256.

108 17 CFR 230.144A.

109 See Resale of Restricted Securities; Changes to Method of Determining Holding Period of Restricted 

Securities Under Rules 144 and 145, Release No. 33-6862 (Apr. 23, 1990) [55 FR 17933].
30

buyer” includes specified institutions that, in the aggregate, own and invest on a discretionary 

basis at least $100 million in securities of non-affiliated issuers. Banks and other specified 

financial institutions must also have a net worth of at least $25 million. A registered brokerdealer qualifies as a QIB if, in the aggregate, it owns and invests on a discretionary basis at least 

$10 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with the broker-dealer.

E. Qualified Investor

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act110 added the term “qualified investor” to the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) for purposes of exemptions for banks from brokerdealer registration.111 The exemptions permit banks to sell certain securities to qualified 

investors without registering as broker-dealers with the Commission. Exchange Act Section 

3(a)(54)112 defines “qualified investor” to include a list of persons, some of which meet the 

definition by merely being certain types of entities, while others must also meet an ownership 

and investment test. For example, registered investment companies and banks are qualified 

investors without having to meet an ownership and investment test; natural persons, 

corporations, companies and partnerships are qualified investors if they own and invest, on a 

discretionary basis, not less than $25 million in investments;

113 and governments and political 

subdivisions are qualified investors if they own and invest, on a discretionary basis, not less than 

$50 million in investments.

The entities that are qualified investors without limitation based on ownership and 

 

110 Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (1999).

111 Exchange Act §§ 3(a)(4)(B)(ix), 3(a)(5)(C)(iii), 3(a)(5)(C)(iv) & 3(a)(54).

112 15 USC 78c(a)(54).

113 The threshold is $10 million for investments in asset-backed securities and loan participations.
31

investment are engaged primarily in financial activities, including the business of investing. In 

contrast, the persons subject to the ownership and investment requirement may have limited 

investment experience. The Commission has indicated that Congress established ownership and 

investment thresholds for those persons as indicators of investment experience and 

sophistication.114

F. Eligible Contract Participant

The Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act define certain persons as “eligible 

contract participants” including based on their status as regulated entities or the amount of assets 

they hold or invest.

115 Eligible contract participants can engage in derivatives and swaps 

transactions in which non-eligible contract participants generally are more restricted.

Individuals with more than $10 million invested on a discretionary basis (more than $5 

million if they are hedging) are eligible contract participants.116 The eligible contract participant 

definition also includes financial institutions, insurance companies, investment companies, 

commodity pools with more than $5 million in assets under management, employee benefit plans 

with more than $5 million in assets, corporations and other entities with more than $10 million in 

assets, corporations and other entities with at least $1 million of net worth if they are hedging 

commercial risk, governmental entities with at least $50 million in investments, registered 

brokers or dealers, regulated futures commission merchants and regulated floor brokers or floor 

 

114 See Exemption of Certain Foreign Brokers or Dealers, Release No. 34-58047 (June 27, 2008) [73 FR 

39182].

115 See Exchange Act § 3(a)(65) and Commodity Exchange Act § 1a(18). The Exchange Act defines “eligible 

contract participant” by referring to the definition in the Commodity Exchange Act.

116 The standard for individuals was previously based on total assets. The Dodd-Frank Act replaced the total 

asset standard with an amounts invested on a discretionary basis standard. Dodd-Frank Act § 721(a)(9).
32

traders.

G. Uniform Securities Act of 2002

The Uniform Securities Act of 2002 is a model state securities law drafted by the 

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.117 It does not contain a specific 

exemption for offers and sales to “accredited” or otherwise “sophisticated” natural persons.118 

For entities, however, the Uniform Securities Act of 2002 exempts offers and sales to 

“institutional investors.”119 The “institutional investor” definition generally parallels the 

“accredited investor” definition in Securities Act Rule 501(a), but with $10 million asset 

thresholds rather than $5 million asset thresholds.

120 The drafters noted that the Uniform 

Securities Act of 2002 uses higher thresholds due to “the significant period of time since Rule 

501(a) was adopted.”121

H. Franchise Laws

Franchise investment laws generally require franchisors to provide potential franchisees 

with detailed information about the business and investment.

122 The Federal Trade Commission 

 

117 According to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, the Uniform Securities 

Act of 2002 has been adopted in Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Vermont and Wisconsin.

118 Section 203 of the Uniform Securities Act of 2002, however, provides flexibility for state securities 

administrators to adopt exemptions in addition to those provided. For example, state securities 

administrators can adopt the Uniform Limited Offering Exemption or a Regulation D exemption to cover 

natural persons.

119 Uniform Securities Act of 2002 § 202(13)(A).

120 Uniform Securities Act of 2002 § 102(11).

121 Uniform Securities Act of 2002 Official Comment No. 13.

122 A franchise enables someone to operate a business under a format or system developed by someone else. 

For example, a franchisee may purchase the right to use a franchisor’s name for a specific number of years 
33

(the “FTC”) administers franchise regulations at the federal level and some states have additional 

laws governing the offer and sale of franchises. Like the federal securities laws, many franchise 

regulatory regimes exempt from their disclosure requirements offerings made to sophisticated 

prospective franchise investors. For example, FTC rules contain the following exemptions for 

sophisticated investors:

• The “large franchise investment” exemption for initial investments of at least 

$1,084,900, exclusive of unimproved land and franchisor financing.

• The “large franchisee” exemption for franchisees that have been in business at least 

five years and have at least $5,424,500 in net worth.

• The “insiders” exemption for franchise sales to the owners, directors and managers of 

the franchisor.123

The FTC must update the financial thresholds in the exemptions every four years for inflation.124

Some states also require registration of franchise offers and sales. Model franchise rules 

of the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) contain “sophisticated 

purchaser exemptions” from registration for large investments and for offers and sales to existing 

franchisees, franchisor insiders and “sophisticated franchisees.”125 A sophisticated franchisee is:

• a person whose net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s spouse, exceeds $3 

million at the time of purchase of the franchise, excluding the value of that person’s 

 

and receive assistance launching and operating a business. See Federal Trade Commission, A Consumer’s 

Guide to Buying a Franchise (June 2015).

123 16 CFR §§ 436.8(a)(5)(i)-(ii) & (6). See also Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning 

Franchising & Disclosure Requirements Concerning Business Opportunities (Mar. 30, 2007) [72 FR 

15444] (referring to the three exemptions, collectively, as the “sophisticated investor exemptions”).

124 16 CFR § 436.8(b) requires inflation adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 

Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the “CPI”). The FTC last updated the thresholds 

in June 2012. See Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising (June 18, 2012) [77 

FR 36149].

125 NASAA Model Franchise Exemptions § 3(c) (Sept. 9, 2012). The model rules parenthetically refer to 

“sophisticated franchisees” as “accredited investors.”
34

personal residence, any and all retirement or pension plan accounts or benefits, home 

furnishings and automobiles (a “high net worth individual”);

• a person whose gross income exceeds $500,000 per year in each of the two most 

recent years, or whose joint gross income with that person’s spouse exceeds $750,000 

per year in each of those years, and who reasonably expects to reach the same income 

level in the year following the purchase of the franchise (a “high income individual”);

• an entity with shareholders’, members’ or partners’ equity exceeding $5 million and 

which has been in business not less than five years;

• a trust with total assets exceeding $5 million and which has been in operation not less 

than five years; or

• an entity or trust in which all of the equity owners are high net worth individuals or 

high income individuals.

While the financial criteria used in franchise investment laws provides insight into 

regulatory approaches to determining investor sophistication, there are distinguishing factors to 

consider. For example, some states have varying financial thresholds applicable to prospective 

franchisees beyond the federal FTC thresholds that may reflect specific investor characteristics 

and economic conditions in the states. In contrast, the accredited investor definition applies on a 

national level. Another distinguishing factor is that many franchisees take an active role in 

management or act as owner-operators of the franchises. As a result, their investments may 

represent higher percentages of their net worth.

I. International Approaches

Many foreign jurisdictions provide exemptions from registration or disclosure 

requirements for offers and sales of securities to sophisticated or accredited investors. These 

jurisdictions use a variety of methods to identify sophisticated or accredited investors.

Criteria Based on Income and Net Worth

Table 3.2 provides examples of other regulatory regimes that use the concept of 

measuring sophistication through income or net worth.
35

Table 3.2 International Income/Net Worth Approaches

Jurisdiction Income U.S.$ Equivalent* Net Worth U.S.$ Equivalent*

Australia A$250,000 $179,598 A$2.5 million

Net Assets

$1.80 million

Canada C$200,000 

Individual

C$300,000 Joint

Net Income

$149,622

$224,433

C$5 million

Net Assets

C$1 million 

Financial Assets

$3.74 million

$748,111

European Union N/A N/A €500,000126 $529,151

Israel N/A N/A NIS 12 

million127

$3.09 million

Singapore S$300,000 $212,307 S$2 million

Net Personal 

Assets

$1.42 million

United 

Kingdom

£100,000 $150,390 £250,000

Net Assets

$375,974

* Based on November 30, 2015 exchange rates.

Australia categorizes as “sophisticated investors” individuals with gross income of 

 

126 This component is part of a three-part test that also looks to professional experience and transaction history. 

Investors must satisfy two of these components. Directive 2010/73/EU, of the European Parliament and of 

the Council of 24 November 2010, Amending Directives 2003/71/EC on the Prospectus to be Published 

When Securities are Offered to the Public or Admitted to Trading and 2004/109/EC on the Harmonisation 

of Transparency Requirements in Relation to Information About Issuers Whose Securities are Admitted to 

Trading on a Regulated Market (O.J. L 327, 11.12.2010); Directive 2004/39/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council 

Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the 

Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (O.J. L 145, 30.4.2004).

127 This component is part of a three-part test that also looks to professional experience and transaction history. 

Investors must satisfy two components. Securities Law 5728-1968 § 15A(a)(7) & (b)(1). See also

Regulation of Investment Advising, Investment Marketing and Investment Portfolio Management Law 

5755-1995 (First Schedule).
36

A$250,000 or greater in each of the previous two years or net assets of at least A$2.5 million.128 

Similarly, in Canada, an “accredited investor” is any natural person who earned net income of at 

least C$200,000, or C$300,000 combined with a spouse, in each of the past two years, or has net 

assets, alone or with a spouse, worth greater than C$5 million.129 Canada also uses a separate 

financial assets test under which individuals qualify as accredited investors if they own gross 

financial assets having an aggregate realizable value, before taxes but net of any related 

liabilities, exceeding C$1 million, alone or with a spouse, that are generally liquid or relatively 

easy to liquidate, such as cash and liquid securities.130 In the United Kingdom, all natural 

persons are presumed to be “retail” investors, and thus able to benefit from prospectus 

requirements and restrictions on securities promotion, unless they choose to be treated as 

“professional clients” or certify that they are either “certified high net worth individuals” or 

“sophisticated investors.”131 A certified high net worth individual is one who had an annual 

income of at least £100,000 in the preceding year or has net assets valued at £250,000 or more.

132

In Singapore, individuals are “accredited investors” if their net personal assets exceed 

S$2 million or their income in the preceding 12 months is not less than S$300,000.133 The 

 

128 Corporations Act 2001 § 708(8); Regulation 6D.2.03.

129 National Instrument 45-106 Prospectus Exemptions. The securities commissions in the individual 

provinces and territories are collectively referred to as the Canadian Securities Administrators (the “CSA”). 

They collaborate to adopt rules referred to as “National Instruments” that are generally adopted with 

identical language in each jurisdiction.

130 Id.

131 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Chapter 8 § 21(2); Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 

(Financial Promotion) Order 2005, Part VI, Articles 48, 50 & 50A.

132 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005, Part VI, Article 48 (Schedule 

5).

133 Securities and Futures Act § 4A(1)(a)(i).
37

Monetary Authority of Singapore explains that “accredited investors are generally identified by 

income or wealth thresholds and considered to be sufficiently knowledgeable or experienced in 

managing their financial affairs (whether directly or through professional advice) and protecting 

their own investment interests.”134

The methods for computing these financial criteria vary by country. Like the Regulation 

D accredited investor definition, some countries exclude certain types of assets from the net 

worth calculation. For example, the United Kingdom excludes the value of primary residences,

loans taken out on primary residences, insurance rights and retirement and death benefits.135

Criteria Based on Investment Amounts

Some jurisdictions have used a minimum investments test to determine whether an 

individual investor is sophisticated. Australia’s definition of sophisticated investor encompasses 

any purchase of securities greater than A$500,000.136 Canada had a prospectus exemption for 

purchases of C$150,000 or greater by an individual, but in February 2015 the CSA adopted 

amendments to eliminate the exemption.137 Provisions like this extend the analog of accredited 

 

134 Monetary Authority of Singapore, Consultation Paper on Proposals to Enhance Regulatory Safeguards for 

Investors in the Capital Markets (July 2014), available at 

http://www.mas.gov.sg/~/media/MAS/News%20and%20Publications/Consultation%20Papers/2014_07_21

_final%20Enhance%20reg%20safeguards%20for%20investors.pdf.

135 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005, Part VI, Article 48 (Schedule 

5).

136 Corporations Act 2001 § 708(8). This includes situations where the amount payable on acceptance of the 

offer, when added to amounts previously paid by the individual for the same class of the issuer’s securities 

held by the individual, equals at least A$500,000. Corporations Act 2001 § 708(8)(b).

137 The CSA cited concerns that the minimum investment amount prospectus exemption may not be a proxy 

for sophistication or ability to withstand financial loss for individual investors and may encourage overconcentration in one investment. CSA Notice of Amendments to National Instrument 45-106 Prospectus 

and Registration Exemptions (Feb. 2015), available at 

https://www.bcsc.bc.ca/Securities_Law/HistPolicies/HistPolicy4/PDF/CSA_Notice__February_19__2015/.
38

investor status to the purchaser regardless of whether or not the individual would qualify under 

other sophistication measures.

Certification or Verification by Financial Professionals

The United Kingdom provides that investors may be deemed to be sophisticated if they 

have a written certificate signed within the last 36 months by a firm confirming that it has 

assessed the individual as sufficiently knowledgeable to understand the risks associated with 

engaging in investment activity in the relevant investments.138 Alternatively, investors can 

certify that they are “self-certified sophisticated investors.”139

In Australia, a qualified accountant must certify that an individual meets the net assets

and gross income requirements in a certificate given no more than six months before the offer of 

securities is made.

140 In the European Union, it is the responsibility of the issuer or the financial 

intermediary to ensure that an individual meets the exemptive criteria and thus may be deemed a 

“qualified investor.”141

Financial Experience

Some jurisdictions combine financial thresholds with other measures of investor 

 

138 COBS § 4.12.7R.

139 COBS § 4.12.8R. The certificate lasts for 12 months and must include particular warnings and 

confirmation that the investor has specific relevant, recent investment or business experience.

140 Corporations Act 2001 § 708(8)(c).

141 Directive 2010/73/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010, Amending 

Directives 2003/71/EC on the Prospectus to be Published When Securities are Offered to the Public or 

Admitted to Trading and 2004/109/EC on the Harmonisation of Transparency Requirements in Relation to 

Information About Issuers Whose Securities are Admitted to Trading on a Regulated Market (2010 O.J. L 

327, 11.12.2010); Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 

on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 

2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC

(O.J. L 145, 30.4.2004).
39

sophistication to determine who is able to understand the risks of and bear the loss on private 

investments. For instance, in the European Union, an individual who meets at least two of the 

following three qualifications can opt to be treated as a “qualified investor” and participate in 

securities transactions that might not otherwise be available to ordinary retail investors:

• Cash deposits and other financial instruments in excess of €500,000.

• Sophistication based on previous market participation, including the execution, on 

average, of at least ten large transactions per quarter over the previous four quarters in 

the relevant financial market.

• Employment in the financial sector for at least one year in a professional position 

requiring knowledge of the market transactions contemplated.

142

In Israel, an individual who meets at least two of the following three conditions is 

considered a “qualified client” and is able to participate in private placements:

• Cash, deposits, financial assets and securities totaling in excess of NIS 12 million.

• Capital markets expertise and skills or work experience for at least one year in a 

professional position that required capital markets expertise.

• Execution of at least 30 transactions, on average, during each of the four previous 

quarters, other than transactions a portfolio manager performed for an investment 

management client.143

As this summary indicates, a number of foreign jurisdictions also look to wealth or 

income as proxies for financial sophistication and those criteria provide bright-line standards. It 

is, however, noteworthy that some foreign jurisdictions also focus on a person’s investment 

experience by looking to factors such as the amount of investments owned, transaction history 

 

142 Id. In addition, the investment firm also must provide clear written warnings about protections the investor 

might lose and the investor must prepare a separate written document stating he or she is aware of the 

consequences of losing such protections.

143 Securities Law 5728-1968 § 15A(a)(7) & (b)(1). See also Regulation of Investment Advising, Investment 

Marketing and Investment Portfolio Management Law 5755-1995 (First Schedule).
40

and relevant professional experience.

IV. Accredited Investor Attributes

The accredited investor definition as applied to natural persons has been the subject of 

significant commentary and study. Commission requests for comment in connection with recent 

rulemaking initiatives have yielded hundreds of comment letters.144 The GAO Report, mandated 

by the Dodd-Frank Act and published in 2013, examined market participants’ views on the 

existing criteria for accredited investor status and alternative criteria. The Commission’s 

Investor Advisory Committee and the Commission’s Advisory Committee on Small and 

Emerging Companies both have provided the Commission with their recommendations on the 

accredited investor definition and several of the recommendations from the 2014 SEC 

Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation relate to the definition.

145 

This section examines the current definition, common criticisms of the definition, various views 

on whether the definition should be modified and potential ways of doing so.

 

144 On July 10, 2013, the Commission proposed amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156 (Release 

No. 33-9416). The proposing release requested public comment on the definition of accredited investor as 

it relates to natural persons. Comment letters related to this request are available at 

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-13/s70613.shtml. To facilitate public input on Dodd-Frank Act 

rulemaking, before the issuance of rule proposals, the Commission invited members of the public to make 

their views known on various regulatory initiatives under the Dodd-Frank Act in advance of any 

rulemaking. Comment letters submitted in response to this invitation are available at 

http://www.sec.gov/comments/df-title-iv/accredited-investor/accredited-investor.shtml. On August 3, 

2007, the Commission proposed revisions to the limited offering exemptions in Regulation D (Release No. 

33-8828). The proposing release requested public comment on various matters related to Regulation D. 

Comment letters related to this request are available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-18-

07/s71807.shtml.

145 Recommendation of the Investor Advisory Committee: Accredited Investor Definition (Oct. 9, 2014) (the 

“Investor Advisory Committee Recommendation”), available at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/investoradvisory-committee-2012/accredited-investor-definition-recommendation.pdf; Advisory Committee on 

Small and Emerging Companies: Recommendations Regarding the Accredited Investor Definition (Feb. 17, 

2015) (the “ACSEC Recommendations”), available at http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec/acsecaccredited-investor-definition-recommendation-030415.pdf; Final Report of the 2014 SEC GovernmentBusiness Forum on Small Business Capital Formation (May 2015) (the “Small Business Forum Report”), 

available at http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/gbfor33.pdf.
41

One of the primary objectives of Regulation D is to facilitate capital formation by 

simplifying the rules and regulations applicable to small businesses.

146 The accredited investor

definition for individuals consists of bright-line financial thresholds that are relatively easy to 

understand and administer, and some commenters note that Regulation D should remain 

streamlined and easy for small businesses to use.147

A. Current Definition

Under the current definition, natural persons are accredited investors if their income or 

net worth exceeds certain thresholds.

Income

The Commission originally adopted the $200,000 annual income threshold in 1982148 and 

added the provision for joint income in 1988.149 These thresholds have never been adjusted.

Rule 501(a)(6)150 does not define the term “income.” The Commission originally 

proposed to base the income standard on “individual adjusted gross income...as reported for 

Federal income tax purposes in [the] most recent tax return.”151 At adoption, however, the 

Commission chose a more flexible approach by changing the term “adjusted gross income” to 

 

146 See Regulation D Adopting Release.

147 See, e.g., letters from Eugene B. Shanks, III (Sept. 23, 2013); SVB Financial Group (Sept. 23, 2013); Adam 

Geller (Aug. 20, 2013).

148 Regulation D Adopting Release. Table 4.1 shows the impact of inflation on the $200,000 threshold. See

Section II.D for a historical discussion of the adoption of Regulation D.

149 Regulation D Revisions Adopting Release.

150 17 CFR 230.501(a)(6).

151 Regulation D Proposing Release.
42

“income.”152 The Commission noted commenter objections that adjusted gross income may not 

be an appropriate metric for foreign investors, persons who file jointly or reside in a community 

property state or persons who use legitimate tax planning measures to reduce their adjusted gross 

income. The adopting release provided one possible method of calculating income: adjusted 

gross income plus the amounts of any deductions for long-term capital gains and depletion, any 

exclusions for interest and any limited partnership losses. Commission staff also has indicated 

that income includes amounts contributed on a person’s behalf to profit-sharing and pension 

plans so long as the person’s rights to the benefits have vested,

153 but that income generally does 

not include unrealized capital appreciation.

154

Net Worth

The Commission originally adopted the $1 million net worth threshold in 1982155 and 

revised it in 2011 to reflect changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act that excluded the value of a 

person’s primary residence from the calculation.156 The $1 million threshold has not otherwise 

been adjusted.

 

152 Regulation D Adopting Release.

153 See Securities Act Rules Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation 255.16 (Jan. 26, 2009). See also 

Raymond, James & Associates, Inc., SEC Division of Corporation Finance Interpretive Letter (Dec. 19, 

1984). The staff also has expressed the view that a person who has the same marital status during the threeyear period in which income is measured must satisfy the income test in the same way (that is, based on 

either individual income or joint income) in all three years. See Securities Act Rules Compliance and 

Disclosure Interpretation 255.15 (Jan. 26, 2009).

154 See Interpretive Release on Regulation D, Release No. 33-6455 (Mar. 3, 1983) [48 FR 10045] (the 

“Regulation D Interpretive Release”) at Q. 23.

155 Regulation D Adopting Release. Table 4.1 shows the impact of inflation on the $1 million threshold. See

Section II.D for a historical discussion of the adoption of Regulation D.

156 Primary Residence Adopting Release.
43

The Commission originally proposed an individual net worth threshold of $750,000.157 

Some commenters recommended excluding certain assets, such as principal residences and 

automobiles, from the net worth calculation.158 In response to those comments and for the sake 

of simplicity, the Commission increased the net worth threshold to $1 million but did not exclude 

any assets from the calculation. The Commission also modified the net worth standard to 

include joint net worth in response to comments.159

Rule 501(a)(5)160 does not define the term “net worth.” However, when calculating net 

worth, the rule excludes the value of a person’s primary residence and includes as a liability 

indebtedness secured by a person’s primary residence in excess of the estimated fair value of the 

residence. Commission staff also has indicated that “[n]et worth is simply the excess of assets 

over liabilities”161 and that “assets in an account or property held jointly with a person who is not 

the purchaser’s spouse may be included in the calculation for the net worth test, but only to the 

extent of his or her percentage ownership of the account or property.”162

B. Criticisms of the Current Definition

Some commenters state that the current accredited investor definition is over-inclusive 

 

157 Regulation D Proposing Release.

158 See Regulation D Adopting Release.

159 Commenters indicated that limiting net worth to that of an individual investor presented problems for 

investors in community property states and investors who held assets jointly with their spouses.

160 17 CFR 230.501(a)(5).

161 Securities Act Rules Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation 255.14 (Jan. 26, 2009) (indicating that 

vested employee stock options may be included in the calculation of net worth under Rule 501(a)(5)).

162 Securities Act Rules Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation 255.49 (July 3, 2014).
44

because the financial thresholds contained in the definition have not been adjusted for inflation163

or because the net worth calculation includes certain assets, such as retirement accounts, that 

should be omitted.164 Other commenters state that the accredited investor definition as it applies 

to individuals is under-inclusive because financially sophisticated individuals who are not 

wealthy may not qualify.

165 Many commenters question the correlation between wealth and 

financial sophistication and, as a result, feel that the income and net worth tests simply fail to 

identify correctly those individuals who should be accredited investors.166

Some academic studies lend support to the theory that wealth is correlated to financial 

sophistication. For example, one study found evidence that individuals with higher net worth or 

income did not engage in most “irrational” investor behaviors as frequently as lower net worth 

individuals.

167 Another study based on trading records of more than 50,000 individuals from a 

 

163 See, e.g., letters from North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc. (Sept. 27, 2013) (the 

“2013 NASAA Letter”); AFL-CIO (Sept. 23, 2013) (the “AFL-CIO Letter”); Investment Company 

Institute (Sept. 23, 2013) (the “ICI Letter”).

164 See, e.g., letter from J. Robert Brown, Jr. (Oct. 28, 2013) (the “Brown Letter”); Investor Advisory 

Committee Recommendation.

165 See, e.g., letter from Rebecca L. Eisenberg (Nov. 4, 2013). Some commenters also have expressed the 

view that the accredited investor definition is both over- and under-inclusive because certain financially 

sophisticated individuals may not qualify, while wealthy, financially unsophisticated individuals may. See, 

e.g., Stephen Choi, Regulating Investors Not Issuers: A Market-Based Proposal, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 279

(2000); Wallis K. Finger, Note, Unsophisticated Wealth: Reconsidering the SEC’s “Accredited Investor” 

Definition Under the 1933 Act, 86 Wash. U. L. Rev. 733 (2009); Howard M. Friedman, On Being Rich, 

Accredited, and Undiversified: The Lacunae in Contemporary Securities Regulation, 47 Okla. L. Rev. 291 

(1994); Houman B. Shadab, Fending for Themselves: Creating a U.S. Hedge Fund Market for Retail 

Investors, 11 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 251 (2008).

166 See, e.g., 2013 NASAA Letter; letter from Consumer Federation of America (Sept. 23, 2013); Investor 

Advisory Committee Recommendation.

167 Annette Vissing-Jorgensen, Perspectives on Behavioral Finance: Does “Irrationality” Disappear with 

Wealth? Evidence from Expectations and Actions, NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2003, Vol. 18. The 

study identified the following “irrational” investor behaviors: (1) delayed selling of losing investments in 

the hopes of recovery; (2) limited diversification of stock portfolios; (3) limited asset market participation; 

(4) naïve diversification of retirement account contributions; (5) status quo bias in retirement account 

allocations and (6) excessive trading. Excessive trading was the main exception to the study’s finding. The 
45

large brokerage firm between 1991 and 1996 found empirical evidence that wealthier individuals 

and individuals employed in professional occupations exhibit a lower tendency to delay selling 

investments on which they have incurred losses in the hope that they will recover them.

168 In 

addition, a 2009 paper sought to measure the financial sophistication of households by 

constructing a financial sophistication index to explain the investment mistakes of under

diversification, inertia in risk taking and delayed selling of investments on which households 

have incurred losses in the hope that they will recover them.169 Using the entire population of 

Sweden as a data set, the study concluded that the financial sophistication index increased 

strongly with wealth. The study also summarized existing empirical literature, noting that 

“growing empirical literature documents a cross-sectional correlation between household 

characteristics and investment mistakes. Richer, better educated households tend to be better 

diversified, display less inertia, and have a weaker disposition to hold losing and sell winning 

stocks than other households.” Financial literacy surveys reflect similar results. For example, a 

2012 study by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Investor Education 

Foundation found that higher income individuals correctly answered 3.5 out of five questions on

a financial literacy quiz compared to only 2.2 correct responses for lower income individuals.170

The reasons underlying the correlation between wealth and sophistication found in the studies 

 

study was based on information obtained from UBS PaineWebber/Gallup on U.S. individual investors.

168 Ravi Dhar and Ning Zhu, Up Close and Personal: Investor Sophistication and the Disposition Effect, 

Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 5 (2006).

169 Laurent E. Calvet, John Y. Campbell and Paolo Sodini, Measuring the Financial Sophistication of 

Households, American Economic Review, Vol. 99, No. 2 (2009). 

170 Financial Capability in the United States – 2012 Report of National Findings, FINRA Investor Education 

Foundation (May 2013), available at 

http://www.usfinancialcapability.org/downloads/NFCS_2012_Report_Natl_Findings.pdf.
46

and surveys are not definitively known. Higher net worth and higher income investors may 

make more rational investment decisions based on past investing experience or outside factors 

such as education levels or by learning through social interactions.

171 They may also have more 

access to information and technology and may more frequently use outside professional advisors. 

Regardless of the underlying reasons, however, these findings appear to support the continued

use of financial thresholds as one method of qualifying as an accredited investor.

C. Potential Adjustments to Income and Net Worth

A number of commenters recommend potential adjustments to the accredited investor 

definition as it relates to the income and net worth thresholds. These potential adjustments range 

from changing the thresholds themselves to implementing revised or alternative financial criteria.

Adjustments to the Income and Net Worth Thresholds

As previously noted, the individual income threshold has not been adjusted since 1982, 

the joint income threshold has not been adjusted since 1988 and the net worth threshold has only 

been revised since 1982 to exclude the value of a person’s residence. In 2007, the Commission 

proposed adjusting the thresholds for inflation on a going-forward basis every five years 

beginning in 2012.172 The Commission noted a staff report indicating that “inflation, along with 

the sustained growth in wealth and income of the 1990s, has boosted a substantial number of 

investors past the accredited investor standard.”173 The Commission further noted that not 

 

171 See, e.g., Jeffrey R. Brown, Zoran Ivković, Paul A. Smith and Scott Weisbenner, Neighbors Matter: Causal 

Community Effects and Stock Market Participation, Journal of Finance, Vol. 63, No. 3 (2008). See also, 

Luigi Guiso and Tullio Jappelli, Awareness and Stock Market Participation, Review of Finance, Vol. 9, 

No. 4 (2005).

172 2007 Proposing Release. The adjustment would have reflected any changes in the value of the PCE (or any 

successor thereto) from December 31, 2006.

173 2007 Proposing Release, quoting Implication of the Growth of Hedge Funds, Staff Report to the U.S. 
47

adjusting the thresholds for inflation has effectively lowered them.174 The Commission, 

however, noted that raising the thresholds significantly may have undesirable results if issuers 

return to the practice of conducting private placements under the Section 4(a)(2) statutory 

exemption rather than Regulation D.175

As Table 4.1 indicates, inflation has eroded considerably the individual income and net 

worth thresholds since their adoption in 1982 and the joint income threshold since its adoption in 

1988.

176

Table 4.1 Inflation Adjustments

Current Standard Current Standard 

Adjusted for 

Inflation (CPI)

Current Standard 

Adjusted for 

Inflation (PCE)

Individual Income $200,000 $490,819 $432,265

Joint Income $300,000 $600,558 $528,906

Net Worth $1,000,000 $2,454,093 $2,161,326

Table 4.2 provides information about the approximate number and percentage of U.S. 

households that qualified as accredited investors in 1983, qualify as accredited investors 

currently, and would qualify as accredited investors if the thresholds were adjusted for 

 

Securities and Exchange Commission (Sept. 2003) (the “Staff Hedge Fund Report”), available at 

http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/hedgefunds0903.pdf.

174 2007 Proposing Release.

175 The undesirable results the Commission noted were expenses and complications of multi-state securities 

law compliance, case law uncertainty associated with the Section 4(a)(2) exemption and the lack of Form D 

filings.

176 Information in the table is based on August 31, 2015 CPI and PCE data and does not reflect the exclusion 

of the primary residence from the net worth thresholds.
48

inflation.177 Information about the number of qualifying households that actually participate as 

accredited investors in private securities offerings is not available.

Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Accredited Investor Households

Basis for Qualifying as 

Accredited Investor

Number (in Millions) and

Percentage of Qualifying Households*

Current 

Thresholds in 

1983

Current 

Thresholds in 

2013

CPI Adjusted 

Thresholds in 

2013

PCE Adjusted 

Thresholds in 

2013

# % # % # % # %

Individual Income 0.44 0.5% 8.07 6.6% 2.11 1.7% 2.41 2.0%

Net Worth** 1.42 1.7% 9.22 7.5% 3.86 3.1% 4.49 3.7%

Individual Income

or Net Worth

1.51 1.8% 12.40 10.1% 4.37 3.6% 5.06 4.1%

* Total number of households equaled 83.9 million in 1983 and 122.5 million in 2013.

** Net worth calculations for 2013 exclude the value of primary residences.

The 1.51 million households qualifying in 1983 represented approximately 1.8% of U.S. 

households, while the 12.38 million qualifying in 2013 represented approximately 10.1% of U.S. 

households. Adjusting the income and net worth thresholds for inflation would reduce 

significantly the number of individuals that qualify as accredited investors under those tests. 

Using CPI, the percentage of qualifying households would fall to approximately 3.6% of total 

households and using PCE the percentage would fall to approximately 4.1%. In each case, 

however, the number of qualifying households would still be approximately three times as large 

as in 1983.

 

177 Information in the table is based on data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances 

(the “SCF”) for 1983 and 2013. The SCF is a triennial survey. See Section X for definitions of income and 

net worth used in the analysis. The income and net worth data underlying the number of qualifying 

households is estimated in 2015 dollars.
49

Some commenters favor raising the financial thresholds based on investor protection 

concerns.

178 Commenters opposed to any increase cite the critical importance of the exempt

offering market to the economy, arguing that decreasing the size of the accredited investor pool 

by raising the thresholds would adversely affect the market and small businesses seeking 

capital.

179 Raising the financial thresholds could restrict some investors’ access to investments 

that are uncorrelated to their existing investment portfolios, thereby restricting their ability to 

diversify the risk of investment loss. Additionally, some commenters are concerned that raising 

the financial thresholds in the accredited investor definition would have a disproportionate 

impact in less wealthy areas of the country.180

Some commenters support automatic inflation adjustments to the financial thresholds181

while others opposed automatic adjustments.182 One commenter notes that automatic inflation 

adjustments could eventually result in Investment Company Act Section 3(c)(1)183 funds having 

 

178 See, e.g., 2013 NASAA Letter; AFL-CIO Letter; ICI Letter.

179 See, e.g., letters from National Small Business Association (Sept. 23, 2013); South Carolina Small Business 

Chamber of Commerce (Sept. 17, 2014) (the “SCSBCC Letter”); Angel Capital Association (Feb. 28, 

2014). Many “angel investors” also have submitted comment letters echoing the concerns expressed in this 

letter. Some commenters oppose increasing the thresholds but did not cite market impacts. See, e.g., letters 

from Gunderson Dettmer (Sept. 23, 2013) (the “Gunderson Dettmer Letter”) (stating that the current 

thresholds are appropriate and that net worth is a reasonable proxy for determining investor sophistication, 

but the definition should be expanded to include alternative criteria); Real Estate Investment Securities 

Association (Sept. 23, 2013) (stating that the current thresholds are sufficient to ensure that investors have

the financial sophistication to make an investment determination and the ability to absorb losses).

180 See, e.g., SCSBCC Letter; letter from Small Business Investor Alliance (Oct. 8, 2014).

181 See, e.g., ACSEC Recommendations; letter from WealthForge (Sept. 23, 2013) (suggesting inflation 

adjustments on a going-forward basis to the extent the Commission decides to change the income and net 

worth thresholds).

182 See, e.g., letter from Managed Funds Association (Oct. 19, 2007) (the “2007 MFA Letter”).

183 15 USC 80a-3(c)(1).
50

higher thresholds than Section 3(c)(7) funds.184

Adjustments to the Calculation of Income and Net Worth

As noted above, Regulation D does not define the term “income” and only limited

guidance exists about its interpretation. Some commenters suggest that specifically excluding 

certain income sources or using an alternative term, such as “disposable income,” would more 

appropriately capture the set of individuals with sufficient discretionary funds to bear investment 

risks.185

With respect to net worth, the Dodd-Frank Act excluded the value of primary residences

from the accredited investor net worth calculation186 and the Commission excluded any positive 

equity individuals have in their primary residences.

187 Some commenters suggest that other asset 

categories, such as retirement assets, also should be excluded from the calculation.188 Table 

4.3189 illustrates the effect that excluding retirement assets would have on the number and 

percentage of U.S. households that qualify as accredited investors based on net worth.

 

184 2007 MFA Letter.

185 See, e.g., letters from Karen Orso (Sept. 5, 2013); Kriss Kirchhoff (Aug. 15, 2013).

186 Dodd-Frank Act § 413(a).

187 Primary Residence Adopting Release.

188 See, e.g., Brown Letter; Investor Advisory Committee Recommendation.

189 Information in the table is based on the SCF for 2013. As used in the SCF, retirement assets are quasiliquid assets that include IRA/KEOGH accounts, thrift-type retirement accounts, future pension assets and 

current pension assets.
51

Table 4.3 Exclusion of Retirement Assets from Net Worth Calculation

Including Retirement Assets Excluding Retirement Assets

Number of 

Households*

Percentage of 

Households*

Number of 

Households*

Percentage of 

Households*

Current Net Worth

($1,000,000)

9.21 7.5% 6.75 5.5%

Inflation Adjusted (CPI) 

Net Worth ($2,454,093)

3.86 3.1% 3.05 2.5%

Inflation Adjusted (PCE) 

Net Worth ($2,161,326)

4.48 3.7% 3.34 2.7%

* Number of households in millions. Percentages based on 122.5 million total households.

Of the 12.4 million U.S. households that currently qualify as accredited investors, 2.5 

million, or approximately 20.3%, are comprised solely of retirees.190 Commenters who support 

excluding retirement assets argue that those assets are not an indicator of sophistication and that 

the illiquid nature of private offerings poses risks to retirees who depend on their investments as 

a source of regular income.191 In addition, excluding retirement assets from the net worth 

calculation could have a more proportionate impact across the country than raising the income or 

net worth thresholds, which may have a disproportionate impact in less wealthy areas.192 

Excluding retirement assets, however, could have the unintended consequence of discouraging

individuals seeking to meet the net worth threshold from contributing to retirement plans or even 

 

190 Based on the SCF for 2013.

191 See, e.g., Brown Letter; Investor Advisory Committee Recommendation.

192 Households in the South region of the United States have the lowest mean and median net worth relative to 

households in the other three regions (Northeast, Midwest and West). In 2013, the median net worth for a 

household in the South region was $69,500 compared to $129,800 for a household in the Northeast region. 

Retirement account values show a similar trend. Federal Reserve Board, 2013 SCF Chartbook, available at 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/files/BulletinCharts.pdf.
52

encouraging them to withdraw assets from retirement plans. In addition, defining what assets are 

included in or excluded from the term “retirement assets” could be difficult.

193

Percentage-Based Adjustments to Income and Net Worth

Currently, the income and net worth financial thresholds are based on fixed dollar 

amounts and the results are absolute. An individual who exceeds the income or net worth 

threshold by one dollar can invest an unlimited amount in private offerings, while an individual 

who falls below the thresholds by one dollar cannot invest any amount at all. Including 

investment thresholds or limitations in the accredited investor definition based on a percentage of 

net worth or income would lead to less absolute results.

Other Commission rules contain investment limitations. For example, amended 

Regulation A limits the amount of securities non-accredited investors can purchase in certain of 

those offerings to no more than 10% of the greater of their annual income or their net worth.194 

In adopting the investment limitation, the Commission noted that the limits should help mitigate 

any concerns that non-accredited investors may be unable to absorb the potential loss of the 

investment.

195 In addition, recently adopted securities-based crowdfunding regulations196 under 

Section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act197 contain aggregate individual investment limitations based 

on income and net worth.

198

 

193 See ACSEC Recommendations.

194 17 CFR 230.251(d)(2)(i)(C).

195 Regulation A+ Adopting Release.

196 Crowdfunding, Release No. 33-9974 (Oct. 30, 2015).

197 15 USC 77d(a)(6).

198 17 CFR 227.100(a)(2). An investor is limited to investing, in aggregate across all issuers in a 12- month 
53

Some commenters suggest permitting all individuals to invest up to a certain percentage 

of their income or net worth in private offerings.199 Other commenters recommend allowing only 

individuals who exhibit some indicia of sophistication to invest a certain percentage of their 

income or net worth in private offerings.200 Similarly, the original accredited investor definition 

in Rule 501(a) provided that a person investing at least $150,000 in an offering qualified as an 

accredited investor so long as the amount purchased did not exceed 20 percent of the person’s 

net worth.201 Permitting all individuals, or those who exhibit some indicia of financial 

sophistication, to invest in private offerings subject to an investment cap could expand 

significantly the accredited investor pool while limiting potential losses from any one specific 

investment. While investment limitations may be beneficial in limiting losses, they would not 

serve as proxies for financial sophistication or identify those individuals who are able to fend for 

themselves and thus may not, unless coupled with other relevant criteria, serve as effective 

 

period (1) the greater of: $2,000 or five percent of the lesser of the investor’s annual income or net worth, if 

either annual income or net worth are less than $100,000, or (2) ten percent of the lesser of the investor’s 

annual income or net worth, not to exceed $100,000, if both annual income or net worth are $100,000 or 

more. These limitations apply to both accredited and non-accredited investors.

199 See, e.g., letter from Joseph Karwat (Aug. 20, 2013) (suggesting that investors be permitted to invest up to 

five percent of their net worth plus income in start-up companies every year, regardless of income and net 

worth levels).

200 See, e.g., letters from National Investment Banking Association (Sept. 23, 2013) (the “NIBA Letter”)

(suggesting that individuals with relevant professional experience, academic credentials, or investment 

experience should be accredited with respect to some level of investment defined as a percentage of net 

worth or income); Stephanie Lee (Sept. 24, 2013) (suggesting an expansion of the accredited investor base 

by allowing for investments as a percentage of net worth from “qualified investors”); Angel Capital Group 

(July 22, 2014) (suggesting that “sophisticated” investors with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 be 

permitted to invest up to five percent of their income, “sophisticated” investors with incomes between 

$100,000 and $200,000 be permitted to invest up to ten percent of their income, and “sophisticated” 

investors with incomes over $200,000 be unrestricted in the amount they can invest).

201 See Regulation D Adopting Release. The Commission eliminated the provision in 1988, noting that “size 

of purchase alone, particularly at the $150,000 level, does not assure sophistication or access to 

information.” Regulation D Revisions Adopting Release.
54

indicators of those individuals who do not require the protections of registration.

Some commenters suggest imposing limitations on the amount accredited investors can 

invest in private offerings.202 This approach would not affect the size of the accredited investor 

pool, but could decrease the amount of capital available for investment in the private placement 

market.203 Imposing investment limitations could promote diversification and help to protect 

against accredited investors incurring unaffordable losses. Investment limitations could be 

implemented in any number of ways. For example:

• An investment limitation could apply evenly across the spectrum of accredited 

investors where all investors would be subject to the same percentage limitation. This 

approach would protect all accredited investors from substantial losses, but would 

adversely impact the accredited investors who are most able to incur losses.

• An investment limitation could gradually decrease as net worth or income increases 

until the limitation is eventually eliminated. This approach would protect those 

accredited investors who are least able to incur losses and have less of an impact on 

those accredited investors who are most capable.

• Separately or in conjunction with the above approaches, investment limitations could 

apply on a per issuer basis, a per investment basis or an aggregate investments per 

investor basis.

Some commenters, however, raise concerns that implementing any type of percentage-based 

investment limitation would add complexity to the accredited investor definition and may prove 

 

202 See, e.g., letters from AARP (Sept. 24, 2013) (the “AARP Letter”) (suggesting that, like the JOBS Act’s 

crowdfunding investment percentage limitation, “the Commission should consider whether there should be 

a limit on how much even an accredited investor can invest in a Rule 506 Regulation D offering”); Artivest 

(Sept. 19, 2013) (the “Artivest Letter”) (suggesting that investors should not be permitted to invest more 

than a certain percentage of net worth or liquid assets into certain types of products); Investor Advisory 

Committee Recommendation.

203 Because the current average private placement investment size is unknown, it is unclear how significantly 

investment limitations would affect the amount of capital available for investment in the private placement 

market. To the extent investors generally invest less than any contemplated limitations, the impact on 

available capital would be minimal.
55

to be difficult to administer.204

Alternatives to Net Worth

Several commenters suggest that the amount of a person’s investments may be more 

accurate than a person’s net worth as an indicator of sophistication and ability to fend for 

oneself.205 The GAO Report also indicates that this sentiment exists among market participants.

In 2007, the Commission proposed adding a $750,000 “investments-owned” standard as 

an additional and alternative method of establishing accredited investor status. 206 The 

Commission noted that an investments-owned standard was a potentially more accurate method 

of assessing an investor’s need for the protections of registration under the Securities Act than

existing standards. The Commission noted that $750,000 “is the same as the dollar-amount 

threshold initially proposed in Regulation D for the asset test, which, as initially proposed, 

excluded certain assets, including personal residences. The assets threshold was increased to $1 

million and adopted for the sake of simplicity and reflected a $250,000 increase in large part to 

account for the value of the primary residence.” Commenters generally supported an 

investments-owned test.207

 

204 See, e.g., Gunderson Dettmer Letter (indicating that “[w]hile such a formula could, theoretically, produce a 

more appropriate test, we are not convinced that the benefits of such a formula outweigh the complexity in 

understanding and administering such a requirement.”).

205 See, e.g., AARP Letter; ICI Letter; letter from Securities Regulation Committee of the Business Law 

Section of the New York State Bar Association (Sept. 23, 2013) (the “NYS Bar Letter”); Investor Advisory 

Committee Recommendation.

206 See 2007 Proposing Release.

207 See, e.g., 2007 MFA Letter; letters from Committees on Federal Regulation of Securities, Middle Market 

and Small Business, and State Regulation of Securities of the American Bar Association (Oct. 12, 2007) 

(the “ABA Letter); North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc. (Oct. 26, 2007) (the “2007 

NASAA Letter”); Investment Program Association (Oct. 9, 2007); Massachusetts Securities Division (Oct. 

12, 2007) (the “Massachusetts Securities Division Letter”); National Association of Small Business 

Investment Companies (Oct. 8, 2007); National Venture Capital Association (Oct. 9, 2007) (the “NVCA 
56

The Commission proposed to define “investments” based on the definition used in 

Investment Company Act Rule 2a51-1(b) for purposes of the “qualified purchaser” definition.208 

As discussed above, in addition to securities, that definition includes real estate, physical 

commodities, commodity interests and financial contracts, in each case if held or entered into for 

investment purposes. When adopting Rule 2a51-1, the Commission noted that “the legislative 

history [of NSMIA] suggests that the asset should be held for investment purposes and that the 

nature of the asset should indicate that its holder has the investment experience and 

sophistication necessary to evaluate the risks of investing ...”209 Additionally, controlling 

interests in an issuer generally do not qualify as investments under Rule 2a51-1(b). The 

Commission noted that “limiting the definition in this manner is designed to exclude, among 

other things, controlling ownership interests in family-owned and other closely-held 

businesses.”210

Some commenters characterized the 2007 proposed definition of investments as too 

narrow or proposed a more principles-based approach.211 A principles-based approach, however, 

may add additional subjective factors to the calculation of investments-owned or shift the focus 

 

Letter”); John C. Melton (Oct. 9, 2007) (the “Melton Letter”).

208 The 2007 Proposing Release noted that the proposed definition is substantively the same as the definition 

proposed in December 2006 in the Private Pooled Investment Vehicle Release. The Private Pooled 

Investment Vehicle Release based the definition of investments on the Investment Company Act definition 

because it would provide a bright-line standard for ascertaining an investor’s status.

209 See Privately Offered Investment Companies Adopting Release. NSMIA required the Commission to 

define the term “investments” for purposes of the qualified purchaser definition.

210 Id.

211 See, e.g., ABA Letter (suggesting a principles-based approach and questioning the exclusion of securities 

of private controlled companies); letter from Committee on Securities Law of the Business Law Section of 

the Maryland State Bar Association (Oct. 9, 2007) (the “Maryland State Bar Letter”) (suggesting that the 

proposed definition was unnecessarily narrow by excluding, for example, secondary residences).
57

away from investing experience. Other commenters stated that adopting the same definition as 

used in the Investment Company Act would promote issuer compliance and investor 

understanding.212

Another possible approach to defining “investments” would be to limit the definition to 

investments in securities or liquid assets. The GAO Report described market participant support 

for the inclusion of an investment-based test measured by investments that could be easily 

liquidated to cover losses.

213 Regardless of the approach taken to define investments, an 

important consideration would be whether the definition contains bright-line standards that 

minimize the need for subjective evaluations.

D. Potential New Criteria

Many commenters who believe income and net worth are not accurate proxies for 

investor sophistication suggest alternative approaches for determining accredited investor status. 

Some commenters generally recommend including alternative measures of sophistication in the 

definition214 while others suggest specific approaches based on criteria such as investors’

education, profession, investing experience, relationships with issuers, use of financial 

intermediaries and financial expertise. Although these criteria do not correlate to an investor’s 

ability to bear financial losses, some commenters suggest they may effectively identify persons 

who do not need the protections of registration.

 

212 See, e.g., letter from Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (Oct. 9, 2007) (the “Katten Muchin Letter”).

213 The GAO Report defined “liquid investments” as “assets that can be easily sold, are marketable, and the 

value of which can be verified by a financial institution.”

214 See, e.g., ACSEC Recommendations; GAO Report.
58

Education

Many commenters state that certain educational backgrounds more appropriately reflect 

investor sophistication than financial metrics and have suggested criteria such as college 

degrees215 and advanced degrees in relevant areas216 for the accredited investor definition. While 

certain types of degrees likely imply knowledge in the areas of finance and investing,217 a 

challenge with this suggested approach could be determining which degrees would be sufficient 

for an individual to qualify as an accredited investor. This approach could also be difficult to 

administer because of the different types of institutions that grant degrees. For example, should 

the Commission consider differently a graduate degree in finance from an unaccredited 

institution and an undergraduate business degree from a university with a well-established 

finance curriculum? This problem could be exacerbated when one considers the various career 

paths that degree holders can take. For instance, a corporate securities attorney and an 

environmental attorney both have law degrees, but, based on professional experience alone, it is 

probable that their knowledge of finance and investing is not equivalent. 

Business Experience and Professional Certifications

Commenters also suggest that the accredited investor definition should consider an 

individual’s financial and business sophistication and include criteria such as having operated a 

 

215 See, e.g., letter from Association for Corporate Growth (Sept. 23, 2013) (the “ACG Letter”).

216 See, e.g., NIBA Letter (suggesting post-graduate MBAs in business and/or finance); letters from Charles 

Sidman (Sept. 23, 2013) (the “Sidman Letter”) (suggesting a Masters or Doctorate in business, economics 

or finance from an accredited educational institution); SeedInvest (June 8, 2014) (the “SeedInvest Letter”) 

(suggesting a Masters of Business Administration; a masters or doctorate in finance, economics, business 

or a related field of study; and a Juris Doctor); EarlyShares.com (Aug. 4, 2014) (the “EarlyShares Letter”) 

(suggesting a new designation for “sophisticated investors” to qualify as accredited investors, including 

individuals with relevant advanced degrees).

217 See, e.g., Charlotte Christiansen, Juanna Schröter Joensen and Jesper Rangvid, Are Economists More Likely 

to Hold Stocks?, Review of Finance, Vol. 12, No. 3 (2008).
59

business or being a certified public accountant (“CPA”), chartered financial analyst (“CFA”),

certified financial planner (“CFP”), investment adviser representative or broker-dealer registered 

representative.

218 Some commenters note that under the current accredited investor definition, 

individuals with relevant credentials may be qualified to provide advice to investors on private 

placement offerings, even though they may not qualify as accredited investors and may not be 

able to participate in the offerings in their personal capacities.219

A challenge with this approach could be determining which professional certifications 

and designations would be sufficient for an individual to qualify as an accredited investor. 

Certain professional certifications and designations may, however, provide demonstrable 

evidence of investor sophistication. For example, FINRA administers a number of examinations 

that test an individual’s knowledge and understanding in the areas of securities and investing, 

and individuals must pass examinations to become CPAs, CFAs and CFPs.

• Series 7 General Securities Representative Examination. The Series 7 “qualifies a 

candidate for the solicitation, purchase, and/or sale of all securities products, 

including corporate securities, municipal securities, municipal fund securities, 

 

218 See, e.g., Gunderson Dettmer Letter (stating that “being a CPA, CFA, attorney or registered investment 

adviser (to include someone who has taken and passed a Series 65 or 63 exam) represents an objective 

measure of one’s ability to understand the financial and business complexities associated with a private 

offering.”); Artivest Letter (suggesting that financial services professionals and others having financial 

experience, such as certified financial advisers and accountants, should be permitted to participate in Rule 

506 offerings); SeedInvest Letter (suggesting individuals with professional designations (J.D., CPA, CFA, 

CSIP, etc.) or who hold securities licenses should be accredited); ACG Letter (suggesting business 

background as a factor that might be considered in determining whether an investor is accredited); 

EarlyShares Letter (suggesting a new designation for “sophisticated investors” to qualify as accredited 

investors, including individuals with relevant professional designations such as MBA, CFA and Series 7); 

letters from Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (Dec. 19, 2014) (stating that the CFP 

certification should be included in the event the Commission determines that certain degrees and 

certifications should qualify individuals as accredited investors); Intellivest Securities, Inc. (July 10, 2013) 

(suggesting alternative methods to become an accredited investor such as having a securities license or a 

CPA designation, admission to the bar, education or experience running a business); U.S. Representatives 

Patrick McHenry and Scott Garrett (Oct. 30, 2013); Investor Advisory Committee Recommendation; Small 

Business Forum Report.

219 See, e.g., letter from CrowdFund Intermediary Regulatory Advocates (Aug. 25, 2014).
60

options, direct participation programs, investment company products, and variable

contracts.”220

• Series 65 Uniform Investment Adviser Law Examination. The Series 65 is designed 

to qualify candidates as investment adviser representatives and covers topics 

necessary for adviser representatives to understand to provide investment advice to 

retail advisory clients.

221 NASAA developed the Series 65 examination and FINRA 

administers it.

• Series 82 Limited Representative-Private Securities Offering Qualification 

Examination. The Series 82 qualifies individuals seeking to effect the sales of private 

securities offerings.222 It focuses on private transactions and is more limited in scope 

than the Series 7 examination. Because most individuals take the Series 7 

examination, a relatively small number of individuals take the Series 82 examination 

in any year.

• Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination (the “CPA Exam”). The CPA 

Exam consists of four sections designed by the American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants, including a Business Environment and Concepts section. Among other 

topics, the Business Environment and Concepts section tests for knowledge of 

corporate governance, economics and finance. 223

• CFA Examinations. The CFA program is designed to provide individuals with 

investment analysis and portfolio management skills. To become a CFA, an 

individual must complete three CFA Institute administered examinations and have 

four years of relevant professional work experience.224

• CFP Examination. The CFP Certification Examination is designed to assess an 

individual’s ability to apply financial planning knowledge to real-life financial 

planning situations.225

 

If individuals who passed third-party examinations designed for other purposes were deemed to 

 

220 http://www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/Registration/QualificationsExams/Qualifications/P011051.

221 http://www.nasaa.org/industry-resources/exams/series-65-66-resources/series-65-study-guide/. 

222 http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@comp/@regis/documents/industry/p011064.pdf.

223 http://www.aicpa.org/BECOMEACPA/CPAEXAM/Pages/CPAExam.aspx.

224 http://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/cfaprogram/charterholder/Pages/index.aspx.

225 http://www.cfp.net/become-a-cfp-professional/cfp-certification-requirements/cfp-exam-requirement/aboutcfp-exam.
61

be accredited investors, the Commission may need to review periodically the definition to ensure 

that the standards underlying the examinations continue to identify persons having the requisite 

financial sophistication to invest in private securities markets. Another potential problem with 

this approach could be that some individuals who obtain certifications and designations may not 

practice in fields related to the certifications or designations. For these individuals, the validity 

of the credential as a proxy for financial sophistication could be lessened, especially if a 

substantial amount of time has elapsed since obtaining the certification or designation. This 

concern, however, could be mitigated for individuals who maintain active certifications or 

designations.

Use of Professionals

Some commenters believe that individuals who are advised by professionals should be 

considered accredited investors.226 Professionals may be able to evaluate the risks and benefits of 

a particular offering, and help their clients understand those risks and benefits. Regulation D, 

however, already contains a mechanism for individuals to participate in offerings made in 

reliance on Rule 506(b) by using “purchaser representatives” even if, acting alone, they may lack 

the requisite knowledge and experience to independently evaluate the merits and risks of the 

offerings.227 Purchaser representatives must be capable of evaluating the merits and risks of each 

 

226 See, e.g., Artivest Letter (suggesting that financial services professionals, as well as certain others having 

financial experience, such as financial advisers, accountants, etc., should be permitted to invest in Rule 506 

offerings); SeedInvest Letter (suggesting that individuals who have consulted a licensed expert and act in 

accordance with their recommendations should be deemed to be able to fend for themselves); letters from 

Investment Adviser Association (Sept. 23, 2013) (recommending that the Commission consider the GAO 

Report’s finding that some market participants supported alternative criteria such as use of an investment 

adviser); Morrison & Foerster LLP (Sept. 23, 2013) (the “Morrison Foerster Letter”) (suggesting including 

non-accredited investors advised by an “investment professional”).

227 Rule 506(b) allows up to 35 non-accredited investors to participate in an offering if they, alone or together 

with a purchaser representative, have such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that 
62

prospective investment.228 An issuer selling to these non-accredited individuals must provide 

them with certain information about the issuer, including financial information.229 Revising the 

accredited investor definition to include individuals advised by professionals appears to run 

counter to the Commission’s prior determination to allow persons who are unable to evaluate the 

merits and risks of private offerings to participate in those offerings only if the issuer provides 

them with additional information about the issuer. In addition, there may be significant overlap 

between individuals who receive advice from professionals and those who meet the existing 

financial standards in the accredited investor definition.230

Investing Experience in Private Markets

Some commenters recommend considering individuals’ investing experience,

231 possibly 

as evidenced by membership in an established “angel” investing group,

232 when determining 

whether they are accredited investors. Angel investors provide capital to start-up businesses, 

 

they are capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospective investment, or the issuer reasonably 

believes immediately prior to making any sale that these investors come within this description.

228 “Purchaser representative” is defined in Rule 501(i). Other conditions to being a purchaser representative 

relate to a purchaser representative’s relationship to the issuer, disclosures a purchaser representative must 

provide the purchaser and a written acknowledgement from the purchaser. The Commission’s Investor 

Advisory Committee recommends prohibiting purchaser representatives from having any personal financial 

stake in the investment being recommended, prohibiting purchaser representatives from accepting 

compensation from the issuer and requiring purchaser representatives who are compensated by the 

purchaser to accept a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the purchaser. Investor Advisory 

Committee Recommendation.

229 Rule 502(b). In some cases, issuers must provide information equivalent to that which they would be 

required to provide in a registration statement. Given the adoption of amended Regulation A and 

securities-based crowdfunding rules, the Commission could consider whether scaled disclosure 

requirements are appropriate.

230 See Figure 10.5 and the accompanying text for additional information about the use of professionals by 

U.S. households that qualify as accredited investors.

231 See, e.g., ACG Letter; Investor Advisory Committee Recommendation.

232 See, e.g., Sidman Letter; Investor Advisory Committee Recommendation.
63

either individually or as a group of investors.233 A marketplace survey reported that, in 2014,

there were approximately 316,600 active angel investors in the United States and angel investing 

funded 73,400 entrepreneurial ventures.234 According to the survey, the average angel deal size 

in 2013 was $328,500. Angel investors appear to have an average of nine years of angel 

investing experience and have made an average of ten investments.235 Angel groups screen 

potential investments, perform due diligence, negotiate investment terms and make valuation 

determinations.236

The United Kingdom allows individuals to declare that they are “self-certified 

sophisticated investors” based on, among other criteria, having been a member in a network or 

syndicate of business angels for at least the last six months or having made more than one 

investment in an unlisted company in the last two years.

237 These criteria may correlate to an 

individual’s knowledge of the private securities markets generally, including the risks associated 

with investing in those markets. Defining the angel groups that qualify, or the standards by 

 

233 See generally Abraham J.B. Cable, Fending for Themselves: Why Securities Regulations Should Encourage 

Angel Groups, 13 U. Pa. J. Bus. L. 107 (2010).

234 See Jeffrey Sohl, The Angel Investor Market in 2014: A Market Correction in Deal Size, Center for Venture 

Research (May 14, 2015).

235 See Angel Investors – Critical Initiators of Startups and Job Creation, Angel Capital Association, 

Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation (Nov. 21, 2013), available at 

http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/sbforum112113-materials-mirabile.pdf (indicating that angel investors 

have a median of nine years investing and a median of ten investments); Robert Wiltbank, At the Individual 

Level: Outlining Angel Investing in the United States, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s 

Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship (Feb. 2005) 

(finding that on average each investor had invested in nine investments over ten years); Robert Wiltbank

and Warren Boeker, Returns to Angel Investors in Groups, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and Angel 

Capital Education Foundation (Nov. 2007) (finding that the typical group-affiliated angel investor has been 

investing for just over nine years on average, and has made slightly more than one investment per year).

236 See Abraham J.B. Cable, Fending for Themselves: Why Securities Regulations Should Encourage Angel 

Groups.

237 COBS § 4.12.8.
64

which such groups may qualify, however, could present significant interpretive challenges. If 

the definition included a minimum number of investments in private offerings as a criteria, it 

could be difficult for individuals who were not previously accredited investors to qualify because 

few non-accredited investors participate in such offerings.

238 In addition, because not all types of 

exempt offerings give investors the relevant experience for Regulation D investments,

239 the 

types of exempt offerings that qualify for this criteria may need to be limited.

Knowledgeable Employees

Several commenters recommend expanding the accredited investor definition to include

an issuer’s knowledgeable employees.

240 Certain commenters241 specifically recommend

including “knowledgeable employees” of private funds as defined in Rule 3c-5 of the Investment 

Company Act.242 That definition includes executive officers, directors, trustees, general partners, 

advisory board members, or persons serving in similar capacities, of the “covered company”243 or 

an “affiliated management person”244 of the covered company as well as employees who, in 

connection with their regular duties participate and have participated for at least twelve months, 

 

238 There are ways individuals could conceivably qualify. For instance, an individual could participate as a 

non-accredited investor in Rule 505 or Rule 506(b) offerings, to the extent those opportunities are 

available.

239 For instance, participation in crowdfunding transactions.

240 See, e.g., Morrison Foerster Letter; NYS Bar Letter; Artivest Letter; letter from Managed Funds 

Association (Sept. 23, 2013) (the “2013 MFA Letter”).

241 See, e.g., NYS Bar Letter; 2013 MFA Letter.

242 17 CFR 270.3c-5.

243 “Covered companies” are private funds that fall within the scope of Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 

Investment Company Act. Investment Company Act Rule 3c-5(a)(2) & (5)-(6) (17 CFR 270.3c-5(a)(2) & 

(5)-(6)).

244 An “affiliated management person” is an affiliated person that manages the investment activities of a 

covered company. Investment Company Act Rule 3c-5(a)(1) (17 CFR 270.3c-5(a)(1)).
65

in a non-clerical or administrative manner, in investment activities.

245 Rule 501(a)(4)246 of the 

accredited investor definition already includes officers, directors and general partners. 

Expanding the definition in this manner would allow trustees, advisory board members and 

certain investment fund professionals to participate in their funds’ private offerings. A private 

fund’s knowledgeable employees likely have meaningful investing experience and sufficient 

access to the information necessary to make informed investment decisions about the fund’s 

offerings.

Accredited Investor Examination

Some commenters recommend permitting individuals to become accredited investors by 

passing an examination that tests their investing and market knowledge.247 An accredited 

investor examination could be a universal criteria that would be available to anyone regardless of 

wealth, educational background, professional experience or any other factor. Individuals who 

are unable to qualify as accredited investors under any other criteria could take an examination 

as an alternative means to qualify.

Taking and passing an effectively designed accredited investor examination could reflect

 

245 17 CFR 270.3c-5(a)(4).

246 17 CFR 230.501(a)(4).

247 See, e.g., SeedInvest Letter (suggesting a standardized accredited investor test with publicly available 

results); EarlyShares Letter (suggesting that a licensing test be created); letter from SecondMarket (Sept. 

18, 2013) (recommending an examination “much like the examination that a potential registered 

representative takes to obtain a Series 7 license, to determine a natural person’s investment sophistication 

regardless of financial status”). See also Stephen Choi, Regulating Investors Not Issuers: A Market-Based 

Proposal (Dr. Choi’s focus was broader than the accredited investor definition. He proposed shifting the 

Commission’s regulatory focus from issuers to investors, with protections tailored to specific categories of 

investors.); Wallis K. Finger, Note, Unsophisticated Wealth: Reconsidering the SEC’s “Accredited 

Investor” Definition Under the 1933 Act (suggesting a licensing scheme based on accredited investor status 

and knowledge where accredited investors would be required to pass a short licensing exam and nonaccredited investors would be required to pass a longer exam to invest in exempt offerings); Investor 

Advisory Committee Recommendation; Small Business Forum Report.
66

individuals’ financial sophistication and understanding of private offerings and their ability to 

appreciate the risks involved in those offerings. Requiring that examination results be relatively 

recent (e.g., within five years) or requiring continuing education could help to ensure that 

investors remain informed of marketplace trends and risks and regulatory changes. Another 

advantage of an accredited investor examination is that issuers may be able to easily verify 

accredited investor status by asking investors for evidence that they have passed the examination. 

One academic also noted that an investor licensing model could increase the level of investmentrelated knowledge in the market.248

An accredited investor examination could include elements that test investors’ knowledge 

of the risks present in unregistered offerings, as well as financial and investing concepts in 

general. Portions of FINRA’s Series 7 and Series 82 examinations cover these areas and could 

potentially be used as a model for developing an accredited investor examination. Among other 

subjects, the Series 7 examination covers securities regulatory requirements, securities 

characteristics and financial analysis.249 Knowledge of the regulatory landscape is particularly 

important because individuals who invest in unregistered offerings should understand that they 

will generally not receive the type of information contained in a registration statement. The 

Series 7 examination consists of 250 multiple choice questions that candidates have six hours to 

complete. Among other subjects, the Series 82 examination similarly includes questions related 

to the regulation of the markets for registered and unregistered securities, securities 

 

248 See Stephen Choi, Regulating Investors Not Issuers: A Market-Based Proposal.

249 http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/Series_7_Outline.pdf.
67

characteristics and financial analysis.250 The scope of the Series 82 examination is more limited 

than the Series 7 examination because it focuses on private transactions. It contains 100 multiple 

choice questions that candidates have two-and-a-half hours to complete. Although these 

examinations may not test knowledge of every type of unregistered investment, they include a 

focus on private investments and the inherent risks in unregistered offerings.

Whether an accredited investor examination would be feasible depends on a number of 

factors, such as the cost of developing and administering the examination and the number of 

individuals who would take the examination. The Commission could explore the feasibility of 

developing an examination. If an accredited investor examination meeting the Commission’s 

standards could be developed, the Commission could recognize the examination for purposes of 

meeting the accredited investor definition.

V. Should the Accredited Investor Definition Be More Flexible?

With limited exceptions,251 individuals currently qualify as accredited investors based on 

fixed financial thresholds that apply to all transactions, irrespective of investor sophistication, the 

amount of information provided to investors or other transaction-specific factors. Many 

commenters recommend altering the current approach by looking to objective measures of 

sophistication as alternative accredited investor criteria.252 Under such an approach, investors 

with greater levels of demonstrable sophistication could be accredited despite having lower 

levels of assets or income. The current definition also does not consider issuer-specific factors,

 

250 http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/Series_82_Outline.pdf.

251 Rule 501(a)(4) provides that directors, executive officers and general partners of the issuer and its general 

partners qualify as accredited investors.

252 See, e.g., NYS Bar Letter; NIBA Letter.
68

such as whether the issuer is an operating company versus an investment fund. This section

considers the implications of adopting more flexible, issuer- and transaction-specific approaches

to the accredited investor definition.

A. Opportunities for Scaling

Sliding scale requirements could be based on a variety of criteria related to specific 

investors and transactions.

Type of Information Provided

Currently, Regulation D requires issuers in Rule 505 and 506(b) offerings to provide the 

financial and non-financial information specified in Rule 502(b) to prospective purchasers that 

are not accredited investors.253 Issuers in accredited investor-only offerings, including those 

made under Rule 506(c), have no such requirement. Nevertheless, companies and funds 

conducting private accredited investor-only offerings often provide prospective purchasers with 

some information about the issuer. The provision of issuer information to prospective purchasers 

in private offerings may provide an opportunity for scaling the financial thresholds in the 

accredited investor definition.

For example, the accredited investor definition could establish reduced financial 

thresholds that would expand the pool of accredited investors for offerings in which an issuer 

provides investors with prescribed information, such as audited financial statements. Under this 

potential framework, issuers relying on Rule 505 or 506 could sell securities:

• Exclusively to accredited investors under the default financial thresholds, without 

being required to provide financial or non-financial information;

 

253 A note to Rule 502(b)(1) indicates that when an issuer provides information to non-accredited investors, it 

should consider providing the information to accredited investors as well.
69

• To persons meeting reduced financial thresholds, if the issuer provides, for example,

audited financial statements; or

• To non-accredited investors, if the issuer provides the financial and non-financial 

information required by Rule 502(b).254

While including scaled financial thresholds in the accredited investor definition based on 

information provided to investors could afford issuers additional flexibility in conducting their 

offerings, it would add complexity to the definition and could increase transaction costs. These 

consequences could be offset by the larger pool of potential investors and an increased amount of 

capital available to invest in the offerings, which could reduce the cost of capital for issuers.

Type of Offering or Issuer

A more particularized approach to the accredited investor definition could require 

investors to meet heightened qualification standards for offerings with more intrinsic risks or 

complexities. While private fund investments may offer some advantages over investing in 

operating companies,

255 in 2006 the Commission noted that private pools have become 

increasingly complex and involve risks generally not associated with many other securities 

issuers.256 The regulation of private securities offerings based on risk levels, however, may not 

be feasible because of the challenge of categorizing investment risks and the possibility that 

some risks may erode or fluctuate over time.

 

254 This option would not apply to Rule 506(c) offerings, which are limited to accredited investors only.

255 See, e.g., John Morley, The Separation of Funds and Managers: A Theory of Investment Fund Structure 

and Regulation, 123 Yale L. J. 1228 (2014) (noting that investors in investment funds, such as hedge funds, 

can move their money by redeeming their investments, while investments in operating companies may be 

locked in and not removed unless companies pay dividends).

256 Private Pooled Investment Vehicle Release (restating concerns expressed in the Staff Hedge Fund Report).
70

Contextual Approach

Alternatively, or in conjunction with the objective criteria described above, a more 

flexible approach could involve a contextual evaluation of an investor’s attributes with respect to 

a particular offering. For example, in conjunction with scaled financial criteria, the accredited 

investor definition could use the fact-specific and contextual provisions of former Rule 146, 

under which investors could be accredited for some offerings but not others.

257 The Supreme 

Court in Ralston Purina also used a contextual approach by looking to the ability of offerees to 

obtain information about the offering. The concept of accrediting a narrow class of individuals 

deemed to be able to fend for themselves based on their knowledge and access to information,

even if those individuals would not otherwise meet the specific criteria in the accredited investor 

definition, is an additional example of the contextual approach.

Layered Approach

The accredited investor definition could layer a scaled approach onto existing or 

proposed accredited investor criteria. For example, two sets of financial criteria could be 

established – one set at the current thresholds that would be subject to absolute or percentagebased investment limitations and another set with higher thresholds that would not be subject to 

investment limitations. Similarly, absolute or percentage-based investment limitations could be 

imposed for individuals who do not meet certain financial thresholds, but who do meet other 

non-financial indicia of financial sophistication.

 

257 Former Rule 146(e) required that offerees either have access to or have been provided with the same kind 

of information specified in Schedule A of the Securities Act. A note to the rule explained that access could 

only exist by reason of the offeree’s position with respect to the issuer, and that position meant employment 

or family relationship or economic bargaining power that enables the offeree to obtain information from the 

issuer to evaluate the merits and risks of the prospective investment.
71

B. Advantages and Disadvantages of Scaling

Scaling provides opportunities to more closely mirror the considerations outlined in 

Ralston Purina than using fixed financial thresholds. Scaling could also yield more tailored 

results for investors and issuers. This benefit could be significant because while Regulation D 

originated as an effort to assist small business capital formation, today all sizes and classes of 

issuers rely on Regulation D for their offerings.258 A more flexible approach would perhaps 

better reflect the diversity of issuers that depend on Regulation D and individuals that seek to 

participate in these offerings. Scaling could also expand the pool and categories of eligible 

investors to reflect changes in the marketplace that have occurred since the adoption of 

Regulation D, including the increased amount of information available to many retail investors.

Another benefit of a more flexible approach is that it may better identify the persons the 

accredited investor definition was intended to cover. The definition was intended to encompass 

those individuals whose financial sophistication and ability to sustain investment losses or fend 

for themselves render Securities Act registration unnecessary. A test that addresses all of these 

characteristics could result in a more calibrated definition. For example, it may not be 

appropriate to accredit individuals based on financial sophistication alone because financial 

sophistication does not necessarily have any bearing on an individual’s ability to sustain losses or 

ability to obtain the information necessary to evaluate an offering. If an individual, however, has 

the financial sophistication to ask for and evaluate information to decide whether and how much 

to invest, and the bargaining power to obtain the information, then it may not be necessary for 

that individual to demonstrate that he or she has the ability to sustain losses.

 

258 See 2007 Proposing Release. See also Unregistered Offerings White Paper.
72

On the other hand, the flexibility associated with scaling may increase uncertainty and 

complexity in the application of the accredited investor definition. Regulation D simplifies

private placement offerings by using bright-line tests. A more flexible approach could require 

market participants to perform additional evaluations to determine whether potential investors 

are eligible to participate in a particular offering. The increased complexity would result in 

multiple pools of accredited investors containing different types of persons. This could create 

uncertainty in accredited investor-only trading venues or increase compliance costs for issuers. 

Lastly, the variety of issuers, investor profiles, asset classes and risks involved in private 

offerings could make a scaled approach difficult to implement. 

VI. Spouses and Spousal Equivalents

An individual, together with a spouse, may qualify as an accredited investor by

surpassing the $300,000 joint income threshold or the $1 million joint net worth threshold. The 

Commission did not define the term “spouse” for purposes of calculating joint net worth when it 

originally adopted Regulation D259 or for purposes of calculating joint income when it added the 

concept of joint income to the accredited investor definition in 1988. Historically, issuers and 

investors have faced uncertainties about whether persons in legally recognized unions such as 

domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriages were considered spouses for 

purposes of the accredited investor definition. Because of these uncertainties, commenters and a 

rulemaking petition have urged the Commission to update the accredited investor definition to 

 

259 The Commission originally proposed an individual net worth standard for the accredited investor 

definition. The joint net worth concept was incorporated into the final definition to simplify the net worth 

calculation. The Commission explained that limiting net worth to that of the individual investor presented 

potential issues for individuals in community property states and for individuals with assets held jointly 

with a spouse and that modifying the test to include joint net worth was a way to alleviate those potential 

issues. See Regulation D Adopting Release.
73

clarify that income and assets of both parties in same-sex unions may be included in the joint 

income and joint net worth calculations.260

Recent events have clarified some of these uncertainties. Prior federal law under the 

Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)261 provided that “[i]n determining the meaning of any Act 

of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus 

and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one 

man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the 

opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” In U.S. v. Windsor,

262 however, the United States 

Supreme Court held that this provision of DOMA “violates basic due process and equal 

protection principles applicable to the Federal Government” and that DOMA could not “survive 

under these principles.” Accordingly, the Commission clarified that, where they appear in the 

federal securities statutes administered by the Commission, the rules and regulations 

promulgated thereunder, releases, orders and any guidance issued by the Commission or the 

staff, the Commission will read the term “spouse” to include an individual married to a person of 

the same sex if the couple is lawfully married under state law, and the term “marriage” to include 

a marriage between individuals of the same sex if they are lawfully married under state law.263 

At the time the Commission issued this guidance, a number of states did not permit same-sex 

 

260 See rulemaking petition from Williams Mullen, File No. 4-665 (Sept. 16, 2013) (the “Williams Mullen 

Rulemaking Petition”); Maryland State Bar Letter; letters from StartupEquality.org (Sept. 4, 2013) (the 

“StartupEquality Letter”); Joe Wallin (Sept. 23, 2013).

261 Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996).

262 133 S. Ct. 2675 (June 26, 2013).

263 Commission Guidance Regarding the Definition of the Terms “Spouse” and “Marriage” Following the 

Supreme Court’s Decision in United States v. Windsor, Release No. 33-9850 (June 19, 2015) [80 FR 

37536].
74

marriages. In Obergefell v. Hodges,

264 however, the United States Supreme Court recently held 

that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.” Therefore, 

the references to “spouse” in Rule 501 now include all individuals married to persons of the 

same sex.

Although recent Supreme Court decisions and Commission guidance have clarified any 

ambiguity with regard to same-sex marriages, issuers and investors may continue to face 

uncertainty regarding the treatment of legal unions other than marriage, same-sex or otherwise, 

such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. Under the current accredited investor definition, 

which refers to but does not define “spouse,” some couples may be unable to pool their financial 

resources for purposes of qualifying as accredited investors if they are not considered lawfully 

married under state law. To address the remaining uncertainty surrounding legal unions other 

than marriage, the Commission could add the following defined term to Rule 501 of Regulation 

D, as two commenters previously had requested:

A spouse of a natural person shall mean another person, regardless of gender or sexual 

orientation, whose relationship with the person specified: (1) may be characterized as 

such person’s (i) husband, (ii) wife, (iii) spouse, (iv) domestic partner, or (v) designated 

beneficiary under any applicable state law for the purpose of ensuring that each person in 

a two-person relationship has certain rights or financial protections based upon such 

designation; or (2) is that of the other party to a civil union with such person.265

Alternatively, the Commission could expand Rule 501(a) to permit “spousal equivalents” 

to pool their financial resources. In 2011, the Commission adopted a rule to define “family 

offices” excluded from the definition of “investment adviser” under the Advisers Act.266 The 

 

264 135 S. Ct. 2584 (June 26, 2015).

265 Williams Mullen Rulemaking Petition; StartupEquality Letter.

266 Family Offices, Release No. IA-3220 (June 22, 2011) [76 FR 37983] (the “Family Offices Release”).
75

Commission defined the term “family member” to include “spousal equivalents.”267 The term 

“spousal equivalent” means a cohabitant occupying a relationship generally equivalent to that of 

a spouse.268 Commenters generally supported the Commission’s inclusion of spousal 

equivalents.269 The Commission rule governing accountant independence also includes “spousal 

equivalents.”270

The Commission also considered this issue when adopting crowdfunding rules to 

implement the requirements of Title III of the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act provides that securities 

issued in reliance on the crowdfunding exemption may not be transferred by the purchaser for 

one year after the date of purchase, except when transferred to, among other persons, “a member 

of the family of the purchaser or the equivalent.”271 The Commission included “spousal 

equivalent” in the definition of the term “member of the family of the purchaser or the 

equivalent” and the term “spousal equivalent” has the same definition as the definition used for 

family offices.

272

Revising Rule 501(a) to permit “spousal equivalents” to pool their financial resources

would maintain consistency with existing adopted and proposed Commission rules. In addition, 

the term “spousal equivalent” is sufficiently flexible to encompass future evolutions in federal or 

 

267 17 CFR 275.202(a)(11)(G)-1(d)(6).

268 17 CFR 275.202(a)(11)(G)-1(d)(9).

269 See Family Offices Release. Two commenters opposed the inclusion of spousal equivalents. Those letters, 

however, invoked the restrictions contained in DOMA.

270 17 CFR 210.2-01.

271 15 USC 77d-1(e)(1)(D); JOBS Act § 302(e)(1)(D).

272 17 CFR 227.501(c).
76

state law.

VII. Accredited Investor Entities

Section 413(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Commission to examine the 

accredited investor definition as applied to natural persons. This report also addresses the 

definition as applied to entities because requests for interpretive guidance273 and comment letters 

submitted in response to the 2007 Proposing Release suggest that revisions to the definition as 

applied to entities may be appropriate.

A. Current Framework

The accredited investor definition for entities relies on a list of enumerated categories 

found in the various subsections of Rule 501(a):

• Rule 501(a)(1)274 includes banks, savings and loan associations and similar 

institutions; registered broker-dealers; insurance companies; registered investment 

companies; licensed Small Business Investment Companies; state and political 

subdivision employee benefit plans with total assets in excess of $5 million and 

certain employee benefit plans within the meaning of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974.275

• Rule 501(a)(2)276 includes private business development companies as defined in 

 

273 See, e.g., Alaska Permanent Fund, SEC Division of Corporation Finance Interpretive Letter (July 14, 2011)

(the “Alaska Permanent Fund Interpretive Letter”); Cardinal Financial Management Corporation, SEC 

Division of Corporation Finance Interpretive Letter (May 31, 1982) (the “Cardinal Financial Management 

Interpretive Letter”); Voluntary Hospitals of America, Incorporated, SEC Division of Corporation Finance 

Interpretive Letter (Dec. 30, 1982) (the “Voluntary Hospitals of America Interpretive Letter”); The 

Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, SEC Division of Corporation Finance Interpretive 

Letter (Feb. 1, 1986) (the “Equitable Life Assurance Society Interpretive Letter”); MIG Realty Advisors, 

Incorporated, SEC Division of Corporation Finance Interpretive Letter (Nov. 2, 1987) (the “MIG Realty 

Advisors Interpretive Letter”); Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, SEC Division of Corporation Finance 

No-Action Letter (Dec. 11, 1996) (the “Wolf, Block No-Action Letter”).

274 17 CFR 230.501(a)(1).

275 Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829 (1974).

276 17 CFR 230.501(a)(2).
77

Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act.277

• Rule 501(a)(3)278 includes 501(c)(3)279 tax exempt nonprofit organizations, 

corporations, Massachusetts or similar business trusts and partnerships, in each case 

not formed for the specific purposes of acquiring the securities offered and with total 

assets in excess of $5 million.

• Rule 501(a)(7)280 includes trusts with total assets in excess of $5 million not formed 

for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered and whose purchase is 

directed by a sophisticated person as described in Rule 506(b)(2)(ii).

281

• Rule 501(a)(8)

282 includes entities in which all equity owners are themselves 

accredited investors.

Any entity not covered specifically by one of the enumerated categories is not an accredited 

investor under the rule. Entities not covered include limited liability companies, Indian tribes, 

other governmental entities and educational expense plans operated under Section 529 of the 

Internal Revenue Code (“529 Plans”).

283 Not enumerating these and other legal entities in the 

definition has led to some degree of uncertainty as to whether they may qualify as accredited 

investors.284 In addition, state law developments since the adoption of Regulation D have 

expanded the types of business entities that exist and relatively recent concepts, such as low

 

277 15 USC 80b-2(a)(22).

278 17 CFR 230.501(a)(3).

279 26 USC 501(c)(3).

280 17 CFR 230.501(a)(7).

281 17 CFR 230.506(b)(2)(ii).

282 17 CFR 230.501(a)(8).

283 26 USC 529.

284 See 2007 Proposing Release.
78

profit limited liability companies,

285 suggest that developments in this area are ongoing.

In 2007, the Commission proposed amending the Rule 501(a)(3) list of entities to include

“any corporation (including any non-profit corporation), Massachusetts or similar business trust, 

partnership, limited liability company, Indian tribe, labor union, governmental body or other 

legal entity with substantially similar legal attributes.”286 The Commission also proposed 

defining the term “governmental body” as it commonly appears in transactional financing 

documents.287 In proposing these changes, the Commission noted that it was attempting to 

reduce uncertainty and legal costs and promote more efficient private capital formation. 

Commenters generally supported the proposal to expand Rule 501(a)(3).288 Ultimately, the 

Commission did not adopt revisions to Rule 501(a)(3).

 

285 See, e.g., Wyo. Stat § 17-29-102(a)(ix).

286 2007 Proposing Release.

287 The Commission proposed defining “governmental body” as any: (1) nation, state, county, town, village, 

district or other jurisdiction of any nature; (2) federal, state, local, municipal, foreign or other government; 

(3) governmental or quasi-governmental authority of any nature (including any governmental agency, 

branch, department, official or entity and any court or other tribunal); (4) multi-national organization or 

body; or (5) body exercising, or entitled to exercise, any administrative, executive, judicial, legislative, 

police, regulatory or taxing authority or power of any nature.

288 See, e.g., ABA Letter (supporting the proposal to expand Rule 501(a)(3) but also recommending using the 

term “any legal entity” without specifying any particular types of entities); Katten Muchin Letter 

(recommending a catch-all provision such as “any organized group of persons whether incorporated or not” 

and including “qualified purchasers” as defined in Section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act); 

Maryland State Bar Letter (supporting the proposal to expand Rule 501(a)(3) but also recommending 

including any “statutory business trust” instead of any “Massachusetts or similar business trust” and 

clarifying that investment funds sponsored by governmental entities and agencies thereof would be covered 

by the definition); 2007 MFA Letter (supporting the proposal to expand Rule 501(a)(3) but also 

recommending including “qualified purchasers” as defined in Section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment 

Company Act); 2007 NASAA Letter (not opposing the proposal to expand Rule 501(a)(3) if the minimum 

assets threshold was increased to $10 million); letters from Native Capital Investment, Inc. (Oct. 8, 2007) 

(the “Native Capital Letter”) (supporting the proposal to expand Rule 501(a)(3)); SOAR Growth Capital, 

LLC (Oct. 9, 2007) (the “SOAR Letter”) (supporting the inclusion of Indian tribes); Arnold & Porter LLP 

(Feb. 24, 2010) (the “Arnold & Porter Letter”) (supporting the inclusion of sophisticated governmental 

bodies such as state governmental bodies); Davis Polk & Wardwell (Oct. 9, 2007) (supporting the proposal 

to expand Rule 501(a)(3) but also recommending including “qualified purchasers” as defined in Section 

2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act).
79

B. Certain Entities Not Included in the Current Definition

Indian Tribes

The omission of Indian tribes from the accredited investor definition has limited their 

investment opportunities and created capital raising difficulties for tribal enterprises.289 In the 

2007 Proposing Release, the Commission proposed expanding the accredited investor definition 

to specifically include Indian tribes. The Commission also solicited comments on whether the 

term “Indian tribe” should be defined and, if so, how. Specifically, the Commission asked if 

“Indian tribe” should be defined in terms of a tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community 

that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally 

Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994290 and if it should include state-recognized Indian 

tribes. Several commenters supported including Indian tribes in the accredited investor 

definition, either as specifically enumerated entities291 or by expressly including them in the 

definition of “governmental body.”292

Other Governmental Entities

Several governmental and quasi-governmental entities have asked the Division of 

Corporation Finance for interpretive guidance about whether they may qualify as accredited 

 

289 See, e.g., Gavin Clarkson, Accredited Indians: Increasing the Flow of Private Equity into Indian Country 

as a Domestic Emerging Market, 80 U. Colo. L. Rev. 285 (2009) (suggesting that the lack of tribal 

investment in Indian Country’s emerging economy due to tribes being excluded from the accredited 

investor definition creates some degree of hesitation among non-Indian investors); 

290 Pub. L. 103-454, 108 Stat. 4791.

291 See, e.g., Native Capital Letter; SOAR Letter.

292 The 2007 Proposing Release proposed adding the term “governmental body” to the list of entities 

enumerated in Rule 501(a)(3) and some commenters suggested that it was appropriate to include Indian 

tribes in the definition of that term. See, e.g., letters from National Congress of American Indians (Jan. 2, 

2008); Gavin Clarkson (Oct. 9, 2007).
80

investors under Rule 501(a).293 For example, in 2011, the Alaska Permanent Fund requested an 

interpretation that it is an accredited investor under Rule 501(a)(3).294 The Alaska Permanent 

Fund is a large sovereign wealth investment fund with a unique form of organization established 

by name in the constitution of the State of Alaska. The request noted that “[s]ome uncertainty 

exists as to the coverage of institutions substantially similar to those listed [in Rule 501(a)(3)]” 

and explained that “because the [Alaska Permanent] Fund has a unique constitutional statutory 

form and history it does not fit neatly with the more common forms of business trusts, 

corporations or partnerships that are the form commonly taken by private investment funds.” 

Based on the facts presented, the Division provided interpretive guidance indicating that,

although the Alaska Permanent Fund is not organized as an entity specifically listed in Rule 

501(a)(3), it may be treated as an accredited investor if it satisfies the other requirements of the 

definition.

In the 2007 Proposing Release, the Commission proposed expanding the accredited 

investor definition to specifically include government bodies. Several commenters supported 

including government bodies in the definition and provided recommendations about the 

approach.295 One commenter urged the Commission to exclude governmental entities from the 

 

293 See, e.g., Alaska Permanent Fund Interpretive Letter; Cardinal Financial Management Interpretive Letter; 

Voluntary Hospitals of America Interpretive Letter; Equitable Life Assurance Society Interpretive Letter; 

MIG Realty Advisors Interpretive Letter.

294 Alaska Permanent Fund Interpretive Letter.

295 See, e.g., ABA Letter (recommending a principles-based approach to describing governmental bodies, 

rather than providing a detailed definition); Arnold & Porter Letter (supporting the inclusion of 

governmental bodies as proposed); Maryland State Bar Letter (recommending clarifying that investment 

funds sponsored by governmental entities and agencies thereof would be covered by the definition); letters 

from Keith Paul Bishop (Oct. 11, 2007) (the Bishop Letter) (recommending that any assets or investments 

threshold not apply to governmental entities); National Association of Independent Public Finance 

Advisors (Mar. 10, 2008) (recommending a threshold of $5 million of investments under direct active 

management).
81

definition because of the involvement of some governmental entities in troubled investments.296

In light of the impact troubled investments can have on governmental entities, their 

constituents and their states, any expansion of the accredited investor definition to include 

governmental entities requires careful consideration of an entity’s financial sophistication and 

ability to fend for itself. For example, expanding Rule 501(a)(3) to include any governmental 

entity could result in entities with $5 million in non-financial assets, such as land, buildings and 

vehicles, qualifying as accredited investors even if they have no investment experience. An 

asset-based test likely would not serve as a reliable method for ascertaining whether a 

governmental entity is likely to have sufficient knowledge in financial and business matters to 

evaluate the merits and risks of prospective investments without the protections of registration. 

An investments-based test, however, could reflect meaningful investing experience and exposure 

to financial markets.

Limited Liability Companies and Newer Categories of Business Entities

While limited liability companies are a familiar part of the business landscape, only two 

states had limited liability company statutes when the Commission adopted Regulation D.297 

Because of the static nature of the accredited investor definition, market participants have sought 

interpretive relief from the staff to adapt to state law developments. Commission staff provided 

relief in the case of limited liability companies, stating that a limited liability company may be 

treated as an accredited investor as defined in Rule 501(a)(3) if it satisfied the other requirements 

 

296 See Melton Letter.

297 In 1982, only Wyoming and Florida had limited liability company statutes. See William J. Carney, Limited 

Liability Companies: Origins and Antecedents, 66 U. Colo. L. Rev. 855 (1995).
82

of the definition.298 In 2007, the Commission proposed to include limited liability companies in

the list of legal entities included in Rule 501(a)(3).299 Commenters generally supported 

expanding the categories of entities qualifying as accredited investors, but one noted that the 

proposed approach of enumerating specified entities would not allow for future developments.300

Business Trusts

Rule 501(a)(3) includes Massachusetts or similar business trusts within the scope of 

entities that may qualify as accredited investors.

301 One commenter on the 2007 Proposing 

Release indicated that referencing a specific type of business trust under one state’s business 

code was unnecessarily limiting and confusing.302 This potential confusion is indicative of the 

overall limitations inherent in attempting to enumerate all qualifying entities within a list.

529 Educational Savings Plans

529 Plans are not specifically enumerated in the accredited investor definition.303 To the 

extent these plans meet the financial criteria applicable to other entities, there is no apparent

regulatory rationale for excluding them. It appears more appropriate to focus on whether the 

corresponding financial criteria accurately serve as proxies for financial sophistication or ability 

to fend for oneself instead of on how entities are organized or treated for taxation purposes.

 

298 Wolf, Block No-Action Letter; Securities Act Rules Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation 255.05.

299 2007 Proposing Release.

300 See ABA Letter.

301 Trusts may also qualify as accredited investors directly under subparagraph (a)(7) and indirectly under 

subparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(8). See Regulation D Interpretive Release.

302 See Maryland State Bar Letter.

303 A 529 Plan may qualify under Rule 501(a)(3) if it is organized as a corporation or under Rule 501(a)(8) if it 

is organized as a trust.
83

Non-501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Nonprofit Organizations

Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organizations are included 

in the accredited investor definition but other tax exempt nonprofit organizations are not. 

Examples of tax exempt nonprofit organizations that do not qualify as accredited investors 

include civic leagues, labor organizations, business leagues, chambers of commerce and 

voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations.304 In response to requests for interpretive 

guidance, the staff has indicated that a federal income tax exempt governmental unit meeting the 

substantive criteria of Section 501(c)(3) with total assets in excess of $5,000,000 may be deemed 

a Section 501(c)(3) organization for purposes of qualifying as an accredited investor.

305 In 

contrast, the staff has indicated that tax exempt organizations not substantially meeting the 

requirements of Section 501(c)(3) will not be deemed to constitute accredited investors.306

C. Alternative Frameworks

The principal limitations with the current accredited investor framework for entities are

that some types of entities are not accredited investors because the definition does not 

specifically include them, and that the definition does not provide flexibility for legal 

developments. As a result, entities not specifically included must request clarification through 

interpretive guidance, which increases legal costs and creates transactional uncertainties.

Rule 501(a)(3) originated as a narrow provision with limited applicability and has 

 

304 These organizations may qualify under Rule 501(a)(3) if they are organized as corporations or under Rule 

501(a)(8) if they are organized as trusts.

305 See, e.g., Voluntary Hospitals of America Interpretive Letter; Equitable Life Assurance Society Interpretive 

Letter.

306 See, e.g., C.U. Brokerage Services, Inc., SEC Division of Corporation Finance Interpretive Letter (Mar. 5, 

1985).
84

evolved over time into a common way for entities to qualify as accredited investors.307 If the 

accredited investor definition continues to apply to only specific enumerated entities instead of 

all types of entities, revisions may be required periodically in response to legal and economic 

developments. In the 2007 Proposing Release, the Commission asked whether it should delete

the list entirely and simply say that any legal entity that can sue or be sued in the United States 

can qualify as an accredited investor, provided it meets the other standards for becoming an 

accredited investor. Commenters generally supported a catch-all provision.

308

Making the definition applicable to all types of entities, however, could result in entities 

without access to sufficient information and lacking the financial sophistication needed to 

conduct meaningful investment analysis becoming accredited investors. Expanding the 

definition in that manner would require careful consideration of whether the existing asset-based 

test identifies those entities that do not need the protections of registration.

In the 2007 Proposing Release, the Commission proposed adding an alternative 

investments-owned standard to the accredited investor definition that would have allowed 

entities with investments in excess of $5 million to qualify as accredited investors. The 

Commission indicated that an investments-owned standard would add a potentially more 

accurate method to assess an investor’s need for the protections of registration under the 

Securities Act. An investments-owned standard may be a more effective proxy for financial 

 

307 As originally proposed, Rule 501(a)(3) included only college and university endowment funds with assets 

in excess of $25 million. Regulation D Proposing Release. Based on comments received, the Commission 

expanded the provision to include all organizations described as exempt organizations in Section 501(c)(3) 

of the Internal Revenue Code. In tandem, the Commission lowered the asset threshold to $5 million. 

Regulation D Adopting Release. In 1988, the Commission further expanded Rule 501(a)(3) to include 

corporations, Massachusetts or similar business trusts and partnerships that met the $5 million asset 

threshold. Regulation D Revisions Adopting Release.

308 See, e.g., ABA Letter; Katten Muchin Letter; Bishop Letter.
85

sophistication than an asset-based test, as it reflects exposure to investment markets. The 

Commission also indicated that an investments-owned standard might reduce and simplify 

compliance burdens for companies by providing an alternative standard that may be assessed 

more easily than the assets standard. The Commission received support for including this

alternative standard.309 Commenters generally preferred a principles-based definition of the term 

“investments” rather than the proposed definition, which was based on Investment Company Act 

Rule 2a51-1(b).

310

A revised accredited investor definition for entities that includes a catch-all provision and 

an investments-owned test may more effectively measure financial sophistication than the 

current definition, which focuses on an entity’s form of organization and its assets, which may 

include illiquid and non-investment assets. As noted in the 2007 NASAA Letter, “[the revisions 

included in the 2007 Proposing Release] will eliminate arbitrary distinctions based on the 

organizational types of various entities, where there is no correlation between the form of entity 

and the need for the protections of securities registration.” Instead, NASAA recommended that 

the Commission ensure that the entities have the financial qualifications to protect themselves in 

a securities transaction.311

VIII. Implications Outside of the Regulation D Context

In addition to being a historical cornerstone of Regulation D, the accredited investor 

definition is used in other federal and state securities law provisions and has taken on increased 

 

309 See, e.g., ABA Letter; Massachusetts Securities Division Letter.

310 See, e.g., ABA Letter; Maryland State Bar Letter; NVCA Letter; letter from Price Meadows Incorporated 

(Oct. 5, 2007).

311 The 2007 NASAA Letter also suggested increasing the minimum assets from $5 million to $10 million.
86

significance as a result of the JOBS Act. For example, the JOBS Act and the proposed and 

adopted rules thereunder use the definition for the following purposes:

• Section 501 of the JOBS Act increased the holders of record threshold for purposes of 

registration under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act312 for issuers that are neither 

banks nor bank holding companies to either 2,000 persons or 500 persons who are not 

accredited investors. As a result, issuers seeking to rely on the increased thresholds 

will need to differentiate between record holders who are accredited investors and 

non-accredited investors. The Commission has proposed that the accredited investor 

definition in Rule 501(a) apply in making those determinations.313

• Section 401 of the JOBS Act required the Commission to amend Regulation A to 

exempt offerings of up to $50 million of securities annually from the registration 

requirements of the Securities Act. Amended Regulation A limits the amount of 

securities non-accredited investors can purchase in certain of those offerings to no 

more than 10% of the greater of their annual income or their net worth.314 Accredited 

investors are not subject to investment limitations.

• Section 201(a) of the JOBS Act required the Commission to revise Rule 506 to permit 

general solicitation in private offerings, provided that all purchasers are accredited 

investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify such accreditation. The 

Commission revised Rule 506 in July 2013.315

Some states use the accredited investor definition to determine whether investment 

advisers to certain private funds are required to be registered.316 States also incorporate the 

definition in a variety of other contexts. For example, the definition is used in government 

 

312 15 USC 78l(g).

313 Changes to Exchange Act Registration Requirements To Implement Title V and Title VI of the JOBS Act, 

Release No. 33-9693 (Dec. 18, 2014) [79 FR 78343].

314 17 CFR 230.251(d)(2)(i)(C).

315 Rule 506(c) Adopting Release.

316 See, e.g., Final Order Granting Exemption From the Registration Requirements for Investment Advisers to 

Private Funds and Their Investment Adviser Representatives, Wisconsin Department of Financial 

Institutions, Division of Securities (Feb. 17, 2012); Certificate Exemption for Investment Advisers to 

Private Funds, Cal. Code Regs. Title 10 § 260.204.9; Sixth Transition Order administering the Michigan 

Uniform Securities Act, State of Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth, Office of 

Financial and Insurance Regulation (Mar. 11, 2011).
87

finance,317 finance lending,

318 mortgage lending,319 insurance320 and financial institution 

regulation.

321 The accredited investor definition also served as a model for an exemption under 

the Uniform Securities Act of 2002.322

FINRA also uses the accredited investor definition to provide an exemption from the 

general requirement that each member firm that sells an issuer’s securities in a private placement

file with FINRA a copy of any private placement memorandum, term sheet or other offering

document the firm used within 15 calendar days of the date of the sale, or indicate that it did not 

use any such offering documents.323 FINRA Rule 5123 contains an exemption for offerings sold

to, among other persons, accredited investors described in Securities Act Rule 501(a)(1), (2), (3)

or (7). The rule does not incorporate the entire accredited investor definition, and in particular 

excludes the net worth and income criteria set forth in Rule 501(a)(5) and (6) respectively. The 

Commission release approving FINRA’s adoption of this rule noted the following rationale:

Several commenters requested additional exemptions from coverage under Rule 5123. 

[One commenter], for example, requested an exemption for all accredited investors. 

FINRA stated that it does not believe that the exemption should extend to offers to 

accredited investors under Rule 501(a)(4), (5), or (6) of Regulation D. In particular, 

FINRA stated that it believes that the criteria used to measure whether a person meets the 

accredited investor standard do not necessarily reflect a sufficiently high level of 

sophistication to justify exemption from the proposed rule.324

 

317 See, e.g., Cal. Gov’t Code § 64111.

318 See, e.g., Cal. Fin. Code § 22064.

319 See, e.g., Fla. Stat. §§ 494.001 and 494.00115.

320 See, e.g., Tex. Ins. Code § 1111A.002.

321 See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-2 (2014); N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 392-A:1 and 392-A:3.

322 Uniform Securities Act of 2002 §§ 102(11)(F) through 102(11)(K), 102(11)(O) and 202(13).

323 FINRA Rule 5123(b)(1)(J).

324 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of 
88

Due to the widespread use of the accredited investor definition, changes to the definition would 

have significant direct and indirect impacts in a variety of contexts.

IX. Recommendations

Registration under the federal securities laws is intended to help ensure the adequate 

provision of relevant information about an issuer and its offering of securities so that investors 

can make informed investment decisions. Exemptions from registration are provided for

situations where there is no practical need for registration or the public benefits from registration 

are too remote. The accredited investor concept in Regulation D was designed to identify, with 

bright-line standards, a category of investors whose financial sophistication and ability to sustain 

the risk of loss of investment or ability to fend for themselves render the protections of 

registration unnecessary.

The Regulation D market has become a large and vibrant market for raising capital, 

especially for small business capital formation.325 The Unregistered Offerings White Paper data 

shows that Regulation D offerings occur with far greater frequency than any other offering 

markets surveyed. As accredited investors play a critical role in providing capital for this 

market, any change to the accredited investor definition would have to consider both the impact 

the change could have on investors and the supply of capital to the Regulation D market.

There is a tradeoff between using a principles-based accredited investor definition and the 

 

Amendments No. 2 and No. 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as 

Modified by Amendments No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 to Adopt FINRA Rule 5123 (Private Placements of 

Securities) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook, Release No. 34-67157 (June 7, 2012) [77 FR 35457].

325 The aggregate amount of capital raised through Regulation D offerings is large, but a significantly lower 

median offering size indicates a large number of small offerings, consistent with the original regulatory 

objective to target the capital formation needs of small businesses. See Unregistered Offerings White 

Paper.
89

need for bright-line standards that investors, issuers and their advisors can understand and apply 

easily. Uncertainty surrounded private placements and small business offerings during the 

principles-based regulatory regime that was in place prior to the adoption of Regulation D. 

Bright-line standards, however, are necessarily under- and over-inclusive. For example, the fact 

that an individual has a high net worth does not necessarily mean the individual is financially 

sophisticated, while a personal finance expert without requisite levels of income or net worth is 

not an accredited investor under the current definition. The staff believes that the Commission 

should consider any one or more of the following methods of revising the accredited investor 

definition.

1. The Commission Should Revise the Financial Thresholds Requirements for Natural 

Persons to Qualify as Accredited Investors and the List-Based Approach for Entities 

to Qualify as Accredited Investors.

Regulation D uses income and net worth thresholds to identify natural persons as 

accredited investors. The Commission established the $200,000 individual income and $1 

million net worth thresholds in 1982 and the $300,000 joint income threshold in 1988. Since 

then, the number of U.S. households qualifying as accredited investors has increased from 

approximately 2% of the population to over 10% as a result of inflation. While the size of the 

accredited investor pool has increased significantly, the staff is not aware of evidence suggesting 

that individuals qualifying as accredited investors under the current financial thresholds and 

participating in the Regulation D market require the protections of registration. On the other 

hand, inflation has increased the likelihood that the current pool of accredited investors may 

contain individuals the definition did not originally intend to encompass.

Regulation D uses enumerated categories to identify entities as accredited investors. 

Some types of entities qualify as accredited investors with over $5 million in assets, while other 
90

types of entities qualify as accredited investors without being subject to the asset test. Any type 

of entity not covered specifically by one of the enumerated categories is not an accredited 

investor. The approach of specifically enumerating types of entities has resulted in the exclusion 

of some entities that likely should be accredited investors.

The staff believes that the following approaches could address concerns with how the 

current definition identifies accredited investor natural persons and entities.

A. Leave the Current Income and Net Worth Thresholds in Place, Subject to 

Investment Limitations.

Inflation has expanded significantly the number of individuals who qualify as accredited 

investors based on income and net worth. Limiting investment amounts for individuals who 

qualify as accredited investors based solely on the current income or net worth thresholds could 

provide protections for those individuals who are less able to bear financial losses. In addition, 

leaving the current thresholds in place, instead of simply increasing them to reflect inflation, 

would not diminish the size of the accredited investor pool and would provide a mechanism for 

individuals to continue to invest in private offerings. The Commission could consider leaving 

the current income and net worth thresholds in the accredited investor definition in place, but 

limiting investments for individuals who qualify as accredited investors solely based on those 

thresholds to a percentage of their income or net worth (e.g., 10% of prior year income or 10% of 

net worth, as applicable, per issuer, in any 12-month period).

B. Add New Inflation-Adjusted Income and Net Worth Thresholds that Are Not 

Subject to Investment Limitations.

The income and net worth thresholds have never been adjusted, although inflation has 

eroded them considerably. The $200,000 individual income threshold established in 1982 

represents approximately $433,000 to $491,000 in today’s dollars and the $300,000 joint income 
91

threshold established in 1988 represents approximately $529,000 to $601,000 in today’s dollars. 

The $1 million net worth threshold established in 1982 represents approximately $2.16 million to 

$2.45 million in today’s dollars. While many commenters oppose increasing the financial

thresholds in the definition, others support such an adjustment. The staff believes that the 

financial thresholds should be adjusted to reflect inflation to be consistent with the 

Commission’s 1982 and 1988 policy choices. The staff also believes that the potential 

alternative criteria identified below could provide adequate avenues for sophisticated individuals 

to qualify as accredited investors. The Commission could consider adding new inflationadjusted income and net worth thresholds. Thresholds such as $500,000 for individual income, 

$750,000 for joint income and $2.5 million for net worth would reflect inflation and maintain the 

ratios in the current definition. Under this approach, individuals who meet the new income or 

net worth thresholds would not be subject to the investment limitations suggested in paragraph A 

above.

C. Index All Financial Thresholds in the Definition for Inflation on a GoingForward Basis.

Indexing the financial thresholds in the accredited investor definition for inflation would 

be consistent with the Commission’s approach in its 2007 proposed revisions to the definition, as 

well as the approach Congress took in the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to the “qualified client” 

definition and in the JOBS Act with respect to crowdfunding and emerging growth companies. 

Section 413(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Commission to undertake a review of 

the accredited investor definition at least once every four years. The Commission could consider 

indexing all financial thresholds in the accredited investor definition for inflation, rounded to the 

nearest $10,000, on a going-forward basis every four years to coincide with the Commission 

reviews.
92

D. Permit Spousal Equivalents to Pool their Finances for the Purpose of 

Qualifying as Accredited Investors.

When first adopted, the accredited investor definition attempted to simplify financial 

calculations for investors living in community property states or where property was held jointly 

by providing for qualification based on joint net worth. Allowing spousal equivalents to pool 

their finances would provide consistent regulatory treatment among marriages, civil unions and 

domestic partnerships.

The Commission could consider adding the term “spousal equivalent” to the accredited 

investor definition. To promote consistency across Commission rules, the term could be defined 

as “a cohabitant occupying a relationship generally equivalent to that of a spouse,” which is the 

same definition as used in the family office rule, accountant independence standards and 

crowdfunding rules.

E. Permit All Entities With Investments In Excess of $5 Million to Qualify as 

Accredited Investors.

The accredited investor definition does not provide a mechanism for limited liability 

companies and certain other business entities, Indian tribes, labor unions, social enterprises, 

sovereign wealth funds, 529 Plans, and any other entities not specifically listed in the definition 

to qualify as accredited investors. Limiting the exemption to specific entities has resulted in 

regulatory uncertainty and may not effectively serve the rule’s investor protection objectives. 

The Commission could consider modifying the definition to permit any entity with investments 

in excess of $5 million, and not formed for the specific purpose of investing in the securities 

offered, to qualify as an accredited investor.

The Commission also could consider replacing the assets test in the current definition 

with an investments test because the staff believes it would provide a more meaningful standard 
93

for ascertaining whether an entity is likely to have sufficient knowledge in financial and business 

matters to enable it to evaluate the merits and risks of potential investments without the 

protections of registration. An “investments” definition based on the definition of investments in 

Rule 2a51-1(b) would promote consistency across securities laws and provide a predictable 

framework.

The Commission could consider retaining the current provisions that permit certain 

regulated entities (e.g., banks, savings and loan associations, insurance companies) to qualify as 

accredited investors without any financial thresholds.

F. Permit an Issuer’s Investors That Meet and Continue to Meet the Current 

Accredited Investor Definition to Be Grandfathered with Respect to Future 

Offerings of the Issuer’s Securities.

If the Commission modifies the accredited investor definition, the Commission also 

should consider grandfathering issuers’ current investors who meet and continue to meet the 

current accredited investor standards with respect to future offerings of the same issuers’ 

securities. Grandfathering would provide protection from investment dilution for any person 

who would no longer be accredited investors because of any changes to the definition. The 

grandfathering provision could apply to future investments in a particular issuer only, and not to 

future investments in affiliates of the issuer.

2. The Commission Should Revise the Accredited Investor Definition to Allow 

Individuals to Qualify as Accredited Investors Based on Other Measures of 

Sophistication.

The existing accredited investor definition as applied to natural persons uses only 

financial measures to serve as a proxy for financial sophistication and ability to sustain 

investment losses or fend for one’s self. It is not likely, however, that any single criteria –

including the existing income and net worth standards – can determine that an individual will 

possess those attributes. The staff believes that it is reasonable to view an investor’s financial 
94

sophistication, on the one hand, and ability to absorb losses, on the other, as providing different 

ways to assess accredited investor status. For example, very well informed investors who are not 

wealthy may be in a position to take on risks that they understand well, while very wealthy 

investors may be in a position to take on risks even if they lack financial sophistication.

The staff believes that the following approaches could be considered to identify 

individuals who could qualify as accredited investors based on criteria other than income and net 

worth.

A. Permit Individuals With a Minimum Amount of Investments to Qualify as 

Accredited Investors.

Investments may in some cases be a more meaningful measure of individuals’ experience 

with and exposure to the financial and investing markets than income or net worth. Commenters 

and market participants have expressed support for the accredited investor definition to include 

an investments test, although they have different views about how to establish such a test. An 

“investments” definition based on the definition of investments in Rule 2a51-1(b) would promote 

consistency across securities laws and provide a predictable framework. The Commission could 

consider adding an investments test to the accredited investor definition so that individuals with a 

minimum amount of investments, as that term is defined in Rule 2a51-1(b), qualify as accredited 

investors.326 

B. Permit Individuals With Certain Professional Credentials to Qualify as

Accredited Investors.

Expanding the accredited investor definition to include persons holding certain 

professional credentials would recognize an objective indication of sophistication. The 

 

326 In 2007 the Commission proposed applying a $750,000 minimum investment threshold. See 2007 

Proposing Release.
95

Commission could consider adding a new category to the accredited investor definition that, for 

example, includes individuals who have passed the Series 7 examination, Series 65 examination

or Series 82 examination. Those credentials may provide demonstrable evidence of relevant 

investor sophistication because of the subject matter their examinations cover.

C. Permit Individuals With Experience Investing in Exempt Offerings to Qualify 

as Accredited Investors.

Expanding the accredited investor definition to include individuals with relevant 

investment experience would recognize an objective indication of financial sophistication and 

allow experienced investors to maintain their accredited investor status. These individuals 

presumably have developed knowledge about the private capital markets, including their inherent 

risks. This experience may include performing due diligence, negotiating investment terms and 

making valuation determinations. As previously noted, on average, current angel investors 

appear to have invested in ten prior offerings. The Commission could consider adding a new 

category to the accredited investor definition that includes individuals who have invested in at 

least ten private securities offerings, each conducted by a different issuer, under Securities Act 

Section 4(a)(2), the safe harbor promulgated thereunder, or Rule 506(c). This limitation would 

focus the criteria on recognizing only relevant investment experience.

D. Permit Knowledgeable Employees of Private Funds to Qualify as Accredited 

Investors for Investments in their Employer’s Funds.

A private fund’s knowledgeable employees likely have significant investing experience 

and sufficient access to the information necessary to make informed decisions about investments 

in their employer’s funds. Expanding the accredited investor definition to include 

knowledgeable employees of private funds would recognize this specific category of individuals 

as capable of fending for themselves. The Commission could consider adding a new category to 
96

the accredited investor definition that includes “knowledgeable employees” of “covered 

companies” as those terms are defined in Rule 3c-5 of the Investment Company Act.

E. Permit Individuals Who Pass an Accredited Investor Examination to Qualify 

as Accredited Investors.

Creating an accredited investor examination could provide a path for individuals who can 

objectively demonstrate they are financially sophisticated and understand the nature and risks of 

unregistered offerings to qualify as accredited investors. This approach could enable financially 

sophisticated individuals to qualify as accredited investors regardless of their wealth, educational 

background or professional experience. An accredited investor examination may reduce 

compliance burdens on issuers, since verification of a passing score on an examination would 

typically not require significant time or cost. The staff believes that any such accredited investor 

examination would need to test financial and investing knowledge, as well as understanding of 

private offerings and the risks involved with them. Portions of FINRA’s Series 7 and Series 82 

examinations cover these areas and could potentially serve as a model for an accredited investor 

examination. The Commission could explore the possibility of developing an accredited investor 

examination. If development of an accredited examination is feasible, the Commission could 

consider revising the accredited investor definition to provide that individuals who pass the 

examination qualify as accredited investors.
97

X. Impact of the Potential Approaches on the Pool of Accredited Investors

Revising the standards for qualifying as an accredited investor would alter the size and 

composition of the pool of accredited investors that are natural persons. In this section, the staff 

presents estimates for the number of U.S. households that would qualify as accredited investors 

under the potential criteria.327 We also provide broad profiles of the pools of investors that meet 

the current and potential criteria based on various demographic characteristics. Where the 

potential criteria are not easily quantifiable, we qualitatively evaluate their impact on the 

accredited investor pool.

The underlying household data for this analysis was obtained from the Federal Reserve 

Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances (the “SCF”) for 1983 and 2013.328 The SCF is a triennial 

survey that provides insights into household income and net worth, where the household is 

considered to be the primary economic unit within a family. While the SCF collects information 

on families’ total income before taxes for the preceding calendar year, the bulk of the data, 

including family balance sheet data and demographic characteristics, covers the status of the 

family at the time of the interview.329 The SCF employs weights to make the data representative 

of the U.S. population.330 Thus, the 1983 SCF and the 2013 SCF are representative of the U.S. 

 

327 We estimate households and not individuals due to data limitations; the database underlying our analysis 

measures wealth and income at the household level.

328 http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.

329 A major feature of the database is that missing data is imputed by repeatedly drawing an estimate from the 

conditional distribution of the data. This is done five times and the imputations are recorded as five 

replicates for each household. As replicate weights are calculated only for the first implicate for each 

household, we use only the first implicate in our analysis. Nevertheless, we compared the estimates 

provided below with estimates using all five implicates. We do not find any statistically significant 

differences between the two sets of estimates.

330 See Jesse Bricker, Lisa J. Dettling, Alice Henriques, Joanne W. Hsu, Kevin B. Moore, John Sabelhaus, 

Jeffrey Thompson and Richard A. Windle, Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence 
98

population in 1983 (approximately 83.9 million households) and 2013 (approximately 122.5 

million households), respectively.

For the analysis, we use variables as defined by Bricker, et al. 2014.

331 We provide 

descriptions of the main variables below. Data for inflation was obtained from the CPI indices 

database of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the PCE indices database of the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, United States Department of Commerce.

• Income – Includes wage income, business income, rent income, interest and dividend 

income, pension income, social security income, income from retirement accounts, 

transfers and other income. According to the SCF documentation, income data is 

collected for the year prior to the year of the SCF.

332 As suggested by Bricker, et al.

2014, we adjust the income data by a factor of 1.0145 to reflect 2013 dollars so that it 

is comparable to the data for net worth and other variables. We further adjust the data 

by a factor of 1.0162 to account for inflation for the period 2013-2014 and to reflect 

the value in 2014 dollars.

It should be noted that in the SCF database income is reported at the household level. 

We do not attempt to differentiate income based on marital status of the household333

because data on individual income from all sources is not available, at least in the 

public version of the database.334 As a result, accredited investor (household) 

estimates based on individual income thresholds are likely to be overestimated and 

would represent upper bounds.

A household can have multiple family members with independent sources of income 

that qualify them as accredited investors based on income. We count them as one 

accredited investor for each household, which implies we are also likely 

underestimating the actual pool of accredited investors when we provide household 

 

from the Survey of Consumer Finances, Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol. 100, No. 4 (2014) (“Bricker, et al. 

2014”). The dollar amounts are adjusted to 2013 dollars using the ‘current methods’ version of the CPI.

331 Id. See also http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/files/bulletin.macro.txt.

332 Id.

333 We find that three-fifths of the households that qualify on individual income basis have spouses that are 

self-employed or are employed by someone else.

334 Individual wage income at the time of survey (not the previous year as with total income data) is available, 

but it is an incomplete representation. For example, individual income of self-employed household 

members, or investment income of individuals in the household is not available.
99

estimates. Consequently, the household estimates we derive utilizing the joint 

income threshold would represent a lower bound for individuals qualifying on the 

basis of income.

The actual number of individuals that qualify as accredited investors on income basis 

(individual or joint) would, in all likelihood, lie between the estimates that we derive 

for the individual income threshold and the joint income threshold.

• Net Worth – This measure represents the difference between household assets and 

household debt. Assets include all financial and non-financial assets.335 Debt 

includes mortgage and home equity loans, lines of credit, credit card debt, installment 

loans including vehicle loans, margin loans, pension loans and other debt (e.g., loans 

against insurance). We exclude the value of the household’s principal residence and 

any outstanding mortgages associated with the principal residence. We also adjust the 

net worth figure by a factor of 1.0162 to reflect 2014 dollars.

• Investments – We calculate investments, for the purpose of defining “minimum 

investments,” based on Investment Company Act Rule 2a51-1. Investments thus 

includes:

o All financial assets

o Non-financial assets - real estate (excluding primary residence) and other nonfinancial assets (including commodities, antiques, stamp collections, 

oil/gas/mineral leases, etc.)

A. Impact of Potential Approaches

1. New Income Threshold of $500,000 and Net Worth Threshold of $2.5 Million 

That Reflect Inflation and Are Not Subject to Investment Limitations

Increasing the individual income threshold from $200,000 to $500,000 and the net worth 

threshold from $1 million to $2.5 million to reflect the impact of inflation since 1982 would 

shrink considerably the number of households that qualify as accredited investors, without any 

investment limitations, on the basis of income or net worth. As Table 10.1 below shows, the 

number of households that would qualify under the new thresholds is approximately 28% of the 

 

335 Financial assets include all stocks, bonds, mutual funds, cash, and cash management accounts, retirement 

assets, life insurance, managed assets like trusts and annuities, and other financial assets like deferred 

compensation, royalties, futures etc.
100

households that currently qualify under the individual or joint income standards. Similarly, as 

Table 10.2 below shows, the number of households that would qualify under the $2.5 million net 

worth standard is approximately 40% of the households that currently qualify under the $1 

million standard.

Table 10.1: Number and Percentage of Households Qualifying Under Alternate 

Individual and Joint Income Criteria

Individual 

Income 

Threshold

Households 

Qualifying, in 

Millions, and 

Percentage of 

all U.S. 

Households

Joint Income 

Threshold

Households 

Qualifying, in 

Millions, and 

Percentage of 

all U.S. 

Households

Current Standard: 

1983 SCF

$200,000 0.44

(0.04)

0.5%

Current Standard: 

2013 SCF

$200,000 8.07

(0.39)

6.6% $300,000 4.04

(0.25)

3.3%

Current Standard -

Inflation Adjusted 

(CPI): 2013 SCF

$490,819 2.11

(0.17)

1.7% $600,558 1.60

(0.14)

1.3%

Current Standard –

Inflation Adjusted 

(PCE): 2013 SCF

$432,265 2.41

(0.18)

2.0% $528,906 1.95

(0.16)

1.6%

Recommended 

Threshold: 2013 SCF

$500,000 2.09

(0.17)

1.7% $750,000 1.14

(0.11)

0.9%

Figures in parentheses are standard errors, in millions of households.336

 

336 The SCF database uses sampling to estimate population characteristics. The standard error of the mean 

measures the accuracy with which the sample represents the population. It enables us to calculate the range 

within which the true (population) estimate of the sample mean is likely to be. Statistically (assuming 

certain distributional characteristics), the population estimate would be within one standard of the mean at 

least 68% of the time and within two standard errors of the mean at least 95% of the time. For example, the 

number of households that currently qualify as accredited investors on the basis of individual income is 

estimated (using 2013 SCF data) to be 8.07 million households. The standard error of 0.39 million 

households indicates that we can have 95% confidence that the actual number of accredited investor 

households are between 7.31 million households and 8.83 million households (i.e., 8.07-1.96*0.39, 

8.07+1.96*0.39).
101

Table 10.2: Number and Percentage of Households Qualifying Under Alternate Net 

Worth Criteria

Net Worth 

Threshold

Households Qualifying, 

in Millions, and 

Percentage of all U.S. 

Households

Current Criteria: 1983 SCF $1,000,000 1.42

(0.14 )

1.7%

Current Criteria: 2013 SCF $1,000,000 9.22

(0.40 )

7.5%

Current Criteria - Inflation Adjusted 

(CPI): 2013 SCF

$2,454,093 3.86

(0.22)

3.1%

Current Criteria – Inflation Adjusted 

(PCE): 2013 SCF

$2,161,326 4.49

(0.24)

3.7%

Recommended Criteria: 2013 SCF $2,500,000 3.84

(0.22 )

3.1%

Figures in parentheses are standard errors, in millions of households.

2. Current Income and Net Worth Thresholds, Subject to Investment Limitations

Conditional qualification337 of households that have individual income between $200,000 

and $500,000, joint income between $300,000 and $750,000, or net worth between $ 1 million 

and $2.5 million would ensure that all the households that currently qualify as accredited 

investors on the basis of income or net worth continue to be qualified to participate in Regulation 

D offerings as accredited investors. At the same time, an investment limitation per offering, 

while maintaining the number of accredited investors, could decrease the supply of capital that is 

available for investment in Regulation D offerings.

 

337 As used in this section, the term “conditional qualification” means limiting the investment amounts for 

these individuals to a percentage of their income or net worth (e.g., 10% of prior year income or 10% of net 

worth, as applicable, per issuer, in any 12-month period).
102

Table 10.3: Number and Percentage of Households Qualifying, on a Conditional Basis

Qualifying Households, in Millions, and Percentage of 

all U.S. Households

2013 SCF

CPI PCE

Individual Income between 

$200,000 and $500,000

Or

Joint Income between $300,000 

and $750,000

5.99

(0.36) 4.9% 5.94%(0.36) 4.8%

Household Net Worth between 

$1,000,000 and $2,500,000

5.38

(0.34) 4.4%

5.35

(0.34) 4.4%

Figures in parentheses are standard errors, in millions of households.

3. Permit Individuals With a Minimum Amount of Investments to Qualify as 

Accredited Investors.

Adding a new minimum investments criteria would increase the number of households 

that qualify as accredited investors. The net increase to the accredited investor pool would be 

attributed to any households that do not currently qualify as accredited investors but would 

qualify under the new minimum investments criteria.

We find a large overlap between households that qualify under current standards and 

those that would qualify under a new minimum investments criteria. Table 10.4 below presents 

the proportion of the U.S. household population that would qualify under different minimum 

investments thresholds and the net impact the new criteria would have on the current accredited 

investor pool. We also present, in the last column, the net impact a minimum investments 

criteria would have on the number of households that would not be limited in their investment 

amounts. The additional households would be those that qualify under the conditional income 

and net worth thresholds outlined in Tables 1 and 2 above whose investments would not be 
103

limited because they also qualify under the minimum investments criteria. As can be seen in 

Table 4 below, under a minimum investment threshold of $750,000,338 while almost 10.3 million 

households meet the criteria, only 1.65 million households do not currently qualify as accredited 

investors.

Table 10.4: Number of Households Qualifying Under Alternate Minimum Investments

Minimum Investment 

Threshold*

Number, in Millions, 

and Percentage of all 

U.S. Households 

Qualifying under MI 

criteria

Addition, in 

millions, to

Current Pool* of 

Accredited 

Investors

Addition, in 

millions, to

‘Unconditional’

Pool** Based on 

Recommendations

$500,000 14.9

(0.52)

12.1% + 5.04 + 10.77

$750,000 10.3

(0.43)

8.4% + 1.65 + 6.42

$1,000,000 7.5

(0.36)

6.1% + 0.15 + 3.83

Figures in parentheses are standard errors.

* Current Pool: These are households that currently qualify as accredited investors.

** Unconditional Pool: These are households that would, under the potential approaches, qualify as accredited 

investors based on $500,000 ($750,000) and $2.5 million individual (joint) income and net worth thresholds 

respectively, and not be subject to investment limitations.

B. Non-Quantifiable Approaches

For the potential approaches 1.D through 1.F and 2.B through 2.E, due to unavailability 

of adequate data, we are unable to provide reasonable estimates of the number of households or 

individuals that may qualify under each of these potential approaches. It is to be noted that most 

of these additional criteria will serve primarily as proxies for investor sophistication. We expect 

that the number of households that would qualify under these additional criteria will have some 

 

338 The Commission proposed a $750,000 minimum investments criteria in 2007. See 2007 Proposing 

Release.
104

degree of overlap with the households that qualify as accredited investors based on the income, 

net worth or minimum investments criteria listed above. We anticipate that, to the extent that the 

households qualifying under these do not overlap with those qualifying under the quantifiable 

approaches, the net effect of these non-quantifiable approaches would be to increase the size of 

the accredited investor pool.

C. Combined Impact of Quantifiable Approaches

Table 10.5 below presents the impact of various alternate standards on the pool of 

accredited investors. We assume a minimum investments threshold of $750,000 for our analysis.

Adjusting the income and net worth thresholds solely for inflation to reflect current 

dollars would shrink the accredited investor pool considerably to approximately 4.4 million 

households, from the current pool of approximately 12.4 million households. The first three 

approaches under this study would result in the pool increasing to approximately 14 million 

households or 11.5% of total U.S. population, in terms of households. We anticipate that the 

non-quantifiable approaches would further expand the pool of households that would qualify as 

accredited investors. The table presents the estimated number of households that qualify as 

accredited investors under the current and potential criteria, and as a proportion of the U.S. 

population in terms of households.
105

Table 10.5: Number of Households Qualifying as Accredited Investors

Households Qualifying, 

In Millions

Proportion of Overall 

U.S. Household 

Population

Current Criteria: 1983 SCF

• Individual Income: $200,000

• Net Worth: $1,000,000

1.51

(0.14)

1.8%*

Current Criteria: 2013 SCF

• Individual Income: $200,000

• Joint Income: $300,000

• Net Worth: $1,000,000

12.40

(0.47)

10.1%

Current Criteria - Inflation Adjusted

(CPI): 2013 SCF

• Individual Income: $490,819

• Joint Income: $600,558

• Net Worth: $2,454,093

4.37

(0.24)

3.6%

Current Criteria - Inflation Adjusted 

(PCE): 2013 SCF

• Individual Income: $432,265

• Joint Income: $528,906

• Net Worth: $2,161,325

5.06

(0.27)

4.1%

Recommended Criteria: 2013 SCF

• Individual Income: $500,000

• Joint Income: $750,000

• Net Worth: $2,500,000

• Conditional Qualification: 

• Individual Income Between $200,000 

and $450,000, 

• Joint Income between $300,000 and 

$750,000 

• Net Worth Between $1,000,000 and 

$2,500,000

• Minimum Investment: $750,000

(Assumption)

CPI-Based Inflation

14.04**

(0.78)

CPI-Based Inflation

11.5%**

PCE-Based Inflation

14.01**

(0.78)

PCE-Based Inflation

11.4%**

Figures in parenthesis are standard errors.

* Proportion for 1983 is calculated based on 1983 SCF population of 83.9 million households. Household 

population in 2013 SCF is 122.5 million.

** Not including the impact of potential approaches 1.D through 1.F or 2.B through 2.E.
106

While the number of qualifying households under the recommended criteria would 

increase over the current accredited investor pool, the composition of the pool would change as 

the number of households that would not have any investment limitations would decline from the 

current level of 12.39 million to 10.77 million. It is therefore possible that the amount of capital 

available for investment in Regulation D offerings could be lower than the current amount due to 

the investment limitations chosen for certain levels of income and net worth. Table 10.6 below 

presents the composition of the accredited investor pool if the first three approaches were 

implemented, based on investment limitations.

Table 10.6: Households Qualifying As Accredited Investors under Recommended 

Criteria

Households Qualifying, 

In Millions

CPI-Based 

Inflation

PCE-Based 

Inflation

(A)Unconditional Qualification (No Investment Limitation)

• New Income and Net Worth Thresholds

• Minimum Investment Criteria of $750,000 (assumption)

10.77 10.77

(B) Conditional Qualification (10% Investment Limitation)

• Individual Income between $200,000 and $500,000 

and Joint Income between $300,000 and $750,000

• Net Worth Between $1,000,000 and $2,500,000

3.27 3.24

Total Households Qualifying As Accredited Investors: 

(A) + (B) 14.04 14.01

Figure 10.1 below presents the number of households that qualify as accredited investors 

under different sets of criteria, using CPI-based inflation. Households qualifying under each 

criteria are shown in the stacked bars. Since some households qualify under multiple criteria 
107

(e.g., income greater than $200,000 and net worth greater than $1 million), the number of 

accredited investor households (orange solid bar) is smaller in magnitude than the stacked bars.

Figure 10.1: Millions of U.S. Households Qualifying as Accredited Investors under 

Different Criteria339

D. Number of Accredited Investors that May Invest in Regulation D Offerings

The proportion of the U.S. population that qualifies as accredited investors has grown 

from approximately 1.8% of the population in terms of households, to approximately 10.1% of 

the population (Table 10.5 above), and if the proposed approaches in 1.A, 1.B and 2.A are 

adopted, the pool could grow to approximately 11.5% or more of U.S. households. Data from 

the 2013 SCF also shows that approximately 95% of households held some form of financial 

 

339 Assuming a minimum investments threshold of $750,000.

1.51 

12.39 

4.37 

14.04 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1983 SCF: Current

Criteria

2013 SCF: Current

Criteria

2013 SCF: Inflation

Adjusted Criteria

2013 SCF:

Recommended,

Quantifiable Criteria

Income Net Worth Minimum Investment

Conditional Income Conditional Net Worth Accredited Investor Pool

Millions of Qualifying U.S. Households
108

asset, including approximately 49% of U.S. households that held stock directly or through 

mutual funds, pension funds, trusts or annuities.

The data above and in the preceding tables provides an estimate of the overall pool of 

qualifying households in the United States. It does not, however, represent the actual number of 

accredited investors that do or would invest in the Regulation D market, or how that number 

would change if the approaches recommended for consideration in the study were adopted.

340 

Form D filings do not provide a break-down of investors by type – institutions or natural persons 

– that invested in an offering.341 In addition, because there is no requirement to file an amended 

Form D upon completion of an offering, reported information in the Form D filings may not 

reflect the actual number of accredited investors who participated in any particular offering.

Whether individuals who qualify as accredited investors will invest in private offerings is 

likely largely a function of their risk aversion.342 One way to obtain an upper bound for potential 

Regulation D investors is to consider the number of households that hold retail equity (i.e., direct 

investment in stock). Assuming publicly-traded retail equity investments are a gateway to 

participation in private capital markets, accredited investors with publicly-traded retail equity 

investing experience are more likely to participate in private offerings than accredited investors 

without retail investing experience.

Table 10.7 below presents the proportion of U.S. households with direct retail stock 

 

340 In addition, the data does not provide insight into whether increasing the size of the accredited investor 

pool would result in an increase in private offerings compared to public offerings.

341 Initial Form D filings for the period 2009-2014 indicate that approximately 250,000-300,000 investors have 

invested in new Regulation D offerings annually. This number includes entities as well as natural persons.

342 Risk aversion measures an investor’s appetite for risk. A “risk-tolerant” investor would opt for an 

investment opportunity that has more uncertain payoffs than an opportunity with more certain, but possibly 

lower expected payoffs.
109

investments.343 The data indicates that less than 14% of U.S. households participate in the retail 

equity market.344 For the current accredited investor pool, the retail equity market participation 

rate is much higher at approximately 49%. This would imply that the actual number of 

accredited households that would potentially invest in private offerings is likely to be at least half 

of the overall pool of 12.5 million, or approximately 6.25 million households. Under the 

potential approaches recommended for consideration, the number of accredited households that 

would potentially invest in private offerings would increase to 6.9 million households, or 

approximately 53% of the pool.

Table 10.7: Proportion of U.S. Households With Direct Retail Stock Investments

Amount Invested 

Directly in Stocks

Overall 

Population

Accredited Investor 

Pool: Current 

Standards 

Accredited Investor 

Pool: Recommended 

Standards

At Least One Stock 13.8% 49.2% 49.1%

At Least $100,000 4.2% 29.2% 28.3%

At Least $500,000 1.8% 16.6% 15.1%

Source: 2013 SCF

E. Profile of Accredited Investor Pools Qualifying Under Current Standards 

and Recommended Standards

In this section we provide a brief overview of certain demographic characteristics of the 

estimated accredited investor pool, based on the current and potential criteria. We also include 

 

343 Not including equity holdings through mutual funds, pension funds and other non-retail investments.

344 U.S. household direct retail equity investment participation has declined in recent years. For example, the 

participation rate was reported to be more than 15% in the 2010 SCF survey and 17% in the 1992 SCF 

survey. A 2003 study indicates that U.S. household participation in direct stock ownership was 19% in 

1998. Luigi Guiso, Michael Haliassos and Tullio Jappelli, Household Stockholding in Europe: Where Do 

We Stand and Where Do We Go?, Economic Policy, Vol. 18, No. 36 (Apr. 2003).
110

U.S. population (in terms of households) characteristics in order to provide a comparison. The 

data underlying these charts was obtained from the 2013 SCF.

As can be seen below, accredited investors tend to be older, more highly educated and 

self-employed in greater proportions, relative to the general population.

Figure 10.2: Age Profile of Current and Estimated New Accredited Investor Pools

3%

16%

22%

28%

22%

10%

3%

18%

21%

28%

22%

9%

21%

17%

20%

19%

13%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Under 35 years

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

Over 75 years

U.S. Population

Current AI Pool

Recommended AI Pool
111

Figure 10.3: Education Profile of Current and Estimated New Accredited Investor Pools

Figure 10.4: Working Status of Current and Estimated New Accredited Investor Pools

Figure 10.5 below shows that three quarters of accredited investors rely on 

professionals345 for making their investment decisions. Analysis of data in the 2013 SCF shows 

that 43% of accredited investors reported obtaining investment information from a banker, 

 

345 Figure 10.5 is based on data from the 2013 SCF. Certain of the categories identified as “professionals” in 

Figure 10.5 may not be considered “investment professionals” as that term is used traditionally with respect 

to providing investment assistance.

21%

3%

35%

0%

23%

17%

21%

3%

34%

0%

24%

18%

61%

7%

19%

9%

3%

0.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

High School or Less

Associate's Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Medical Certifications

MBA/MS/MA

Phd/JD/MD

U.S. Population

Current AI Pool

Recommended AI Pool

48%

28%

22%

2%

47%

30%

20%

2%

57%

10%

27%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Outside Employment

Self Employed

Retired

Unemployed

U.S. Population

Current AI Pool

Recommended AI Pool
112

broker, dealer, insurance agent, other institutionalized source or investment seminar and 53% of 

accredited investors reported relying on a lawyer, accountant or financial planner as sources of 

information for investment decision-making.

Figure 10.5: Usage of Professionals Amongst Accredited Investors

F. Geographic Distribution of Accredited Investor Households

The public version of the SCF database does not provide information regarding 

geographical location of households. As a result, we are unable to identify where households 

that qualify as accredited investors are likely to be concentrated. 

The Federal Reserve Board’s 2013 SCF Chartbook346 provides information on median 

and mean income and net worth of U.S. households based on four regions categorized as 

Northeast, Midwest, South and West. The data is presented in Table 10.8 below. The data 

shows that household income and net worth tend to be much higher in the Northeastern and 

 

346 http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/files/BulletinCharts.pdf.

43%

53%

76%

43%

53%

75%

38%

32%

57%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Used Banker, Broker,

Dealer, Insurance Agent or

Other

Used Lawyer, Accountant

or Financial Planner

Used Either Category

Population

Current AI Pool

Recommended AI Pool
113

Western regions. This indicates that households that would qualify as accredited investors are 

more likely to be located in these two regions.

Table 10.8: U.S. Households Income and Net Worth, By Region (U.S. Dollars)

Northeast Midwest South West

Mean Household Income 

(before-tax)

$107,200 $75,200 $77,900 $98,300

Median Household Income 

(before-tax)

$58,300 $44,200 $42,600 $50,700

Mean Household Net Worth $630,200 $448,100 $451,500 $682,900

Median Household Net Worth $129,800 $75,900 $69,500 $86,600

The U.S. Census Bureau (the “USCB”) provides data on number of households that have 

net worth greater than $1.5 million by state. The most recent data available on the USCB’s 

website is for the year 2004. Based on available data for 2004, California had the largest 

percentage of households (16.5%) with net worth greater than $1.5 million. Other states with the 

largest percentage were Florida (9.1%), New York (7.7%), Texas (4.9%) and Illinois (4.6%).

347 

The states with the lowest percentage were Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska and North Dakota.

Similarly, 2009 census data shows that California had the largest percentage (16.2%) of 

households with income greater than $200,000. The other states with the largest percentage were 

New York, Texas, New Jersey and Florida.348 With regard to states of solicitation, the Form Ds 

 

347 See Table 719. Top Wealth Holders With Net Worth of $1.5 Million or More--Number and Net Worth by 

State: 2004, available under the 2012 Statistical Abstract at

https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/income.pdf. The table for 2001 provides data for 

households with net worth greater than $1 million. The ranking of top five states is the same as that for 

2004.

348 See Table 706. Household Income--Distribution by Income Level and State: 2009, available under the 2012 

Statistical Abstract at https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/income.pdf. 
114

for most offerings indicate the ‘All States’ option. The next highest number of Regulation D 

offerings were solicited in Florida (5.9%), followed by California (5.6%), Texas and New York.

G. Future Indexing for Inflation

Under the approach identified in 1.C, the dollar-amount thresholds in the accredited 

investor definition would be adjusted every four years to reflect inflation. The quadrennialadjusted dollar amounts would be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10,000. Adjusting the 

thresholds for inflation in the future would help to maintain the income, net worth and 

investments requirements in real dollar terms, so that the accredited investor thresholds do not 

erode over time. Table 9 below presents data (rounded to nearest $10,000) on current, potential 

and future (estimated) income, net worth and minimum investment thresholds. We use average 

CPI-based inflation for the past 20 years (approximately 2.37%349) to obtain the inflation rate 

estimate for future years.

 

349 Underlying data obtained from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban 

Consumers.
115

Table 10.9: Thresholds under Accredited Investor Standards

Current 

Thresholds

Recommended 

Thresholds

Recommended 

Thresholds:

December 

2018

Recommended 

Thresholds:

December 

2022

Individual Income $200,000 $500,000 $550,000

($540,000)

$600,000

($580,000)

Joint Income $300,000 $750,000 $820,000

($810,000)

$900,000

($870,000)

Net Worth $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,750,000

($2,700,000)

$3,020,000

($2,920,000

Minimum Investments $750,000 $820,000

($810,000)

$900,000

($870,000)

Minimum Investments $1,000,000 $1,100,000

($1,080,000)

$1,210,000

($1,170,000)

Figures in parenthesis show the amounts when we use PCE-based inflation of 1.94% for the 20-year period.

Increased thresholds due to inflation adjustment could decrease or increase the size of the 

accredited investor pool, depending on the rate at which personal income or net worth fluctuates, 

relative to the inflation rate. For example, all else remaining constant, a higher rate of income 

growth in nominal terms than the inflation rate would result in an expansion in the pool of 

accredited households qualifying on an income basis, relative to our baseline numbers.

Data from the USCB’s Current Population Survey shows that U.S. household income has 

increased in nominal terms, on average, by 2.65% per year over the last 20 years.350 This is 

 

350 Data available at: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/. Household 

income is defined to include wages or salary, farm and non-farm income, social security, transfer payments, 

investment income including rental income, unemployment/veterans’ compensation, alimony or child 

support.
116

higher than the average annual inflation of 2.37% actually observed over the same period. The 

data also shows that household income has grown at a faster average annual rate for the top 

quintile of the households (3.07%), and was even higher (3.14%) for the top five percent of the 

households. If historical trends hold in the future, adjusting accredited investor thresholds for 

inflation will not shrink the pool of accredited investors, relative to the number of households 

that would qualify based on approaches identified for consideration in the study.