> How many angel investors really have less than $2.3 million in assets?
Wealth seems to follow a power law, so there are probably over 2x as many at $1M as there are at $2M.
> If I had to guess, I'd say that the increase in the cap was to try to cut down on Wall Street shysters ripping off doctors and marketing VPs.
How about some evidence that this is actually occurring?
Heck - how about some evidence that "Wall Street shysters" are even trying to get money from angels?
Note - Madoff was running a completely different racket, one well within the purview of the SEC, and they didn't catch on for decades. (He was supposedly stock picking.)
> If so, the thing for Angel firms to do is contact your California senators,
Angels don't have firms. Yes, there are some groups, but most angels aren't in them.
Most folks affected this don't even know that it's something that they should be concerned about because they haven't done the angel thing yet. This means that they never will, and the folks who they would have funded likely won't get funded.
Wealth seems to follow a power law, so there are probably over 2x as many at $1M as there are at $2M.
> If I had to guess, I'd say that the increase in the cap was to try to cut down on Wall Street shysters ripping off doctors and marketing VPs.
How about some evidence that this is actually occurring?
Heck - how about some evidence that "Wall Street shysters" are even trying to get money from angels?
Note - Madoff was running a completely different racket, one well within the purview of the SEC, and they didn't catch on for decades. (He was supposedly stock picking.)
> If so, the thing for Angel firms to do is contact your California senators,
Angels don't have firms. Yes, there are some groups, but most angels aren't in them.
Most folks affected this don't even know that it's something that they should be concerned about because they haven't done the angel thing yet. This means that they never will, and the folks who they would have funded likely won't get funded.