> They moved from an objective definition to a subjective definition of "expertise".
No, they didn't. It remains objective, it just now tests expertise by objective standards, not merely wealth or income. (Which are, at best, more distant proxies for expertise than the new ones.)
> Expect many more regular people to be scammed out of their life savings.
The new added standards are less "regular people" than the the old, continued standards, so I don't think that's the case. If licensed professional investment advisors and the like are getting scammed out of their life savings because they are able to invest directly in unlicensed securities, than there is a real problem with the licensing systems or the process allowing the investments to be offered at all, regardless of investor qualifications.
> The new added standards are less "regular people" than the the old, continued standards
I generally agree with your comment, but this doesn't make much sense. The old "$200K/300K or $1MM outside primary residence" standards are continued, right? So by definition, in raw numbers, there could only ever be at least as many "regular people"...
I'm not saying their are fewer "regular people" in total (which, as you note, would be impossible, since this only adds new categories, rather than narrowing or eliminating old ones). I am saying that the new categories are less "regular people" than the existing, continuing ones, and are not opening up risk to regular people. The risk to "regular" people who are unsophisticated in investing is almost entirely in the old categories.
No, they didn't. It remains objective, it just now tests expertise by objective standards, not merely wealth or income. (Which are, at best, more distant proxies for expertise than the new ones.)
> Expect many more regular people to be scammed out of their life savings.
The new added standards are less "regular people" than the the old, continued standards, so I don't think that's the case. If licensed professional investment advisors and the like are getting scammed out of their life savings because they are able to invest directly in unlicensed securities, than there is a real problem with the licensing systems or the process allowing the investments to be offered at all, regardless of investor qualifications.