BREAKING NEWS: General Solicitation of Accredited Investors is Now Legal… Who are the Winners and Losers?


“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” Ayn Rand

Real estate syndicatiors, hedge funds, and start up companies received the long awaited blessing from the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to begin advertising for accredited investors on Wednesday, July 10th. The vote lifted an eighty year ban for general solicitation and some clear winners and losers are sure to emerge with the change.

This will affect accredited investors witch means the eight million or so Americans with a liquid net worth of $1,000,000. This is impressive crowd for the record. Some estimates suggest that 1.4 TRILLION will be raised under the new rules.

To fully grasp the magnitude of the change consider this crash course in securities law. A prospective investment is a security (The Howey Test) if it is:

  • investment of money due to
  • an expectation of profits arising from
  • a common enterprise
  • which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party

Therefore, if a promoter is making the business decisions for the venture then its a security. Other structures that are not a security include a member managed LLC, a Tenet in Common ownership structure, and a debt obligation that is not fictionalized.

Registration of a securities is extraordinarily expense (Accounting, Lawyers). For a single asset purchase is not cost effective. However, the private placement rules permit a much less costly avenue for promoter under three provisions: regulation D rules 504, 505, and 506. Rule 506 is the most popular with sponsors because it has no dollar limit being raised and lower disclosures required because it is targeted at accredited investors.

The protection scheme of 506 is supported by the policy that accredited/sophisticated investors are wise enough to not need hand holding. Up till now however the process of meeting new investors was to say the least a lot like dating. You had to meet the investor and create a per-existing relationship before you could pitch your specific investment. (These rules still apply to 504 and 505).

The JOBS act has taken away the “courtship” aspect as to rule 506. Its on like Donkey Kong! Direct mail is fired up and ready to go all across the land. An interesting question is how much will actually change. The promoter will still need to gain the trust of the investor. Will someone invest on the basis of a postcard alone?

This change is not without some concern. Here are the winners and possible losers under this change:


  • Real Estate Syndicates perhaps the biggest winners. It will permit a much more aggressive marketing model.
  • Small fry hedge fund managers: This will permit the mom and pop hedge funds to aggressively seek a larger capital base
  • Existing commercial real estate owners looking to sell. The flood of liquidity coming to the market price will bid up. Its going to be very intriguing to see what markets and asset classes will bear the brunt? Will multifamily overbuilding get pushed into overdrive?
  • Accredited Investors: more choice is a good thing in almost every circumstance. This change will permit a greater exposure to opportunities
  • Ponzi schemers: somewhat joking here. This will possibly permit a scheme to to run a lot longer before it crashes.

The need for taking responsibility of education: it will now be even more incumbent upon the investor to be critical of the offerings.


The overly trusting, keep up with the Jones, invest because my doctors neighbors said he was great guy investor is officially doomed and the clock is ticking.

How I Bought, Rehabbed, Rented, Refinanced, and Repeated for 14 Rental Properties

This is the dream right? Going from zero to 10+ rental properties, providing stable cash flow and long-term wealth for you and your family, and building a scalable business model to boot! Learn how this investor did just that, in this exclusive story featured on BiggerPockets!

Click Here For Your Free eBook

Tips for Protecting Yourself in the New Era if You Are an Accredited Investor:

  • Gravity is real….investment returns of far greater than ten percent or returns that are consistent in spite of market fluctuations demand scrutiny
  • Stay diversified. Don’t place too large a percentage with one promoter or opportunity.
  • If you don’t understand how they are proposing to generate the returns…trust on the axiom a confused mind must say no!
  • How much access will the permit to ongoing books and records? The truth is found in a paper trail….always
  • Trust your gut: our flight instincts will protect us if we listen
  • Watch American Greed on CNBC. The key theme I draw from the show occasionally demand your capital to be returned. Note single asset real estate deals generally will not permit this option.
  • Read The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham
  • Read The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder

Overall, the changes in the securities rules will have a tremendous impact and I believe mostly positive in the real estate world. The dangers do exist for the unwary. That’s the truth.

Photo: Scrambled Squash

About Author

Douglas Dowell

Douglas Dowell J.D. is a commercial and multifamily investor. His blog will focus on legally raising private money, risk mitigation with due diligence and management science. He is also an avid student of success principles with a focus on modeling success factors.


    • Douglas Dowell

      Your welcome Mark. The question about the value of your REIT is an juicy question. Will love to hear others thoughts on this topic for sure. I am very interested if these are the relevant factors/scenarios:

      Factors on why it will increase the REIT:

      If the firm is looking to sell into the increased liquidity it will possibly get better pricing on its asset sale. More competition bidding up properties?

      Factors on why it will have little effect:

      The market segment of institutional investment in real estate strata seems to me to be higher range 8M? 10M? range or more
      This change seems to me to affect the 1M range to 10M range in my mind the most
      The new rule just permits more aggressive marketing but what if the marginal effect turns out to be minimal.
      REIT is a stock and therefore the market groupthink perceives not appreciable change

      Factors on why it would have a negative effect of the pricing:

      Increased competition from larger syndicators on the buy side perhaps?
      More product being brought to market?

      Overall, a very interesting question of how the intrinsic value will be affected.

  1. Michael Dorovich on

    ‘The overly trusting, keep up with the Jones, invest because my doctors neighbors said he was great guy investor is officially doomed and the clock is ticking.’

    I probably shouldn’t ask, but could you explain this further? Thanks.

    • Douglas Dowell

      Sure Michael. My overall thesis is that with the influx of new opportunities it will place of premium on doing your own thinking.

      It was a bit over the top to say they are doomed maybe…but I believe investors have really be educated about the opportunities offered. Especially so after the marketing restrictions are relaxed.

  2. Jeff Brown

    Not much will change. Folks will soon learn that some will be winners, some losers. We’re also talking about control. REITs and TICs are the latest example of the next best thing, and many have already washed their hands of ’em. I’ll be interested to watch this play out.

    Great info, Douglas.

  3. Good info and news Doug, but I tend to agree with Jeff that not much will probably change. In fact, according to the Jobs Act fact sheet that was released on the SEC website (7/10/2013) it will now be harder for the fundraiser to prove that an investor is accredited, and will be more cumbersome for the investor to verify his income suitability, especially if the investor was acquired through general solicitation.

  4. Steve Johnson on

    Very interesting stuff. I’m a bit bummed to not be one of those 1Mil + investors those companies will market too. I would be an interesting study and comparison to see how the larger companies work their deals and find their profit and how they might do in market changes. I’d be willing to bet though, that the lack of control in it will still keep many of the bigger investors away simply because they can’t have their word in.

  5. Good stuff Douglas – welcome to BP!

    I am with Jeff on this one – nothing will change. The main driver in private money has nothing to do with logic – it’s all psychology. RE has a mountain to climb relative to all things trust. The only thing that’s going to change is that the likes of Leybovich and Clothier will do even more business than ever. The masses won’t get it…

    Nice to have you on board indeed!

  6. Quoting something from a very wise friend of mine who I spoke with regarding this said “The lifting of General Solicitation is not official yet. Was voted on by the SEC two days ago and passed with a vote of 4-1. Still not in effect until ruling published in federal paper (Registrar) and will be active 60 days after. Could be another year.”

    So it is not official yet and I think this article is misleading and borderline dangerous not to state that clearly.

  7. I’d like to get your thoughts on the following article:

    I use lenders consistently and understand which rules allow me to not register (in other words, act like what I do falls under SEC laws), but if the article above is true there’s no need to know your exemptions. My guess is it’s probably one of those things that will end up in Supreme to get a final answer (any volunteers?), but would appreciate your thoughts.

    • Douglas Dowell on

      I am not offering legal counsel but I do have an educated opinion. I would always recommend consulting a securities lawyer before taking action.

      What I took from the Reves v. Ernst & Young, 110 S. Ct. 945 (1990) opinion is if it acts like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its a security. They are looking at function over form. From what I understand the most important factor in determining what is and isn’t when it comes to notes: does the distribution plan function like a security? A highly fact specific inquiry no doubt.

      If your proposed plan is unclear on the facts its a journey into the great wide open. Practicality would drive the risk assessment. Issues like how likely is the offer-or to perform are highly important: performance in almost all cases means no litigation right?

        • Good stuff and all good points. While our small group all err on the conservative side (treat it like a security, know your exemptions) and everything is very specific, this has made interesting roundtable discussions on who’s doing what and how. Your comments has added more to it- thanks for the input.

    • Douglas Dowell on

      I don’t think so Adam. I think smaller hedge funds will have more opportunity to expand their capital base. The smaller investor is probably not going to be affected at all under this particular provision at all.

  8. I think this article made a huge statement that my research into Reg D did not find to be true.

    “Other structures that are not a security include a member managed LLC, a Tenet in Common ownership structure, and a debt obligation that is not fictionalized.”

    I’m assuming that spell check screwed up again and what was meant was: “not fractionalized” meaning pooling of investors onto one note.

    This is a complete surprise to me and my Reg D understanding. I was under the impression that even putting a lender onto a mortgage and a note was selling a security.

    Can we offer regulation passages that validate that one investor one mortgage does not need an SEC Reg D filing?

    tnx curt

    • Fictionalized Notes are a problem haha….thanks Curt. I will have to check spelling more closely.

      The best place to look for the answers on weather a debt obligation should be treated as a security is found in Reves v. Ernst & Young, 110 S. Ct. 945 (1990) and the cases the flow from it. Their alot of confusion about what is and is not a security because the court elected to use form over function.

      The following factors seem to be the most relevant:
      1. Is their collateral?
      2. The number of participants in the obligation?
      3. How is repayment structured?
      4. What is the reasonable expectation of the investor?

      A great example is Bass v. Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc., 210 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2000). The bridge loan note was not a security because there was only one investor and the note was collateralized.

      Again please seek legal counsel before acting on this information.

  9. Hi Douglas, I think this is a huge revelation! And think it’s not well understood where the dotted line is for the real estate investor and borrower.

    This could be the topic of another blog. 🙂

    I’d like the scoop of that blog now though. 🙂 Douglas can you give the laymen’s description of how to borrow from a passive cash lender that is NOT an SEC regulated activity? IE 1 lender onto 1 property with 1 mortgage note. Does a personal promissory note in addition to the mortgage note make it a security?

    How one might accidentally structure a JV or deal to BE an SEC regulated activity?

    Sorry for taking your help and asking for all of court law to be boiled down into a few sentences. LOL but thanks. This is a huge area that needs more horn blowing for REI folks to learn where the dotted line is.


Leave A Reply

Pair a profile with your post!

Create a Free Account


Log In Here