[PASSED] Sophisticated Investors Protocol

[Goobergunchia]

Update: in queue

This is the second of a likely long list of resolutions designed to protect cross-border investments and to rein in the investment banks, and protect investors investing overseas, based roughly on IOSCO (International Organization of Securities Commissions) criteria. The main purpose of this resolution is to define what constitutes an "sophisticated investor" (or accredited/accreditated investor, professional investor etc., terms slightly differ between countries) so that retail investors are not sold inappropriate products.

One line summary: this regulation basically says that "retail investors cannot be sold complex financial products, unless you can prove that you have the money and the knowledge to buy these products". The rest are all more technical criteria to make the WA rules closer to real life rules.

This is mostly aimed at protecting smaller investors - large investors (say if you have US$1,000,000 in cash) are deemed to be sophisticated enough to handle sophisticated products sold by investment banks, assuming that the said investor has sufficient knowledge.

The definition here is roughly based off the US one:
https://www.sec.gov/education/capitalra ... d-investor

The global regulation is (again) through IOSCO (International Organization of Securities Commissions) criteria known as the Suitability Requirements With Respect To the Distribution of Complex Financial Products:
https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/p ... OPD400.pdf

And the 2019 review on the said regulation:
https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/p ... OPD638.pdf

Each jurisdiction has slightly different requirements in terms of the wealth of the investor to be considered "accredited" - Australia is A$2,500,000, Singapore is S$1,000,000 excluding primary residence, the US is US$1,000,000 excluding primary residence.

Category: Regulation / Consumer Protection

Submitted version

The World Assembly,

Acknowledges previous resolutions to protect the interest of investors (GAR#474, #633);

Recognizing the wide range of investment products available but that potential investors have widely differing levels of knowledge, expertise, risk appetite, and other circumstances;

Believing that distinguishing between sophisticated and other investors is necessary to protect ordinary investors from purchasing high risk products but also allow knowledged investors with sufficient expertise to assume higher risks;

Hereby defines:

"Institution" to mean a financial institution with qualified staff and regulated by a competent authority in at least one member state;

"Instruments" to include all securities, currencies, futures, options, and all related derivatives traded in any member state;

"Products" to include all funds, certificates, notes, units, shares, interests and all other products investing in instruments and managed by an institution regulated by at least one member state;

Hereby further defines:

"Individual investor" to mean an individual, a sole proprietorship or the partners of an unlimited partnership;

"Corporate investor" to mean an incorporated entity owned by multiple individuals or other corporate entities with limited liability, including (but not limited to) mutual societies and cooperatives and entities pursuant to legislation by at least one member state;

"Institutional investor" to mean an institution with specialist functions in investment;

Hereby requires that:

A competent authority of a member state must define, if desired in writing by the said investor, to be "sophisticated" if that investor can present evidence to meet the requirements below at the time of accreditation and repeating at all times thereafter until the said investor rescinds such evidence:

An individual investor meets all requirements on personal and household wealth, income, education, experience and knowledge of financial instruments and products sufficient to invest in complex financial instruments and/or products;

A corporate investor has a majority of its board of directors and/or officers (as defined by the member state) satisfying all education, experience and knowledge of instruments and products deemed necessary by the member state, and for the corporate itself to have such sufficient wealth and income as deemed necessary;

An institutional investor is required to meet all regulated requirements imposed on it by the said competent authority at all times;

Unless classified as a sophisticated investor based on the aforesaid criteria, a member state may not make available instrument(s) and/or product(s) to an investor if the said instrument(s) and/or products:

Has features that may potentially result in a loss greater than the original investment amount;

Invests in non-WA member states that the member state deems to offer insufficient protection to investors;

Includes any other features deemed relevant by the competent authority of a member state with jurisdiction on the said instrument and/or product.

Hereby further requires that:

All sales documentation on the said instrument(s)/products must include appropriate disclosures concerning the risks of the said instrument and/or product(s) and any potential or actual material conflict(s) of interest between the institution and the investor;

A member state may not prohibit the sophisticated investors of its state from purchasing products from an institution in another member state, provided that the said investor also meets the requirements to be deemed a sophisticated investor in the other member state;

A competent authority of a member state with jurisdiction is responsible for the implementation and interpretation this resolution, and for any penalties that may be imposed on any violations thereof.

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

Draft 3

I simplified some wording and substituted “instrument(s) and/or product(s)” with just instruments (I re-defined “instruments” in the definitions section) and started to refer to “resources” rather than “wealth and income”. I also simplified the definition of “corporate investor” slightly to come in below 4,000 characters.

I’ve also inserted a requirement on understanding customer needs (clause 3, sub clause c) for an institution selling instruments to an individual or corporate investor must understand the investment objectives and risk appetite of the said investor and not to sell instruments not otherwise suitable to that investor. IA is credited as a co-author accordingly with his approval.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledges previous resolutions to protect investors (GAR#474, #633);

Recognizing the wide range of investment options but that investors have varying of knowledge, expertise, risk appetite, and circumstances;

Believing that distinguishing between sophisticated and other investors is necessary to protect consumers lacking sufficient knowledge from being disadvantaged in purchasing high risk products but also allow those with sufficient resources and expertise to assume higher risks;

Hereby defines:

"Institution" to mean a financial institution with qualified staff and regulated by a competent authority in at least one member state;

"Instruments" to include all securities, currencies, futures and all related derivatives traded in any member state, and, for the purpose of clauses 2 and 3 of this resolution, includes all funds, certificates, notes, units, shares, interests and all other products investing in instruments and managed by an institution regulated by at least one member state;

Hereby further defines:

"Individual investor" to mean an individual, the partners of an unlimited partnership or any entit(ies) solely beneficially owned by a single individual;

"Corporate investor" to mean a body corporate or legal person, not including any entit(ies) substantially beneficially owned by a single individual;

"Institutional investor" to mean an institution (as defined herein) with specialist functions in investment;

Hereby requires that:

1. A competent authority of a member state must classify, if an investor desires to be so classified, to be "sophisticated" if that investor can present reasonable evidence to meet the requirements below at the time of classification and repeating at all times thereafter until the said investor rescinds such evidence:
a. An individual investor meets all requirements imposed by the said authority on (1) personal and household resources and (2) sufficient education, experience and knowledge to invest in complex instruments;
b. A corporate investor meets all requirements imposed by the said authority in (1) resources available, and (2) the appointment of board directors and/or officers with sufficient education, experience and knowledge to invest in complex instruments;
c. An institutional investor is required to meet all regulated requirements imposed on it by the said competent authority at all times;

2. Unless classified as a sophisticated investor based on clause 1, a member state may not make available instrument(s) to an investor if the said instrument(s):
a. Have features that may potentially result in a loss greater than the original investment amount;
b. Invests in non-WA member states that the member state deems to offer insufficient protection to investors;
c. Includes any other features deemed relevant by the competent authority of a member state with jurisdiction on the said instrument and/or product;

3. Hereby further requires that:
a. All sales documentation on the said instrument(s)/products must include appropriate disclosures concerning the risks of the said instrument(s) and any potential or actual material conflict(s) of interest between the institution and the investor;
b. An institution selling instruments to an individual or corporate investor must understand the investment objectives and risk appetite of the said investor and not to sell instruments not otherwise suitable to that investor;
c. A member state may not prohibit the sophisticated investors of its state from purchasing products from an institution in another member state, provided that the said investor also meets the requirements to be deemed a sophisticated investor in the other member state.

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

Draft 2

The World Assembly,

Acknowledges previous resolutions to protect the interest of investors (GAR#474, #633);

Recognizing the wide range of investment products available but that potential investors have widely differing levels of knowledge, expertise, risk appetite, and other circumstances;

Believing that distinguishing between sophisticated and other investors is necessary to protect ordinary investors from purchasing high risk products but also allow knowledged investors with sufficient expertise to assume higher risks;

Hereby defines:

"Institution" to mean a financial institution with qualified staff and regulated by a competent authority in at least one member state;

"Instruments" to include all securities, currencies, futures, options, and all related derivatives traded in any member state;

"Products" to include all funds, certificates, notes, units, shares, interests and all other products investing in instruments and managed by an institution regulated by at least one member state;

Hereby further defines:

"Individual investor" to mean an individual, a sole proprietorship or the partners of an unlimited partnership;

"Corporate investor" to mean an incorporated entity owned by multiple individuals or other corporate entities with limited liability, including (but not limited to) mutual societies and cooperatives and entities pursuant to legislation by at least one member state;

"Institutional investor" to mean an institution with specialist functions in investment;

Hereby requires that:

1. A competent authority of a member state must define, if desired in writing by the said investor, to be "sophisticated" if that investor can present evidence to meet the requirements below at the time of accreditation and repeating at all times thereafter until the said investor rescinds such evidence:
   
   
   1. An individual investor meets all requirements on personal and household wealth, income, education, experience and knowledge of financial instruments and products sufficient to invest in complex financial instruments and/or products;
   2. A corporate investor has a majority of its board of directors and/or officers (as defined by the member state) satisfying all education, experience and knowledge of instruments and products deemed necessary by the member state, and for the corporate itself to have such sufficient wealth and income as deemed necessary;
   3. An institutional investor is required to meet all regulated requirements imposed on it by the said competent authority at all times;
2. Unless classified as a sophisticated investor based on the aforesaid criteria, a member state may not make available instrument(s) and/or product(s) to an investor if the said instrument(s) and/or products:
   
   
   1. Has features that may potentially result in a loss greater than the original investment amount;
   2. Invests in non-WA member states that the member state deems to offer insufficient protection to investors;
   3. Includes any other features deemed relevant by the competent authority of a member state with jurisdiction on the said instrument and/or product.
3. Hereby further requires that:
   
   
   1. All sales documentation on the said instrument(s)/products must include appropriate disclosures concerning the risks of the said instrument and/or product(s) and any potential or actual material conflict(s) of interest between the institution and the investor;
   2. A member state may not prohibit the sophisticated investors of its state from purchasing products from an institution in another member state, provided that the said investor also meets the requirements to be deemed a sophisticated investor in the other member state;

A competent authority of a member state with jurisdiction is responsible for the implementation and interpretation this resolution, and for any penalties that may be imposed on any violations thereof.

Draft 1

The World Assembly,

Acknowledges previous resolutions to protect the interest of investors (GAR#474) and in free trade;

Recognizing the wide range of investment products available but that potential investors have widely differing levels of knowledge, expertise, risk appetite, targeted returns and individual circumstances;

Believing that distinguishing between accredited and other investors is necessary to ensure that ordinary investors are protected from purchasing high risk products that may result in substantial losses but also that knowledged investors with sufficient expertise can presumably assume risks that they are perceived to be aware of;

Hereby defines:

"Institution" to mean a financial institution with qualified staff and regulated by at least one member state;

"Instruments" to include all securities, currencies, futures, options and all their respective derivatives traded in any member state;

"Products" to include all funds, securities, certificates, notes, units, shares, interests and all other products investing in instruments and managed by an institution operating in and regulated by at least one member state;

Hereby further defines:

"Individual investor" to mean an individual, a sole proprietorship or the partners of an unlimited partnership;

"Corporate investor" to mean an incorporated entity owned by multiple individuals or other corporate entities with limited liability, or limited liability partnerships;

"Institutional investor" to mean an incorporated financial institution with specialist functions in investment and regulated by a competent authority of at least one member state;


Hereby requires that:

1. A competent authority of a member state must define, if desired in writing by the said investor, to be "accredited" if that investor can present evidence to meet the requirements below at the time of accreditation and repeating at all times thereafter:
   
   
   1. An individual investor meets all requirements on personal and household wealth (including wealth with or without the primary residence of the investor), income, education, experience and knowledge of financial instruments and products sufficient to invest in complex financial instruments and/or products;
   2. A corporate investor has a majority of its board of directors and has in its employment senior employee(s) delegated with all responsibilities on investments to meet all education, experience and knowledge of instruments and products deemed necessary by the member state, and for the corporate itself to have such sufficient wealth and income as deemed necessary;
   3. An institutional investor is required to meet all regulated requirements imposed on it by the said competent authority at all times;
2. Unless classified as an accredited investor, a member state may not make available instruments and/or products to an investor if the said instrument and/or products:
   
   
   1. Has embedded features that may potentially result in a loss greater than the original investment amount;
   2. Invests in non-WA member states that the member state deems to offer insufficient protection to investors;
   3. Any other features deemed relevant by the competent authority of a member state with jurisdiction on the said instrument and/or product.
3. Hereby further notes that:
   
   
   1. If an investor chooses to no longer be accredited or loses accreditation for any reason, the said investor must, subject to the regulations of the member state, cease investments not available to non accredited investors.
   2. A competent authority of a member state with jurisdiction is responsible for the implementation and interpretation of Clauses 1 and 2, and for any penalties that may be imposed on any violations;
   3. A member state cannot prohibit an accredited investor under its own jurisdiction to purchase an instrument or product from another member state, so long as it meets the accredited investor requirements of that member state.

[Tinhampton]

Opposed to WA-mandated occupational licensing regulations - especially those with no effect on public health, order and safety.

[Simone Republic]

Opposed to WA-mandated occupational licensing regulations - especially those with no effect on public health, order and safety.

There's no occupational WA mandated licensing regulation here - not sure what you mean. An "accredited investor" in the US (or a "certified high net worth individual" in the UK) or a sophisticated investor basically means individuals who are qualified (based on wealth and knowledge) to purchase sophisticated investment products.

[Simone Republic]

Bump. In Draft 2 I made slight changes to refer to a "sophisticated investor" which follows more the Australia/UK term, rather than an "accredited investor" (the US term) and I cleaned up the phrasing a bit.

[Simone Republic]

*Second bump*

(IC: ouch, just hit head)

[Kenmoria]

“For the sake of consistency, clause 2c should not end in a full stop.”

(OOC: This has my full support, though, in honesty, I don’t enough about the topic to comment in detail or defend my position.)

[GermanEmpire of kaisereich]

The German Empire of Kaisereich, supports the proposal presented.

[Untecna]

Despite reading the one-line summary, this still doesn't add up in my head. A little more explanation, maybe?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Despite reading the one-line summary, this still doesn't add up in my head. A little more explanation, maybe?

The one line summary says that if I were to ask you "Do you want to buy tranche 8 of a collateralised debt obligation with underlying collateral of synthetic derivatives?" and you don't understand what that means, I can't then actually sell you tranche 8 of the synthetic derivative CDOs I want to sell you.

[Potted Plants United]

Despite reading the one-line summary, this still doesn't add up in my head. A little more explanation, maybe?

The one line summary says that if I were to ask you "Do you want to buy tranche 8 of a collateralised debt obligation with underlying collateral of synthetic derivatives?" and you don't understand what that means, I can't then actually sell you tranche 8 of the synthetic derivative CDOs I want to sell you.

OOC: The proposal seems too long for a "no selling stuff to people unless the other person knows what you're wanting to sell". What's the rest about? (Not necessarily a question at you, IA, but just anyone wanting to explain.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

The one line summary says that if I were to ask you "Do you want to buy tranche 8 of a collateralised debt obligation with underlying collateral of synthetic derivatives?" and you don't understand what that means, I can't then actually sell you tranche 8 of the synthetic derivative CDOs I want to sell you.

OOC: The proposal seems too long for a "no selling stuff to people unless the other person knows what you're wanting to sell". What's the rest about? (Not necessarily a question at you, IA, but just anyone wanting to explain.)

Well, the one-line summary – surprise, surprise – isn't a perfect summary of the entire proposal. The proposal defines "sophisticated investor" in certain terms. It then requires that certain defined classes of investments cannot be sold to except to sophisticated investors.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: The proposal seems too long for a "no selling stuff to people unless the other person knows what you're wanting to sell". What's the rest about? (Not necessarily a question at you, IA, but just anyone wanting to explain.)

Well, the one-line summary – surprise, surprise – isn't a perfect summary of the entire proposal. The proposal defines "sophisticated investor" in certain terms. It then requires that certain defined classes of investments cannot be sold to except to sophisticated investors.

OOC: Thank you.

[Untecna]

Despite reading the one-line summary, this still doesn't add up in my head. A little more explanation, maybe?

The one line summary says that if I were to ask you "Do you want to buy tranche 8 of a collateralised debt obligation with underlying collateral of synthetic derivatives?" and you don't understand what that means, I can't then actually sell you tranche 8 of the synthetic derivative CDOs I want to sell you.

Ah. So if I'm not versed in finance, I shouldn't be allowed to buy those things. Consumer protection.

Makes more sense now.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The sophisticated investor justification (see Investopedia) is basically just paternalism: the hoi polloi just don't have the expertise to understand the risks that they are taking on, so sellers shouldn't be allowed to transact certain types of business with them. The extent to which that justification is convincing is highly dependent on your belief as to the financial expertise of the average or median person.

I'm pretty convinced of the credulity of the general public (see eg FTX, crypto, etc; insert Spongebob meme here), so I think I'll support this proposal in principle. There is an international element as well; lots of investments are international. We also should have international investments: otherwise, investments in productive capacity that bring meaningful improvements to quality of life don't happen in other countries merely because of invisible lines in the ground.

Ensuring that ordinary people, who don't have the time or expertise to analyse complex financial instruments, are not sold on schemes of international mail stamp arbitrage or something of that sort is a meaningful legal improvement. There are some benefits to tailoring relatively simple and safe financial services for ordinary people.

[Simone Republic]

The one line summary says that if I were to ask you "Do you want to buy tranche 8 of a collateralised debt obligation with underlying collateral of synthetic derivatives?" and you don't understand what that means, I can't then actually sell you tranche 8 of the synthetic derivative CDOs I want to sell you.

Ah. So if I'm not versed in finance, I shouldn't be allowed to buy those things. Consumer protection.

Makes more sense now.

Very roughly, yes. With the qualifier in my reply below that it's really only going to affect (roughly the top 2% of the population if you are using the SEC definition, IA's example is on the more complex end and closer to the top 0.1% of households).

“For the sake of consistency, clause 2c should not end in a full stop.”

(OOC: This has my full support, though, in honesty, I don’t enough about the topic to comment in detail or defend my position.)

This has been fixed in Draft 3. This won't be submitted for quite some time given the current traffic in WA, but will be submitted eventually since IA has signed off on this resolution.

Despite reading the one-line summary, this still doesn't add up in my head. A little more explanation, maybe?

The one line summary says that if I were to ask you "Do you want to buy tranche 8 of a collateralised debt obligation with underlying collateral of synthetic derivatives?" and you don't understand what that means, I can't then actually sell you tranche 8 of the synthetic derivative CDOs I want to sell you.

The sophisticated investor justification (see Investopedia) is basically just paternalism: the hoi polloi just don't have the expertise to understand the risks that they are taking on, so sellers shouldn't be allowed to transact certain types of business with them. The extent to which that justification is convincing is highly dependent on your belief as to the financial expertise of the average or median person.

I'm pretty convinced of the credulity of the general public (see eg FTX, crypto, etc; insert Spongebob meme here), so I think I'll support this proposal in principle. There is an international element as well; lots of investments are international. We also should have international investments: otherwise, investments in productive capacity that bring meaningful improvements to quality of life don't happen in other countries merely because of invisible lines in the ground.

Ensuring that ordinary people, who don't have the time or expertise to analyse complex financial instruments, are not sold on schemes of international mail stamp arbitrage or something of that sort is a meaningful legal improvement. There are some benefits to tailoring relatively simple and safe financial services for ordinary people.

Admittedly it is slightly paternalistic, but I'd like to mention (for those not familiar with this topic) that this is realistically not the "median person" commonly understood. To use IA's example above, Markit CDS.HY.NA.BB has a notional USD 1 million minimum and no decent counterparty (say Citi) would accept any walk-in customer with less than USD30 million in cash or liquid securities to invest in this anyway. So IRL this is ruling out anyone not in the top 0.5% of households in wealth (USD18 million or above) and likely pushing the top 0.1% of households (USD 43 million or above) and anyone who would speculate in tranche 8 of whatever the underlying in IA's hypothetical (even if tranched at it nearly every notch) would be well-diversified and with far greater resources to take advantage of the uplift over a short duration HY BB portfolio or at least cashflow CDOs rather than synthetic.

(IA: Thank you for your support though.)

[Simone Republic]

*Bump*. IA has been added as a co-author with his consent.

[Simone Republic]

*fourth bump*.

(IC)

The Bear grabbed a big tree trunk to do the bump.

(End IC)

[Simone Republic]

*fifth bump*

This is going live.

(IC)

The Bear wore a helmet this time before bumping it's head.

(End IC)

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC:
I can understand the drive to submit this given you initially drafted it in October, and I apologize for raising this so late, but I have to say I see problems which, frankly, are grounds enough for repeal if this passes, to me at least.

Two points; one, the mention requirements on personal wealth to be a 'sophisticated investor'. I, frankly can't see what purpose this would serve, except to prevent poorer people from investing in restricted instruments regardless of their education. This, just seems like the legitimization of entirely unjust class barriers.

Second, Clause 3.c (and to a lesser extent, with the draft as a whole,); this makes no allowance for Member-States which do not allow the purchasing of financial products in the first place. This may come across as Communist Nitpicking, but it is an issue nonetheless. Not every Member-State engages in, or allows engagement in, the capital circus.

[Simone Republic]

OOC:
I can understand the drive to submit this given you initially drafted it in October, and I apologize for raising this so late, but I have to say I see problems which, frankly, are grounds enough for repeal if this passes, to me at least.

I have plenty of drafts that are older. It's not being rushed for any particular reason.

Two points; one, the mention requirements on personal wealth to be a 'sophisticated investor'. I, frankly can't see what purpose this would serve, except to prevent poorer people from investing in restricted instruments regardless of their education. This, just seems like the legitimization of entirely unjust class barriers.

This is a feature, not a bug, as per the example above on tranche 8 of a synthetic CDO.

[Second Sovereignty]

This is a feature, not a bug, as per the example above on tranche 8 of a synthetic CDO.

OOC:
Did, you miss the part where I was taking issue with the legitimization if a class barrier, rather than an educational one? The size of one's bank account has no relevance to the matter of knowing whatever a tranche 8 is supposed to be.

[Simone Republic]

This is a feature, not a bug, as per the example above on tranche 8 of a synthetic CDO.

OOC:
Did, you miss the part where I was taking issue with the legitimization if a class barrier, rather than an educational one? The size of one's bank account has no relevance to the matter of knowing whatever a tranche 8 is supposed to be.

In a nutshell, in real life, if I do not personally have US$30 million in my bank account (even that's a minimum, see above), no one will trade tranche 8 of a CDO with me anyway. See the comments I made above. Obviously if you have the qualifications and the knowledge, you can trade on behalf of someone else who has the resources to manage the risks of such a high risk product.

Please also see the comments made by Imperium Anglorum above.

[Tinhampton]

Are you sure you haven't actually submitted Draft 2 by mistake?

[Second Sovereignty]

In a nutshell, in real life, if I do not personally have US$30 million in my bank account (even that's a minimum, see above), no one will trade tranche 8 of a CDO with me anyway. See the comments I made above. Obviously if you have the qualifications and the knowledge, you can trade on behalf of someone else who has the resources to manage the risks of such a high risk product.

This is rather a part of my argument; if you can't afford a tranche 8 in the first place, then you obviously cannot acquire one, and the point is moot. Thus, what is the point of legitimizing a legal class barrier in the trading of complex instruments in general?

[1.a] An individual investor meets all requirements imposed by the said authority on (1) personal and household resources and (2) sufficient education, experience and knowledge to invest in complex instruments;

Per this clause, a Member-State could, with World Assembly backing, set up an initial financial barrier to the exchange of complex instruments, of say, a billion dollars, regardless of the actual cost of instruments in question, effectively restricting their trade to a particular economic class, regardless of individual education. That is the problem.

Please also see the comments made by Imperium Anglorum above.

I have read IA's comments, they are irrelevant to my question, thus I asked it.

[Simone Republic]

In a nutshell, in real life, if I do not personally have US$30 million in my bank account (even that's a minimum, see above), no one will trade tranche 8 of a CDO with me anyway. See the comments I made above. Obviously if you have the qualifications and the knowledge, you can trade on behalf of someone else who has the resources to manage the risks of such a high risk product.

This is rather a part of my argument; if you can't afford a tranche 8 in the first place, then you obviously cannot acquire one, and the point is moot. Thus, what is the point of legitimizing a legal class barrier in the trading of complex instruments in general?

*snip*

Per this clause, a Member-State could, with World Assembly backing, set up an initial financial barrier to the exchange of complex instruments, of say, a billion dollars, regardless of the actual cost of instruments in question, effectively restricting their trade to a particular economic class, regardless of individual education. That is the problem.

I mean, not sure if this answers your question, I did the resolution with Natsov in mind, so you can always put the wealth requirement at US$1 (or whichever currency you use) if you wish for your particular nation, I deliberately left that freedom in place.

I put it in because I modelled this entire resolution after real life requirements (as mentioned at the introduction to this resolution), for example US$1,000,000 in wealth excluding primary residence is a requirement for someone in the US.

Are you sure you haven't actually submitted Draft 2 by mistake?

I changed my mind and reverted it back.