Category Archives: CrowdFinance

We proudly invite you to 4th Annual Crowdfunding USA on May 4-5, 2017 National Press Club Washington, DC.

Crowdfund Beat Media Presents: 
 
The Important gathering will discuss what’s new on State of Investing and Risk Mitigation through evolving Internet finance space under the label “2017 the Year of 2.0 Equity & SME Finance-Online Lending or Investing- Crowdfunding “Jobs Act” under new congress & President Trump administration”

 See Conference website & Full Agenda Speakers 

 
For Promotional Opportunities, Group Discount, Sponsorship, and how to become a panelist call 1-888-580-6610 or email to info@crowdfundingusa.com

CF USA AGENDA’s  SNAPSHOT

SEC – FINRA – JOBS ACT – Early Investing
Family Offices – IRA Trust
Rules and Regulations Consideration
Rule 506(c) – Title II Tittle III REG D REG CF
Definition of accredited investor?
Liquidity for the private securities space
Redefining Securities Distribution through Crowdfunding

Real Estate Crowdfunding

Why Hot Real Estate CrowdFunding Is The Next  New Frontier?
Impact of crowdfunding on real estate finance and deal-making
Is Real Estate Crowdfunding Offers An Attractive Alternative For Secure Investments?
The Impact of Technology and Internet on Real Estate Crowdfunding

Trump to Lift Community Bank Regulations (and what that means for house flippers)

Shadow Banking
Dodd-Frank: A Republican Congress
will likely be looking for ways to scale back time and money on business regulation.
Real Estate Crowdfunding and Community Development

Pros & Cons of Internet finance and lending 

2017 State of CrowdFunding

Business of Crowdfunding & Reaching the Goal – How to Make It Happen

Multiple Faces of Crowdfunding on Equity

Future of EB-5 Business Finance & Crowdfunding
Disruption of Equity Crowdfunding on VC’s – Angel Investors
Is Online Lending & Fintech industry here to stay?

Exploring Title II
Why it dominates and will continue to dominate crowdfunding
What initiatives are being pursued to create secondary markets or other means
Effect of IPO window

Regulation A+ Mini IPO
Many of the Reg A deals got pulled this last year.
Is this offering type holding up to investor interest.
Need research on Reg CF, Reg A+ and other offerings.
How much was raised, and how have they performed.
Aftermarket performance of Reg A+ deals

After hours Networking 

Round table discussion

 

2017 Real Estate Crowdfunding: Surveying the Landscape

125

 

 

 

 

“Copyright” By Jonathan B. Wilson CrowdFund Beat Sr. Guest Editor, Partner, Taylor English Duma LLP

The impact of crowdfunding on real estate finance and deal-making has been one of the hottest topics of the past year.[1]  With the advent of crowdfunding, real estate developers and investors have multiple pathways to finance their projects and even to plot their exits.  But in many ways the impact of crowdfunding has not yet arrived.  Crowdfunding for real estate is still in the early stages and may take several detours along the way to its final destination.

What is Crowdfunding?

The idea of “crowdfunding” has been in the news a great deal but investors have only just begun to realize its potential for the industry.  Crowdfunding is the idea that a large number of people, with no particular expertise, can accurately predict the likely success or failure of a venture by combining their own observations and communicating with each other.  James Surowiecki‎, in his book, The Wisdom of Crowds[2], recounts dozens of examples where a large group of people who were able to collect and share information were able to make more accurate guesses about the success of a project than the best guess of any individual expert in the topic.  The Internet, with its ability to collect a large number of people quickly and easily, makes it possible to collect a “crowd” to evaluate an idea better than was ever possible before.

Crowdfunding applies this idea to the process of evaluating investment opportunities, allowing members of the crowd to put money behind their predictions and preferences.  Proponents believe that by allowing a crowd of potential investors to share their opinions about the investment and the information they collect that crowd will be better able to predict the success of the investment than individual investment experts.  Sydney Armani, the publisher of CrowdFundBeat, says, “People get excited when they engage with a new product that arouses their passions.  Those passions take on even greater intensity when they can invest in that new product.” [3]

Crowdfunding can take several forms.  Popular crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo let project sponsors describe their projects to the public and ask for donations.  In an “affinity” campaign, supports of a project pledge funds for a project because they like it and support it.  Their affinity for the project is their only reward.  In a “rewards-based” campaign, project sponsors offer rewards for cash contributions.  Rewards may range from recognition on a website or on a wall, to t-shirts, products samples and more.

Securities-Based Crowdfunding

Securities-based crowdfunding is possible through several recent changes in U.S. securities laws, most of which are derived from the 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (or “JOBS Act”).  In particular, the JOBS Act created three types of crowdfunding: (a) crowdfunding to “accredited investors” under Rule 506(c), (b) crowdfunding for up to $50 million each year under new Regulation A+ and (c) crowdfunding to both accredited and non-accredited investors in small offerings under Title III.

Investing Under Rule 506(c)

First, a sponsor could offer debt or equity securities to “accredited investors” under Rule 506(c).  The JOBS Act changed some of the rules affecting private offerings under Rule 506 so that sponsors could publicly-advertise their offerings.  Before this change in the law, public solicitations of private offerings were strictly prohibited.  Under new Rule 506(c) however a promoter that wants to advertise publicly must take various steps to ensure that every investor who participates in the offering is “accredited”, which is defined as having a net worth of over $1 million (excluding the investor’s principal residence) or having an income of more than $200,000 for two consecutive years ($300,000 is the investor is married and files tax returns jointly with a spouse).

Crowdfunding under Rule 506(c) has been feasible for more than a year and several websites, have had some success hosting real estate crowdfunding campaigns that have included securities under Rule 506(c).  Most of the popular real estate crowdfunding sites included in our survey, however, require accredited investors to create a membership on the site before they can view any live offerings.  As a result, the offerings made available to members are intended as a private offering, and not a general solicitation.  Because there is no general solicitation, those websites take the position that their offerings are private offerings under Rule 506(b) rather than publicized general solicitations under Rule 506(c).

Investing Under Regulation A

Another legal change that came from the JOBS Act was a change to Regulation A, an SEC rule that allows a private company to qualify its securities (which may be equity or debt) through filing a formal prospectus with the SEC.  The SEC reviews the prospectus to ensure that it adequately describes all of the risks of the business and the risks to investors.  Once the issuer’s prospectus is approved by the SEC (at which point it is said to be “effective”) the sponsor may sell the securities to both accredited and non-accredited investors.

Before the JOBS Act, offerings under Regulation A were limited to not more than $5 million.  Under the new provisions of Regulation A (sometimes called “Regulation A+”) an issuer of securities may raise up to $50 million in any 12-month period.

One of the advantages of a Regulation A offering is that the company will be able to solicit investments from both accredited and non-accredited investors, thereby widening the scope of interest in the project.  The SEC’s rules, implementing these changes to Regulation A, however, have only been effective since October 2015.  As a result, there have been relatively few offerings that have completed the new process and it is harder to tell how these new offerings will be accepted by investors.

Regulation CF

The third possible route for crowdfunding is often called “Title III” because it arises under Title III of the JOBS Act.  Although the JOBS Act became law in 2012, the SEC only released its rules implementing this new law in October 2015 and those rules didn’t take effect until May 2016.  Under those roles, a promoter may issue securities, in an amount up to $1 million in any 12-month period, to both accredited and non-accredited investors.  But, soliciting for investors may only take place through licensed crowdfunding portals that have received a license from the Financial Institutions Regulation Authority (“FINRA”).

Under Regulation CF (the name used for the SEC’s Title III regulations), issuers do not file a prospectus with the SEC but do need to include certain disclosures about the company in their offering memorandum.  The funding portal will also be liable for making sure that all of the prospective investors receive certain notices about the process and for ensuring that each investor does not invest more than a certain maximum that is derived from the investor’s taxable income.  While a Regulation CF offering can “go national” by accepting investments from people across the country (whether they are accredited or not) the $1 million limit and the requirement that all solicitations take place online through the licensed portal make this approach a challenge for many new ventures.

Because of the $1 million annual cap on fundraising under Regulation CF, however, this approach is usually not a good fit for real estate projects that often require more than this maximum amount.

Surveying the Landscape

The following websites have used one or more of these regulatory pathways to create a marketplace for crowdfunding real estate projects.  By surveying some of the more popular websites I have tried to provide an overview for how industry players are using these now crowdfunding regulations to make deal flow and investment opportunities possible.  This list is not an endorsement of any of these sites and a site’s omission from this list is not intended as a criticism or a suggestion that the site is not worthwhile or valuable.

Peer Street

PeerStreet specializes mostly in residential debt investments (with a smattering of multifamily and commercial). PeerStreet utilizes Rule 506(b) to solicit accredited investors to participate in loans that are secured by real estate.[4]  They have one of the lowest minimums in the top 10 ($1K versus $10K average), and a healthy volume of new transactions.

Virtually every site in the industry claims that they have superior due diligence. PeerStreet, however, supports its claim with concrete proof.  PeerStreet allows investors to review the performance of every past investment. PeerStreet’s site claims that, since 2014, the site has offered more than 200  notes but without any foreclosures or unremedied defaults.

Unlike many other real estate crowdfunding sites, however, PeerStreet does not originate its loans.  Rather, project sponsors introduce opportunities to the site and then earn a fee based on successfully closing the investments.  As a consequence, investors that participate in deals on PeerStreet pay slightly higher total fees than some other sites.  Because of the relatively high performance that PeerStreet’s deals have produced,[5] however, these fees so far have not kept investors away.

Real Crowd

Real Crowd acts as a syndication platform for real estate development companies and real estate funds.  The development companies and funds pay a fee to Real Crowd to have their offerings listed on the site.  Viewing the offerings is possible only for accredited investors who have created a free membership account on the site.  Most of the opportunities on Real Crowd involve commercial real properties or multi-family properties.  Some of the investments are funds in which the fund manager will be investing in the proceeds in a targeted type of property while others are syndicating take-out financing for existing properties.

From the investor’s point of view, Real Crowd has successfully recruited a large number of property developers and fund managers, so there are many investment opportunities to consider.  Most investments, however, require a minimum investment of at least $25 to $50,000, so the platform is not friendly to small retail investors who want to dip their toes in the water.   In addition, most of the investment opportunities are equity securities, so there is a higher risk of principal loss than is generally the case with debt-oriented platforms.

Realty Mogul

Realty Mogul is one of the largest real estate crowdfunding sites and it uses several different approaches based upon the needs of the project sponsor and the class of investor involved.  Accredited investors may invest in either debt or equity securities.  Accredited equity investors invest in syndicated private placements of special purpose limited liability companies that exist to finance equity investments in particular properties.  The equity investment has the higher potential return associated with equity as well as the potential downside risk of loss.

Accredited investors may also invest in debt securities called “Platform Notes”.  Each Platform Note is a debt security issued by a Realty Mogul special purpose vehicle which uses the proceeds of the Platform Notes to make a loan to particular sponsored investment.  By issuing the note from its special purpose vehicle, Realty Mogul is able to take on the management function of managing the underlying loan (reviewing financials, monitoring loan covenants, working out any defaults, and so on) without involving the passive investors who have purchased the Platform Notes.

For non-accredited investors, Realty Mogul has sponsored its own non-traded real estate investment trust.  Although the REIT (called Mogul REIT I) is not traded on any stock exchanges, its shares were qualified with the SEC through a Regulation A prospectus.[6]  According to the prospectus (which went effective in August, 2016) the REIT plans to hold:

“(1) at least 55% of the total value of our assets in commercial mortgage-related instruments that are closely tied to one or more underlying commercial real estate projects, such as mortgage loans, subordinated mortgage loans, mezzanine debt and participations (also referred to as B-Notes) that meet certain criteria set by the staff of the SEC; and (2) at least 80% of the total value of our assets in the types of assets described above plus in “real estate-related assets” that are related to one or more underlying commercial real estate projects, these “real estate-related assets” may include assets such as equity or preferred equity interests in companies whose primary business is to own and operate one or more specified commercial real estate projects, debt securities whose payments are tied to a pool of commercial real estate projects (such as commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS, and collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs), or interests in publicly traded REITs.  We intend to qualify as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning with our taxable year ending December 31, 2016.”

Because Realty Mogul facilitates both equity and debt investments for accredited investors as well as equity investments for non-accredited investors through MogulREIT I, Realty Mogul is ideally-situated to generate substantial deal flow and relatively rapid underwriting for projects that apply for funding.  As a platform for providing funding for sponsored-projects as well as a platform for creating investment opportunities, Realty Mogul has one of the best head starts of all the available real estate websites.

Those advantages, however, come at a cost.  Realty Mogul has a large staff operation (which is required for its extensive underwriting duties) and that cost is borne by investors through the 1-2% fees they pay to participate in investments on the site.  While the site has tremendous deal flow, however, a student of the industry might ask, “is this really crowdfunding?”  Because Realty Mogul takes such an active role in performing due diligence on its projects and in structuring the investment opportunities on its site, the overall experience is more structured than most crowdfunding sites and there is less opportunity for the collectively give-and-take than crowdfunding was originally thought to represent.

Realty Shares

Realty Shares facilitates both debt and equity investments into both commercial and residential real estate.  The site claims that it has funded over $300 million to 550 projects that have returned more than $59 million to the site’s more than 92,000 registered accredited investors.[7]   Project sponsors must submit to underwriting through Realty Shares and only projects that have exceeded the site’s standards can be offered to the site’s members.  Fees range from 1 to 2% of the investment amount, but investment minimums are as low as $5,000.

As with most of the other real estate crowdfunding sites, investments are made through private placements under rule 506(b).

Residential Real Property Sites

There are several websites that focus primarily on residential real estate.  Because of the similarity of their focus and approach, they can be surveyed as a group:

LendingHome

Lending Home describes itself as the “largest hard money lender” [providing] “fix and flip loans up to 90% LTC and 80% LTV.”[8]  Unlike many of the other sites that aim their value proposition at investors, Lending Home addresses itself primarily to homeowners how are looking for loans and are willing to pay “hard money” rates of interest to get cash.  Accredited investors can participate in Lending Home in increments as low as $5,000.[9]

Roofstock

Roofstock’s tagline is “Property Investing Like the Pros.”[10]  Like Lending Home, Roofstock focuses only on single family residential properties.  Differently, however, Roofstock allows accredited investors to invest directly through loan participations as well as through small funds that focus on particular regions or particular rates of return.  Roofstock also emphasizes, through its underwriting and its messaging, the underlying quality of the properties and their surrounding communities, school systems and the like.  Browsing through loan opportunities on Roofstock feels more like browsing through listings on Zillow than looking for investments.

Patch of Land

Patch of Land is one of the largest and most heavily-trafficked real estate crowdfunding sites.  The site claims to have originated more than 400 loans for over $245 million in loans, returning over $61 million to investors.[11]  Although Patch of Land has made investments in multi-family and commercial real estate, more than 70% by value of its investments have been made in single family real estate.

Fund That Flip

Fund that Flip is a site that proudly advertises its role in financing single family residential rehab and resale projects.[12]  The site claims that the sponsors underwrite individual deals, requiring borrowers to put at least ten percent in the property’s value in equity.[13]  The site also tries to entice investors, claiming average returns between 10 and 14%.

The Future of Real Estate Crowdfunding

Real estate crowdfunding has definitely arrived.  Through the dozens of existing sites claiming to offer some kind of real estate crowdfunding, investors have invested more than a billion dollars through thousands of investments in just a few short years.  While this method of investing is still very small (in contrast to retail investments in mutual funds and the stock market) it fills a market need that shows no sign of disappearing.

For real estate crowdfunding to achieve a wider degree of acceptance, platform owners will need to continue to facilitate high quality investment opportunities while improving transparency.  Wider acceptance will require a level of information sharing that does not yet exist in the industry.  Even the most popular sites today have varying levels of information available to potential investors.  These inconsistent levels of disclosure can undermine the trust that is necessary to grow crowdfunding as a method of investing.  Real estate crowdfunding sites that facilitate exempt transactions under Rule 506(b) are not regulated, and that is probably a good thing.  But the lack of regulation also permits a wide diversity in style and approach that can make comparing the platforms difficult.

If the leading crowdfunding platforms could collaborate on a standardized “scorecard” that pulled together standard metrics on transactions, investment amounts and rates of return, the result would make it possible for both investors and project sponsors to compare platforms on a level playing field.  The investor confidence that might come from such a development would encourage new investors to come into the market.  Platforms that did not adopt the scorecard at first would experience market pressure to begin reporting results in the scorecard format.  Adopting a standardized scorecard for recording would, in a sense, demonstrate the power that crowdfunding was supposed to represent, by making it possible for the market to adjust itself to the information needs of the investing community.

[1]           http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-evolution-of-real-estate-15259/

 

[2]           Surowiecki, James, The Wisdom of Crowds, Anchor Books (2005).

 

[3]           Wilson, Jonathan B., Follow the Crowd: What the Future of Crowdfunding Holds for Startup Restaurant Owners, Restaurant Owner Startup & Growth Magazine, 18 (Feb. 2016).

 

[4]           www.peerstreet.com.

 

[5]           PeerStreet claims that its loans have generally yielded between 6 and 12%.  See PeerStreet FAQs, available at https://info.peerstreet.com/faqs/how-do-peerstreet-returns-compare-to-other-debt-investments/ (last visited January 29, 2017).

 

[6]           MogulREIT I, LLC SEC File, available at https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001669664&owner=exclude&count=40&hidefilings=0 (last visited January 29, 2017).

 

[7]           Realty Shares website available at https://www.realtyshares.com/  (last visited January 29, 2017)

 

[8]           Lending Home website available at www.lendinghome.com (last visited January 29, 2017).

 

[9]           https://www.lendinghome.com/how-it-works/#individual-investors.

 

[10]          Roofstock website available at www.roofstock.com (last visited January 29, 2017).

 

[11]          Path of Land website available at https://patchofland.com/statistics/ (last visited January 29, 2017).

 

[12]          Fund that Flip website available at www.fundthatflip.com (last visited January 29, 2017).

 

[13]          Fund that Flip website available at https://www.fundthatflip.com/lender (last visited January 29, 2017).

 

Setting Up an Efficient Crowdfunding Platform

BY Rachael Everly ,CrowdFund Beat Guest Post,

Crowdfunding platforms are a product of technological advancement. However at the end of the day they are a financial solution and their success is dependent on the economic situation at a given time. Many businesses prosper when the economy is booming and all is good. Crowdfunding on the other hand has always prospered when the economy is not doing well, and even during the worst recessions.

During the last recession of 2008, there was a great lack of confidence among banks. This led to a drying up of sources of finance for the small business owner and for individuals who were just starting out. Either their loan applications were outright rejected or they were given such high interest rate offers that they were forced to decline. But with the advent of digitalization came the much flexible option of crowdfunding that led smaller business achieving the necessary finances much cheaply and much easily.

crowdfunding concept. Chart with keywords and icons
crowdfunding concept. Chart with keywords and icons

 

Setting up a crowdfunding platform is an excellent business idea for it is something that the entrepreneurs need. However to be successful it has to meet the finance needs of people successfully.

 

 

  1. Initial set-up

Crowdfunding platforms are a place where investors and people looking for finance gather. So you need to be sure about how you are going to attract investors in your starting days. Your whole business is dependent on them.

You also have to ensure that you offer a “deal” that is both acceptable to investors and the people looking to borrow. The system has to be set up in a transparent way in order to induce trust from all the involved parties. In order to achieve this you will have to focus on a marketing strategy that delivers the maximum information. Information about how you operate, the charges for the borrowers and how are you going to handle the funds at your disposal. You will especially have to convince people that your platform is a secure place to invest. You will need to figure out your marketing channels. The most basic will be your own company blog and possibly even your own in-house developed app (which could be done via crowdfunding).

  1. Developing a brand

Once the crowdfunding concept was new and there were hardly any platforms on the scene. Now competition is arriving and the first mover advantage is long gone. You will have to differentiate yourself from your competition. In the simplest way, it could be by the way of focusing on the aesthetics on your website that is the logo and theme and the usability.

Secondly you should match the features being offered by the competition and where possible streamline your processes even more. You will have to communicate your “differences” via email marketing and company blog. The best way to do this is to provide content that is actually useful for the reader and yet brings your platform to attention.

  1. The technical expertise

At the end of the day customers prefer businesses that provide them with a superb quality service or product. Crowdfunding is essentially a fintech product and thus technology is its backbone. Your crowdfunding platform must not only be user friendly, but it also must be secure and have features that help you make better decisions. For example, Zopa has its own algorithm for deciding which borrowers are more likely to stick to repayment schedules.

In order to succeed it is very important that you analyze your existing competition and see what features you have to match in order to attract customers and what you can do better than them.

 

 

 

2017 State of Crowdfunding


Brian Korn is a corporate and securities attorney at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Crowdfunding- The Good, The Bad & The (really) Ugly

By Shane Liddell is the CEO and chief Crowdfundologist at Smart Crowdfunding LLC,. Crowdfund Beat Guest post,

Part 3 –The (really) Ugly

Introduction

In Part 1 I covered all of the good things that we have seen as crowdfunding continuously gathers momentum across the world. The future looks bright indeed!

In Part 2 I wrote of changes within the industry, especially within rewards based crowdfunding – the competition which makes it so much harder for the small guys and the Indiegogo platform now giving preferential treatment to corporates, allowing them “…to pay for special placement on Indiegogo’s site, making them more discoverable than other campaigns”. I also explained that although campaign creators are often labelled as scammers when they fail to deliver on their promises, in many cases this is not true at all.

Here in Part 3, we delve into the dark world of extortion, blackmail and a whole host of other not so nice behavior. I’ll cover some real scams where the campaign creator’s intention from the very beginning was to steal people’s money, in some cases, with the crowdfunding platforms help too!

Part 3-The (REALLY) UGLY

Extortion and Blackmail

Ethan Hunt – Micro Phone

During our very early days of offering crowdfunding campaign marketing services, we were engaged by a Mr. Ethan Hunt who had just launched his Micro Phone campaign on the Indiegogo platform. Ethan and I shared a few phone calls as his campaign began to gather momentum and I specifically remember being on a call with him one day, while the money was rolling in, and each refresh of his campaign page showed more and more backers claiming the rewards on offer. Times were good and there was an element of excitement in his voice (and mine too). Who wouldn’t be excited to see such fantastic traction?

Around 4 weeks later, with almost $50,000 raised, Ethan reached out to me to say he’d been contacted by a guy named Michael Gabrill who claimed that he had some negative information about Ethan and that if he did not pay him $10,000 he would release this information to the public through various media channels. Ethan forwarded me the email communications so I could see for myself.

Low and behold, there it was in black and white.

My advice to Ethan at the time was to just ignore this guy, as I was sure that Gabrill was just a typical opportunist money grabber and was probably seeking attention too. Ethan wrote back to him, refusing to pay a single cent but what happened next surprised us both – Garbrill began contacting various media including Pando and even went so far as to create a webpage slandering Ethan and his Micro Phone project.

The story continued and in Ethan’s own words at the time:

“Did Michael Gabrill attempt to extort money from us? Yes, he did, this is fact he has admitted to doing it here and on one of the many webpages he has set up in an attempt to cover his actions and his motives, claiming it was a test to see if we would incriminate ourselves. Incriminate us for what? Running a successful and legitimate campaign? Or refusing to pay him money not to do what he has done, something he threaten(ed) to do if we did not pay him.

What did Michael Gabrill do exactly? Well, he approached me the day after our campaign reached 100% funding which means in laymans terms when our campaign had received enough contributions for our campaign to be successful and for us to receive payment of the funds at the end of the campaign.

It took more than 30 days to reach our goal and our campaign to be fully funded. During this time, Michael Gabrill sat back and waited until there was enough motivation for us as campaign owners to if he could build enough fear of loss by the thought of him getting our campaign closed down to pay him money for his silence.

Why if Michael Gabrill if he really believed the campaign was fraudulent did he not immediately report it? Simple up until the campaign is 100% there would be no motivation for campaign owners to pay him a penny. This was never about him believing there was an issue with the campaign it was about his motivation to gain financially from a successful campaign. Something, we are sure he has done many times before.

Why do we think he has done this before? He waited until we were 100% funded, he claimed he could shut us down, he claimed that we had no intention of delivering anything to contributors and were going to steal their money and he wanted his cut or he was going to have us arrested for fraud.

Michael Gabrill’s only motivation was money, he sent me a link to his first webpage and told me if we paid him it would not go up. That webpage included photos of myself, details Michael Gabrill had obtained from my eBay account (which could only have been accessed by an eBay employee) and he claimed I was a creep or in Australian terms a sex offender. When I refused to pay him and reported him, he had the webpage active in less than 10 minutes. Only an extortionist would have a pre built webpage ready to go to force his victims into paying him to remove it.

Is our campaign is legitimate? Yes it is, we have registered businesses in Hong Kong and Australia, neither Mike or I have ever been investigated for fraud and we have both been successfully running business in Australia, Hong Kong and China for more than 25 years.”

To end the story, Ethan initiated legal action and managed to have all the slandering webpages created by Gabrill removed and received a public apology from the man himself too. In turn, Indiegogo went on to ban Gabrill completely from their platform.

This turned into a very time consuming and costly endeavor for Ethan but unfortunately, there are many Gabrills lurking in the shadows and waiting to pounce.

 

Bob Rohner – RG Energy

Bob signed up with us a few months after Ethan but his story is a different one in that his crowdfunding campaign didn’t really do too well at all. We tried our best but the ‘crowd’ seemed to think that what Bob was attempting to do was nigh impossible.

However, during the third week of his campaign. Bob received an email from someone claiming to be the owner of RG Energy, a company based in Ohio. Bob’s business was registered in Iowa. They emailed Bob stating that because they were using their RG Energy’s company name, he would have to pay $10,000 (yes, coincidently the same amount as Ethan was asked for) in license or royalty fees. What??

After a little research, it turned out that this goon had registered a company by the same name in Ohio AFTER Bob had launched his crowdfunding campaign thinking he could get money out of him by playing this little game. This led Bob to get his legal team involved and the problem swiftly went away.

 

The Scammers – Very few real ones but they are out there!
Intentional scams are very rare. During my time in the industry I have seen no more than 3 or 4 which were clearly scams from the very beginning.
Many labelled as scams today are situations whereby the people involved set out with good intentions, only to find out that what they are attempting to do is either impossible or far costlier than they expected. Crowdfunding campaign first, homework afterwards rarely works.
Julien (Courteville) Buschor – Launching Multiple campaigns helped him steal almost $400,000

During July 2015, a campaign on the Indiegogo platform called Smart Tracker 2 (ST2) caught my attention for the simple reason that it had raised over $20,000 within the first 24 hours. Normally, campaigns that gain this kind of traction so quickly have done their homework and are fully prepared with social media assets before launch. In most cases, they have a substantial number of social media followers. However, when I looked at the Smart Tracker accounts I saw that they barely had any followers at all. In fact, at the time, their Facebook page showed only 149 ‘likes’ and their Twitter account a measly 19 followers. Maybe they’d done a fantastic job of building a targeted email database before launch, was a thought at the time. My suspicions were aroused though which lead me to delve a little deeper.

I returned to the ST2 campaign page and began to scroll through their backer list. As I scrolled down to the very first backer, and began searching through the list of names, low and behold, I began to see some of the same names appear as backer’s multiple times and eventually realized that 7 or more user accounts had contributed to the campaign many times over – a clear sign of self-funding taking place. This raised alarm bells and prompted further investigation.

What I discovered was a first for me. A look at the user account profile that created this this ST2 campaign showed that this was the 4th campaign launched since the beginning of the year by the very same person – Julien Scherer (whose real name turned out to be Julien Buschor) and now it was only July? Ding..ding..ding. The alarm bells grew louder!

Upon further investigation I discovered that Mr Buschor first launched a campaign called Last Crime in January 2015 raising over $7,000 and claiming:

“Last Crime was made with cutting edge technology that can easily analyze data, provide facial recognition, perform phone and email scanning and much more”

A month later yet another campaign had launched by the name of Innovative Swiss Teeth Whitening Machine raising over $ 60,000 and with a tagline of “Swiss White Teeth, the most advanced swiss teeth whitening light with color screen and USB interface

A few short weeks later the Smart Tracker campaign launched and managed to raise just over $18,000. And finally, the ST2 campaign as initially mentioned above.

The answer to the question – How had the Smart Tracker 2 campaign managed to raise over $20,000 so quickly? –  was now fairly obvious as it was clear that Mr Buschor had rolled funds from his other campaigns into this new one.

Armed with this information, we reached out to Mr Buschor using a private email address and began a lengthy exchange of emails over the following few days. Initially he was panicked and changed user names on the campaigns listed above and sometimes became aggressive in his defense, but he did begin to accept that we knew his game. We threatened to report his campaign to Indiegogo and eventually, he did confirm that he had self-funded the ST2 campaign and his defense was made with a claim of “I’ve done nothing wrong as it’s legal so Indiegogo won’t cancel our campaign”

Mr Buschor self-funded his ST2 campaign to the tune of over $20,000, using money collected from previous campaigns to create a sense of popularity in the eyes of the public. No doubt in my mind that we were seeing a real con man in action!

As my marketing agency, Smart Crowdfunding is listed as a ‘Partner’ on Indiegogo itself, I reached out directly to their Trust and Safety division armed with all of the evidence needed to show that Mr Buschor had been scamming the public. I was certain they would listen, or at least reach out to me for more details. Nope. I received a canned email response saying very little except that they would investigate the matter. Did I hear back from them after this? Nope.

Of even more concern was that the ST2 campaign continued and on July 12th was promoted through the Indiegogo newsletter to a huge database of millions of people. Funding continued to ramp up and eventually the campaign raised more than $300,000.

Was it really a scam you may ask? Absolutely! The comments page on the ST2 campaign tells the whole shameful story!

As for Mr Buschor, he was resident in Switzerland and made local news for all of the wrong reasons as seen HERE

 

BioRing- The Amazing Ring That Made $460,000 Disappear

Now, this one had scam written all over it from the very beginning. However, even some notable Crowdfunding Marketing agencies were taken for a ride in the process too.

During mid-January 2016, we (Smart Crowdfunding) received an email inquiry from a Daniel Johnson asking about our services. After a few back and forth emails with our team, this lead to a Skype call booked for the 20th January. For some reason, they had to reschedule and we rebooked a time for 9am on 27th January, this time with a James Lee.

The call went ahead as planned, and James told me all about BioRing and that they were going to launch a crowdfunding campaign to raise the funds to manufacture the product and get it out there into the market. I explained our campaign development and marketing process, and the need to build an audience prior to launching. James asked if we would work on a percentage only basis to which I replied “No” and then went on to explain that without any validation testing we do not know if his product is a good fit for crowdfunding. Upon concluding the call I did say that I would email through our fee structure and the call ended.

My thoughts at the time were that what they were trying to do was nearly impossible, so a few days later I emailed again stating that after careful consideration I could not help them as I felt their product was impossible to develop.

We did not hear from either Daniel or James again.

The BioRing campaign eventually launched in June 2016 and did rack up over $700,000 in funding.

Fortunately, at least some of the backers were refunded, as Indiegogo did not release any of the InDemand money to the campaign owners. The total amount ‘stolen’ is now showing at $424,664 as of today’s date.

Now, that’s a lot of money and has, in effect, added to a community of backers claiming to never back another Indiegogo campaign again as can be clearly seen on the comments section of the BioRing campaign page. There are many other campaigns with such negative comments.

These disgruntled backers have a right to be pissed and there are hundreds of thousands of them who have supported other campaigns that are disgusted with the treatment they receive from Indiegogo themselves.

You can read more about this scam in this excellent investigative article from Sara Morrison here

The ironic thing with BioRing is that the marketing agencies involved – Funded Today (FT), Herscu and Goldsilver (H&G) and Command Partners (CP) – were up in arms when they didn’t get paid after the campaign concluded, having raised over $700,000. It surprises me that none of them thought that this campaign was nothing but a scam from the very beginning, considering FT were taking a 25% cut of funds raised, H&G a 10% cut and I assume CP a minimum 10%….so, a minimum of 45% off the top! Add to this the 5% Indiegogo platform fee and payment processing fees of around 3.5% meaning that BioRing were giving away more than 50% of the backer’s money!

A screenshot of the BioRing campaign team captured prior to the campaign been flagged as fraudulent. Since then all associated team members removed themselves from the campaign, most likely out of embarrassment. 


2017 Real Estate Crowdfunding Sites

Alphabetically

CrowdFundBeat Media, Copyright © All Rights Reserved

Report: Real Estate Crowdfunding Set to Be $5.5 Billion Industry in 2017

Also:  CrowdFunding Lists, Data, Analytics, Research, Statistics, Reports, Infographic

Crowdfund Beat Media, “2020 Prospect Report”the leading research and advisory and firm specializing in  crowdfunding solutions for private, public and social enterprises, has announced the release of its comprehensive 2017 CF-RE Crowdfunding for Real Estate report, which will provide the first ever detailed look at the intersection of real estate and crowdfunding. The 120-page report features data on the exponential growth of real estate crowdfunding, the emergence of specialized real estate crowdfunding platforms and how this revolutionary new method of real estate finance and investment is disrupting this asset class.

Interesting to note that some platforms are purely providing additive capital to sponsored deals, earning a fee for intermedition, while some are a bit more compensatory, with the inclusion of management fees and a carried interest. As of now, all are focused on accredited investors, though one has included DPOs in their mix. Here is the lists:

2017 Real Estate Crowdfunding Sites. Alphabetically

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not in the list? News@crowdfundbeat.com

CrowdFundBeat Media Copyright © All Rights Reserved

Crowdfunding expands innovation

Brett Israel, Media relations |berkeley.Edu

Cowdfunding platforms, such as Kickstarter, have opened a funding spigot to startups in regions that have suffered from a venture capital drought, a new UC Berkeley study shows.

Graphic of kickstarter vs venture capital funding in US

County-level distributions of Kickstarter campaigns and venture capital investments, and the ratio of the amount of Kickstarter to venture capital funding, 2009–2015. Increasing blue to red indicates a higher ratio of Kickstarter to venture capital funding. (Graphic by J. YOU/Science)

Historically, funding for innovation has come from venture capitalists, which tend to fund entrepreneurs that often mirror the investors in terms of their educational, social and professional characteristics. Venture capital funding also tends to be concentrated in a small number of regions, such as Silicon Valley. The study found that crowdfunding has spread startup financing beyond these entrepreneurial bubbles.

“Most venture capital gets invested in Silicon Valley and Boston, and thus shortchanges the rest of the country for entrepreneurial financing,” said study senior author Lee Fleming, faculty director of the Coleman Fung Institute for Engineering Leadership at UC Berkeley. “But crowdfunding has opened up funding to everyone else.”

The article was published in a recent edition of the journal Science.

For the study, researchers analyzed data from 2009 to 2015 on successful Kickstarter campaigns and venture capital investments. Because some Kickstarter campaigns are for projects that have no real possibility of being backed by venture capitalists, such as the creation of artwork, and because venture capitalists may invest in some kinds of companies, such as biotechnology, that fall outside the scope of the Kickstarter platform, the researchers compared investments that could have reasonably been funded by either crowdfunding or venture capital.

The researchers identified 55,005 Kickstarter projects in categories similar to the industries in which venture capitalists invested, and 17,493 venture capital investments in industries engaged in activities similar to those of Kickstarter campaigns. The researchers then used this dataset to map Kickstarter projects and venture capital investments by county and by year.

Although the typical Kickstarter campaign involved a smaller amount of money, these campaigns covered a broader swath of the nation, the analysis found. Several places with the largest number of successful Kickstarter campaigns have not been magnets for venture capitalists’ investments, such as Chicago, Los Angeles and Seattle.

Venture capitalists’ investments were highly concentrated, the analysis found. Just four counties, located in the Boston area and Silicon Valley, account for 50 percent of all matched venture capital investments, according to the data set.

To adjust for differences in population and other factors that might produce more investments in all types of innovative activity in some places, the researchers calculated the relative intensity of Kickstarter versus venture capital dollars in each region. They found that Kickstarter allocates a much larger share of its resources than venture capitalists to the interior of the country, away from coastal population centers and traditional technology hubs. Even in the Boston area and Silicon Valley, Kickstarter investments were concentrated in different areas than venture capitalists’ funding. Kickstarter funding in the Bay Area, for example, goes disproportionately to Marin and Napa counties, whereas San Francisco and the Peninsula counties received more venture capitalists’ funding.

The study found that crowdfunding in a region, and in particular successful technology campaigns, appeared to cause an increase in venture capital funding in the region. This occurs as venture capitalists look for promising new ideas and a successful campaign is a very good indicator of potential.

“This effect has gotten consistently stronger over the last six years,” Fleming said. “If this phenomenon continues, crowdfunding could begin to address regional inequality in entrepreneurial financing, through both direct crowdfunding investment and induced venture capital investment.”

Source:

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/13/crowdfunding-expands-innovation-financing-to-underserved-regions/

IPO Fintech Startup ClickIPO Will Bring Initial and Secondary Public Offerings to Main Street Investors 

By Jorge Sanchez, Crowdfund Beat Guest Editor,

 

The Initial Public Offering(IPO) has long been one of the most honored and revered business milestones. For entrepreneurs, early employees and investors IPOs are seen as the ideal liquidation event. But it is also seen by many as more, the IPO represents the ultimate validation of a business: a metamorphosis of a private company into one subjected to the democracy of the public equity market.

AAEAAQAAAAAAAAgmAAAAJDUzYzliMGExLTE1NjgtNDEwNi05NGExLTI0OWNkNWI5ZDU4ZA

As monumental as an IPO is, both for the company and members of the public which support the business, investing in an IPO is anything but public or democratic.

ClickIPO Securities, a FINRA registered broker dealer, is a financial technology startup that is changing the way underwriters allocate shares in public offerings by inviting individual investors into the IPO market with an easy to use app and creating the infrastructure to facilitate the process from the underwriter to the investor.

Based in Scottsdale, Arizona, Click IPO Securities is led by finance leaders Scott Coyle and James Farrelly, while development efforts are lead by tech startup veterans Jerrod Bailey and Vann Gutierrez.

To bring individual investors back into the IPO market, ClickIPO has created a technology pipeline that connects the underwriting investment bank to the retail investor. Underwriters are provided with a dashboard that makes the process transparent. The turnkey platform provides syndicate managers a single point of contact through which they can allocate shares through dozens of broker-dealers to thousands of investors with one simple allocation. A broker-dealer dashboard complete with compliance and regulatory automation technology allows online brokerage firms to integrate their clients into the IPO pipeline. To give retail investors access to IPOs and secondary offerings, ClickIPO has created a mobile app with a scoring system that minimizes the risk to issuers and underwriters of IPO flipping. The app allows a user to research available IPO and secondary offerings, choose a company they like, and place an order, all through the app. Once the shares are purchased, they will be placed in the customer’s existing brokerage account.

The significant account minimums at large investment banks that underwrite public offerings have limited the investment in IPOs to institutional investors and the wealthy. The only way for an individual investor to gain access to an IPO is through a broker-dealer or a relationship with the investment bank underwriting the offering, this route is limited, based on connections, and suffers from difficulties that arise due to compliance and technology issues.

There is also another risk inhibiting the entry of individual investors into the IPO market; All too often when a syndicate manager allocates shares of an IPO, some of those shares end up in the hands of an IPO flipper disguised as an individual investor. A flipper is someone who through a broker-dealer is allocated shares of an IPO and quickly sells them (any time in the first 30 days is considered flipping) once the shares start trading on an exchange. With the intent to sell early regardless of the price, the IPO flipper creates downward pressure on the share price. The IPO flipper does not add any value in this process but instead diminishes value for everyone else. Once a syndicate manager allocates the shares of an IPO, they don’t have an effective way to track which investors held shares and which investors flipped(sold) shares . They can only minimize flipper risk by limiting IPO flippers from getting shares in the first place, which has proven to be difficult in the current model for syndicate managers.

The team at ClickIPO has developed a solution to mitigate the risk of IPO flipping. At one end of the ClickIPO pipeline is a mobile app that is incredibly frictionless: the ClickIPO app is connected directly to an investor’s existing brokerage account. This mobile app may likely partner with every major brokerage firm and create a pure network of buy-and-hold IPO and secondary offering investors.

At the core of the mobile app is the ClickIPO Investor Score. Something akin to a credit score for IPO and secondary offering investors, the ClickIPO Investor Score takes into account the investor’s behavior and generates a metric representative of the desirability of that investor to an underwriting firm. The allocation algorithm awards priority to those on the platform who have proven they do not engage in IPO flipping behavior through the development of an attractive ClickIPO Investor Score. While the proprietary algorithm takes into account many factors that make an investor desirable to an underwriting firm, the most highly weighted factor is the average duration that an investor holds shares. Holding shares for more than 30 days will reward the investor with a higher score, the longer an investor holds his shares, the more significant the positive impact will be; Those that exit their position prior to the 30 day mark will receive a negative impact on their score, however, if the price of the offering has a significant increase, the negative impact of selling shares in the first 30 days will be less.

ClickIPO also provides value for broker-dealers offering their customers access to IPOs. The burden and risk associated with regulatory and compliance issues has diminished the broker-dealer benefits of offering IPOs to investors until now. The ClickIPO broker-dealer dashboard comes complete with regulation and compliance automation technology, allowing the broker-dealer to provide access to IPOs to their customers while mitigating the risks associated with regulation and compliance. There is also a monetary incentive for broker-dealers to join the network; When ClickIPO places shares into the accounts of broker-dealers, they receive a commission from the underwriter. ClickIPO allots a portion of this commission to the broker-dealer, often making it a more profitable transaction for the broker-dealer than a traditional marketplace transaction.

The deal flow provided by underwriters (major investment banks) is critical to the ClickIPO business model, ClickIPO has developed a powerfully simple process on top of a sophisticated technology infrastructure to assist underwriters. Where the ClickIPO Investor Score eliminates most of the risk of IPO flippers to an underwriter, ClickIPO delivers additional value with an automated, compliant, and secure process with their syndicate manager platform. Because ClickIPO aggregates thousands of investors onto a single platform, syndicate managers will  have a single interface through which they can allocate millions of shares efficiently to these individual investors. After determining how many shares will be allocated to ClickIPO Securities, the ClickIPO allocation algorithm automatically distributes the shares throughout the broker-dealer network and directly into the accounts of the end users based on their priority set by the ClickIPO Investor Score. Additionally, the ClickIPO pipeline generates a great deal of data that is not available today. These data points are presented on the platform and give underwriters insight into the behavior of investors.

The waitlist for the app is live and can be found on ClickIPO’s website where interested investors can sign up to access IPOs and secondary offerings when the app goes live during the second quarter of 2017.

ClickIPO has integrated a series of complementary tools that allows individual investors to access IPOs. With such a deeply integrated and efficient distribution system, it seems ClickIPO may have an infrastructure capable of conducting all non-institutional IPO allocations for any offering and any underwriter. Non-institutional allocations represent approximately 20% of most offerings. I spoke with Scott Coyle, CEO of Click IPO Securities and asked about the ambitions of the company, he said, “we intend to become the premiere retail aggregation pipe by providing access to hundreds of IPO and Secondary offerings every year, to millions of individual investors”.

 

SEC Metrics on Reg A+

On 12/31 the SEC published a report on Reg A activity as of Q3 that has some eye-opening bullets. Here are a few of the key metrics, along with my observations and musings.

  • 147 offering statements filed, of which 81 were qualified (as of the date of the stats)
  • Of the 81 qualified, 49 were Tier 2, 32 were Tier 1
  • 121 days avg time from filing to qualification (Tier 2)
  • 17% used broker-dealers (Tier 2)
  • $18M avg max-raise
  • 20% used “test the waters”
  • 87% equity/13% debt or other offerings
  • $50,000 avg legal costs to file & get qualified
  • $15,000 avg accounting audit costs
  • 50%+ of all issuers are incorporated in either Delaware or Nevada and located in California, Texas, Florida or DC-area
  • Typical issuer had no assets, no revenue, no net income (in other words, they are start-ups)
  • Real estate was dominant, accompanied by financial services

Thoughts on:

Time to qualification, 121 days (Tier 2 avg):
This puts an exclamation mark on the fact that this isn’t a Reg D, which can be launched overnight. If you want to allow non-accredited investors to participate in a large or continuous private offering, and if you want the securities to be free of various restrictions (e.g. Rule 144 on Reg D), then you are going to need to allow for the time it takes to get audited, prepare the offering statement, and go through a 121 day avg SEC qualification process (though I know of several that have been much shorter, it seems to depends upon the experience of the lead attorney).

Broker-Dealer Activity, 17%: This is the most disturbing metric to me. You’d think that every broker-dealer in the country with “private placements” as an approved business line would be jumping on the bandwagon as Reg A is a fantastic Reg D alternative. But they’re not. The reasons, from my experience, are…

  1. Brokers think Reg A’s are IPO’s. As such they expect the issuers to be mature companies that are ready to trade on OTC or NASDAQ. This is completely misguided, of course, as Reg A is simply an “unrestricted (private) security” and should not be confused with an S-1 filing IPO. The fact that it “can” trade on OTC or NASDAQ doesn’t mean it should. Brokers need to view this as a private placement, not an IPO.
  2. FINRA treats Reg A’s like IPO’s. As such they are limiting broker compensation to the same caps as an S-1 of a less risky mature company backed by far more detailed disclosures and easy settlement mechanisms. We hear from many brokers that FINRA’s comp-caps make it impossible for them to justify the risk or work involved in handling a Reg A, so they pass on these; which leaves issuers (and investors) to fend for themselves.
  3. Compliance Education. The internal compliance depts at broker-dealers are not yet up to speed on this type of offering and so are quick to say “no” to deals their investment bankers bring to the table.
  4. Technology. Conducting an online offering is easy in concept, and challenging in execution. The transaction engine, the compliance requirements, the supervisory issues, and the fact that escrow has to manage potentially tens of thousands of individual investors are daunting issues. (of course this is FundAmerica’s primary business, our software makes all this very easy for brokers and escrow agents)

=> Unintended Consequence: this is a situation where issuers could really use the guidance of a regulated broker-dealer, and the market and investors would be better for it. But regulators and compliance issues have caused issuers to say “no thanks, too much hassle, I’ll do this on my own.” In an age of General Solicitation, brokers are an optional expense/luxury as far as many companies are concerned, and with unclear or oppressive regulations they often (83% of the time) just skip it altogether.

Tier 1 Offerings, 40%. Stunning really, considering people filing under Tier 1 almost always have to get audited financials (as some states require them, e.g. CA), they have to pay filing fees that they could avoid with Tier 2, and they subject themselves to what can be extraordinarily painful “merit review” by some states.

Equity/Debt, 97% to 13%. This is a misleading metric and doesn’t really explain what’s happening or what investors are buying (in successful offerings). For instance, the equity sold in the Reg A’s for Realty Mogul* and American Homeowners Preservation* pay investors a defined income stream and have articulated exit mechanisms; Brewdog* investors feel they are buying into a culture; Elio Motor’s* fans (oh, I mean “investors”) were passionate about the concept and the mission; Fig* investors are excited about the games and projects. So the vast majority of successful Reg A’s have some sort of defined returns and/or benefits for investors that make them more than just equity securities being bought based upon technical merits and potential market gains. It’s critical that issuers, brokers and others in this market grasp this essential point, as we’ve seen several Reg A’s fail that did not do a good job with this.
* note that all of these companies are customers of FundAmerica, I cite them here only to illustrate a general point and am NOT making a recommendation or providing advice as regards their securities.

Test The Waters, 20%. This isn’t surprising, as the current method of testing the waters is clearly broken. This will be fixed with technology and the number will increase.

In summary, it’s apparent that 2016 was a fantastic first year for Reg A+. At FundAmerica our technology was used in over $300M worth of online investment transactions, including tens of thousands of investments and millions of dollars from Reg A buyers. With continued education, with more issuers successfully raising funds, and with the new Reg CF now taking care of the smallest, least-prepared issuers, it seems clear that the use of Reg A will grow exponentially in the coming years.

Best Regards,

 Scott Purcell
CEO
FundAmerica, LLC

 

About the Author: Scott Purcell is the CEO of FundAmerica, a fintech services provider to the emerging equity and debt crowdfunding industry. His firm provides escrow, payment processing, and compliance technology for numerous broker-dealers, investment advisers, portals and others who make a business of online capital formation pursuant to rules now in effect thanks to the  JOBS Act. FASTransfer is the only tech-driven SEC registered transfer agent focused on the crowd-industry. He is a founding Board member of the Crowdfunding Intermediary Regulatory Association (CFIRA) and the author of the book “The Definitive Guide to Equity and Debt Crowdfunding” as well as the “Industry Best Practices for Funding Portals”.

Legal Disclaimer:
These materials are my personal opinions and for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal or tax advice. I am not advocating, advising or recommending anyone purchase any specific or general investment of any type, ever. The issues discussed include complicated areas of law and legal advice should only be obtained and relied upon from a securities attorney about your specific circumstances.

NextGen Crowdfunding Video Awards

Crowdfund Beat News Wire,

Public Will Vote on First Round of Contestants to Determine Winners of New Online Awards Shows

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–NextGen Crowdfunding®, the leading company that helps people explore new types of crowdfunding, announces the season one premiere of the Crowdfunding Video Awards (CVAs). This new, six-part series of online awards shows will showcase videos from both rewards-based crowdfunding campaigns featured on Indiegogo, Kickstarter and other platforms, as well as equity crowdfunding campaigns.

“The campaign videos we’ll be showing viewers over the course of this season showcase creativity, passion and the entrepreneurial spirit.”

winny-trophy-solo_ngsd_card_720a

Season one kicks off on Wednesday, January 25 with a live-online show at 3:00pm PT/ 6:00pm ET. Viewers will log on to NextGenCrowdfunding.com to watch and vote on their favorite crowdfunding campaign videos. The first season of the CVAs will include five preliminary awards shows, and will culminate in a final seasonal awards show highlighting the best videos of the season as voted on by the public.

“We received a wide variety of submissions from crowdfunding campaigns — spanning industries from technology to pets to wellness — to participate in the first season of the Crowdfunding Video Awards,” said NextGen founder Aubrey Chernick. “The campaign videos we’ll be showing viewers over the course of this season showcase creativity, passion and the entrepreneurial spirit.”

The contestants that will be showcased during the first round of the Crowdfunding Video Awards include:

  1. Codeybot by Makeblock: Makeblock is an open-source Arduino robot building platform to turn ideas into success.
  2. Cowin Ark by Cowin Music: Innovative audio company pioneering revolutionary Bluetooth speaker design.
  3. Flash Porter by DFiGear: Flash Porter lets you quickly and easily backup your precious digital photos and videos from any device – smartphones and digital cameras.
  4. FlowMotion by FlowMotion: FlowMotion ONE – Capture smooth cinematic videos with your smartphone. Auto-follow tracking, motion time-lapse, and so much more.
  5. High-End Theater by XGIMI H1: High-end Theater with 5 minute setup | 1080p LED Projects Up To 300″, Transform 2D Film Into 3D, Android OS.
  6. Limitless Phone Case by Mous: Whether you drop your iPhone from your pocket or from 45ft, Limitless cases will protect your phone from breaking.
  7. Modobag by Modobag: Modobag is the World’s First Motorized, Rideable Luggage and is changing the way people travel.
  8. Piqapoo by Piqapoo: A team of dog lovers that love their dogs but not picking up after them.
  9. PowerFilm: The revolutionary solar panel with an integrated battery to charge your devices anywhere, anytime.
  10. ZEEQ Smart Pillow by REM-Fit: REM-Fit is a team of dedicated individuals who believe in a restful night’s sleep. We all know that sleep is often put to the wayside in our busy lives.

Supporters of NextGen’s CVAs include the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CFPA), an organization supporting the growth of the crowdfunding industry, as well as the crowdfunding portals OurCrowd, SeedInvest, StartEngine, Republic and WeFunder and media companies Crowdfund Beat and Crowdfund Insider.

To learn more about the contestants participating in the first CVAs show, please click here.

About NextGen Crowdfunding

NextGen Crowdfunding helps people explore the new era of equity crowdfunding. With unique in-person events and live streaming video content, NextGen enables individuals to discover, research and support specific companies launching crowdfunding campaigns. NextGen’s unique Ignition Events showcase the companies and emerging businesses presenting equity crowdfunding campaigns. NextGen also provides educational content, including online webinars, boot camps and videos, to inform the public about equity crowdfunding. NextGen also provides education to, and visibility for, companies with crowdfunding campaigns. As a purpose-driven company, NextGen aims to encourage entrepreneurship and help spark a new economy. Visit http://www.nextgencrowdfunding.com.

Contacts

Media
For NextGen Crowdfunding
Jason Feldman, 212-319-3451, ext. 644
jason@goldin.com

Targeted IRRs in Crowdfunding

By Mark Roderick CrowdFunding Beat  Sr. contributing editor and crowdfunding attorney with Flaster/Greenberg PC.

 

Closeup sad young man with worried stressed face expression and brain melting into lines question marks. Obsessive compulsive, adhd, anxiety disorders
Closeup sad young man with worried stressed face expression and brain melting into lines question marks. Obsessive compulsive, adhd, anxiety disorders

Targeted internal rate of return, or IRR, is used widely to advertise deals on Crowdfunding sites, real estate and otherwise. While target IRR means something to sophisticated sponsors and investors, its widespread and uncritical use makes me a little uneasy, for the following reasons:

  • If pressed, many people don’t know what IRR really means. Investors assume that a higher IRR is better than a lower IRR, but many couldn’t explain exactly why or how.
  • IRR can be misleading. For example, a bond purchased for $100 that pays interest of $10 at the end of each of the first four years and $110 at the end of the fifth year has an IRR of 10%. A bond purchased for $68.30 that pays nothing for four years and $110 at the end of the fifth year also has an IRR of 10%. But those two investments are very different. The IRR calculation assumes that the $10 interest payments on the first bond can be reinvested at 10%, which is probably not true.
  • The IRR of a real estate deal (or any deal) increases when the asset is refinanced and the proceeds distributed to investors. But refinancing the asset doesn’t necessarily make for a better investment.
  • There being no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism, a higher IRR generally coincides with higher risk. For example, I can usually increase my IRR by borrowing more money. That relationship is not typically highlighted.
  • For a typical startup outside the real estate industry, IRR has no meaning. Or to put it differently, a 28% target IRR for a startup plus $2.75 gets you on the New York subway.
  • The term “target IRR” tends to mask what’s really important:  the factual assumptions concerning sales and asset appreciation. To say “We expect a target IRR of 18%” is somehow easier to sell than “We expect the property to appreciate at 6% per year.”
  • Under FINRA Rule 2210, offerings conducted through a broker-dealer may not advertise target IRRs. FINRA also prohibits Title III Funding Portals from advertising target IRRs, and the SEC prohibits new issuers from advertising a target IRR in Regulation A offerings, even for sponsors with extensive track records. Hence, target IRR cannot be used to compare offerings across all platforms and all deal types.

What can we do better as an industry? Here are a few ideas:

  • We can explain internal rate of return better, maybe with examples and a standardized presentation and graphics.
  • We can develop other apples-to-apples metrics for comparing deals.
  • We can make clear that higher IRRs generally come with higher risks.
  • In Regulation A offerings, and even in Rule 506(b) offerings where non-accredited investors are involved, the issuer is required to provide extensive information about the sponsor’s track record. Some version of that concept, applied consistently and allowing for side-by-side comparison, might be the most valuable information for investors.

Mark Roderick is one of the leading Crowdfunding lawyers in the United States. He represents platforms, portals, issuers, and others throughout the industry. For more information on Crowdfunding, including news, updates and links to important information pertaining to the JOBS Act and how Crowdfunding may affect your business, follow Mark’s blog, or his twitter handle: @CrowdfundAttny. He can also be reached at 856.661.2265 or mark.roderick@flastergreenberg.com.