Category Archives: Intrastate CrowdFunding

The Battle to Launch a Next-Generation Retirement Product & Control $14 Trillion in Investment Direction

By Dara Albright,CrowdFunding Beat Guest Editor, FinTechREVOLUTION.tv  , Dara Albright Media,

In the Fall of 2016, I penned an article entitled, “Modernizing the Self-direct IRA – The Trillion Dollar FinTech Opportunity” – the first in a new series of articles that focuses on next-generation retirement planning. The piece underscored how FinTech will mend America’s flawed retirement system and foster the growth of “digital” investing.

Retire1

This initial report drew attention to the growing necessity for a low-cost, high speed, autonomous retirement solution that would meet the demands of today’s alternative micro-investor. Most significantly, the piece summarized the two distinct individual retirement account prototypes – the Brokerage IRA and the Trust Company IRA – which are vying to become the self-directed IRA exemplar and dominate the $14 trillion retail retirement market.

Sometimes I feel like I am the only one sensing a war brewing in the retail retirement market. But then again, I am somewhat clairvoyant.

Perhaps the majority of America’s retail investors are too busy reluctantly allocating their retirement dollars to sanctioned bond funds – many of which yield more clout than performance – to even notice the race to create a next-generation retail retirement product that will economically custody coveted micro-sized alternative investment products and, in doing so, ensure that a greater number of Americans maintain more properly diversified retirement portfolios.

Maybe most old-school financial professionals are just too preoccupied chasing the “whale” to realize the imminent colossal impact of the rising micro-alternative investor.

No matter the rationale, the fact is that this battle to produce a next-generation retail retirement vehicle is likely to go down as the largest industry duel in the history of commerce – dwarfing the cola and software wars by trillions.

The victorious retirement product stands to inherit the power to redirect $14 trillion dollars of mutual fund assets and disrupt long-standing retirement asset monopolies – thus paving the way for a superior breed of investment products to emerge (download: http://www.slideshare.net/smox2011/the-trillion-dollar-fintech-opportunity).

Unlike previous corporate clashes, the winning IRA model is easy to predict. The frontrunner will be the one possessing the most optimum technological and regulatory framework to accommodate the needs of the modern retail investor. Today’s retail investor is not looking for another mutual fund. He is not begging for ETFs. Nor is he interested in day-trading stocks. Instead, he is craving yield, and he is demanding access to the same level of returns that institutions have been enjoying for years through alternative asset diversification. Simply put, modern investors are looking for a self-directed retirement vehicle that enables them to readily, easily and affordably spread tiny increments of retirement capital across a broad range of asset classes.

Except for the possibility of a sudden legislative change, hands down, the trust company based model will emerge as the clear victor. The Brokerage IRA is bound by too many compliance constraints to enable it to efficiently and cost-effectively facilitate micro investments into alternative asset classes such as P2P notes or crowdfinanced offerings.

The Trust Company IRA, by contrast, operates under a much more favorable regulatory scheme, and any technological shortcomings are presently being addressed and conquered (see: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ira-services-launches-p2p-lendings-first-cloud-based-api-driven-retirement-investment-solution-at-lendit-2016-300247413.html).

Because it is faster and easier to overcome a technological deficiency than it is to amend regulations, the Trust Company IRA will continue to amass a significant advantage. This is especially true as technology becomes less and less of a commodity and the political climate becomes more and more contentious

There are simply too many compliance-related obstacles that FINRA-regulated BDs would need to surmount in order to formidably compete with the trust company based model. Perhaps one of the most pressing is the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule which is scheduled to take effect in April.

Under the new DOL rule – which expands the definition of a fiduciary to include commission-based brokers – brokerage firms that handle retail retirement accounts will find themselves facing additional and unwelcomed liability.

In the wake of the DOL rule, retail brokerages have already been seen scrambling to adjust their existing retail retirement product lines. Merrill Lynch has announced that it will be closing its commission-based retirement business altogether, and Edward Jones pronounced that it will simply stop offering mutual funds and ETFs as options in commission-based retirement accounts.

Yes, you read that correctly. Retail brokerages would prefer to limit access to investment products or exit the retail retirement business altogether than to deal with the regulatory headaches of helping small investors prepare for retirement.

Instead of being able to access “prepackaged” diversified investment products, Edward Jones’ retail clientele will either have to self-diversify across stocks, bonds, annuities and CDs, or move to a managed account that charges an asset-based management fee. Since the typical retail investor’s account is too small to properly self-diversify using individual investment products such as stocks and bonds, and since asset-based management fees tend to be much more expensive than one-time commissions, once again retail investors are getting the shaft.

According to CEI finance expert John Berlau, “The DOL fiduciary rule will restrict access to financial advice and reduce choices for lower and middle-income savers. The restrictions can deter companies from serving middle-class savers, creating a “guidance gap” that could cost an estimated $80 billion in lost savings.”

As the DOL Fiduciary Rule succeeds in eliminating both financial advisors and investment choices from the traditional retirement planning equation, smaller investors will be forced into taking a more autonomous stance to retirement prep – leading to a seismic shift in both retail assets and retirement vehicles.

This will have widespread implications on the financial services industry that will include a mass exodus from brokerage IRAs into Trust Company IRAs as well as a flock to robo-advisors, marketplace finance and well as P2P and digital investing – a trend in retail investing that is already well underway.

As the battle for the retail retirement account unfolds, I am going to be reveling in the irony of how once again needless regulatory oversight is helping fuel the FinTech revolution.

Originally published on Dara Albright Media.

hqdefault

Dara Albright – President of Dara Albright Media, Co-founded the FinFair ConferenceFinTechREVOLUTION.tv

Recognized authority, thought provoker and frequent speaker on topics relating to market structure, private secondary transactions and crowdfinance. Welcome to my new personal blog where you can glean unique insight into the rapid transformation of global capital markets.

 

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 Platforms Expand Financing to Regions That Suffer From Venture Capital Drought

By Anum Yoon, Crowdfund Beat Media Guest post,

Venture capitalists tend to back entrepreneurial firms that reflect their own ideas and match their social and educational experiences. This type of financing has resulted in a concentrated amount of funds for business endeavors in specific locales. Venture capitalists are typically wealthy investors, investment banks and other financial institutions with similar interests.

Silicon Valley and Boston benefit greatly from venture capitalism, while struggling entrepreneurial startups across the country are suffering from a venture capital drought.

However, the industry is changing with the expansion of crowdfunding platforms, such as Kickstarter, helping to level the playing field. A recent study from the University of California at Berkeley states that crowdfunding financing is now accessible outside of the traditional startup and technological landscape, with even the restaurant industry jumping into the crowdfunding action.

Crowdfunding Platform Expansion Leads to Nationwide Innovation

Crowdfunding appeals to entrepreneurs and investors looking for a different tribe. Since many venture capitalists (VCs) finance people and ideas similar to their own, women and minority entrepreneurs can benefit greatly from crowdfunding expansion outside of the normal VC region.

The study from UC Berkeley identified specific regions where the majority of financing from VCs are concentrated. The study analyzed data from 55,0005 Kickstarter campaigns and 17,493 venture capital investments that were similar in activities.

The researchers mapped the successful campaigns and financing from 2009 to 2015. What the researchers found was that the Kickstarter campaigns originated from all across the country and from areas not typically financed through venture capitalism. This includes the cities of Chicago, Los Angeles and Seattle.

Venture capitalism was responsible for the financing of entrepreneurial firms in highly concentrated areas. As much as 50 percent of all VC financing concentrates in only four counties within Silicon Valley and Boston.

The study took into account the relative intensity of the crowdfunding platform and venture capital funding in each region. Using this formula, the researchers could account for the differences in population and other factors that might skew the results.

The researchers found that areas with Kickstarter investments were located away from venture capitalist funding. For example, in the Bay area, VC funding is primarily focused in San Francisco and the Peninsula, but Kickstarter funding concentrates in Marin and Napa counties.

According to the researchers, the results could show an inequality in entrepreneurial funding in regions. In areas with Kickstarter technology campaigns, the study found that venture capitalist funding increased as VCs find these new ideas attractive.

Other Crowdfunding Platforms Expanding

The six-year study from UC Berkeley focused on Kickstarter as the crowdfunding platform, but others are expanding their reach across the country in hopes of reviving the entrepreneurial legacy while stimulating the economy and supporting charities.

GoFundMe recently acquired CrowdRise to expand fundraising initiatives for charities. GoFundMe processed the transactions for CrowdRise during 2016, and the platform raised $100 million each month and grew 300 percent year-over-year. The acquisition increases the opportunities for social fundraising and charity fundraising.

Other crowdfunding platforms that small businesses and entrepreneurs are using include Indiegogo, Fundable and RocketHub. Indiegogo launched in 2008 and announced in 2016 that it has added equity crowdfunding to open the door for small investors.

Fundable is an Ohio-based crowdfunding platform that attracts accredited investors for entrepreneurial businesses, such as InstaHealthy USA.

RocketHub offers traditional donation fundraising as well as equity-based crowdfunding through the ELEQUITY Funding platform and Bankroll Ventures.

Now entrepreneurial startups in smaller cities and rural areas have a chance to develop and share their ideas with crowdfunding platforms. Not long ago it was determined that U.S. entrepreneurship was at a 40-year low, but this may soon change.

The American entrepreneurial spirit still exists, it just needs a little financial help from its tribe.

 

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.

New to Crowdfunding? Here’s What to Expect.

40Billion.com, Crowdfund Beat Guest Post.

With the popularity and success of crowdfunding as a new way to fund new projects, it’s easy for other aspiring entrepreneurs to believe that sites like Kickstarter are their golden ticket to launching a business. But the reality is, crowdfunding isn’t always as simple as it seems.

Whether you’re looking to raise a small amount of startup cash or acquire a larger sum through equity crowdfunding, there are a few challenges you might face during the process that you may not have expected.

cartoon concept for crowdfunding, businessman hand with light bulb and with money. vector illustration in flat design on blue background
cartoon concept for crowdfunding, businessman hand with light bulb and with money. vector illustration in flat design on blue background

Choosing the right platform

The first step is to choose the right platform. Not all of them are created equal. Platforms like Kickstarter or Indiegogo are great for raising smaller amounts of money, but equity crowdfunding portals are best for entrepreneurs looking for large sums of money. If you’re interested in the latter, it’s important to do your research and find the platform that meets your needs. Also, find an experienced attorney who specializes in equity financing.

Establishing a realistic goal amount and time frame

Many entrepreneurs, especially those new to the crowdfunding scene, tend to think that they will be able to quickly raise all the money they need and then more by the time their campaign ends. It’s important to be realistic about time and money when it comes to planning your campaign.

Consider how much capital you would need to take your business to the next major milestones, and don’t rely solely on crowdfunding sites for your fundraising.

Creating a buzz

Having a great business idea that is supported by friends and family is good, but it does not mean that the donations will come pouring in once you launch your crowdfunding campaign. Doing a lot of prep work before your campaign will help create and maintain interest in your project.

Before starting the project, gauging level of interest for your investment opportunity or project is a critical part of the process. Even though supporters have told you that they would support the campaign, it gets lost in their email inbox. Without specific requests, it’s difficult for people to actually pull the trigger on an investment or funding opportunity. Make sure you have personalized outreach to your first degree networks, and remember to ask for assistance in spreading the word.

When you’re ready to spread the word and create a buzz around your crowdfunding campaign or project, sites like 40Billion.com make this easy. They broadcast and promote your campaign to their large network of several million users across the most popular social networking sites for businesses – including Twitter, LinkedIn, 40Billion, and even Facebook. Innovative services like tweet ads and promoted company listings were created for crowdfunders to tap into a growing, active network online without spending thousands on pay-per-click ads or traditional advertising.

The risk factor

Everyone knows that there’s risk involved in any business venture. What investors want to know is, exactly how much of a risk will they be taking by offering you a large sum of money? Even small venture funds express interest in investing, but ask the entrepreneur to come back to them when they have an investor who is leading the round of funding. Everyone wants to know the amount of risk.

A lot of investors at the early stage simply want to de-risk investing by being the last money in the round once a lot of other sophisticated investors have already committed. This often creates a scenario where founders have a few hundred thousand dollars in “commitments” for months without any way to actually close on anything. Using a reputable equity crowdfunding platform with accredited investors can help solve this problem.

While the “lead investor” issue most commonly affects startups seeking large-scale investors, the same basic principle can apply to a smaller Kickstarter campaign: If potential funders see that no one is backing the project or that people are only contributing a few dollars, what incentive do they have to donate a large amount of money? This is where building interest and spreading the word become critical to raising the funds you need.

Even if you aren’t launching a crowdfunding campaign at this time, it’s important to learn about the industry, as well as what it takes to succeed.

Source:

http://upflow.co/l/5cIW/2017/01/02/new-to-crowdfunding-heres-what-to-expect-2

HR 3784 – SEC Office of Small Business Advocate – Is Now the Law of the Land

By Samuel S. Guzik, CrowdFundBeat special guest editor,  Guzik & Associate

On December 16, 2016, President Barack Obama Signed into Law HR 3784 – SEC Office of Small Business Advocate, creating an independent Office of Small Business Advocate at the SEC, reporting directly to the full Commission and Congress. This legislation was first introduced into Congress in October 2015, where it was originally co-sponsored by former House Representative John Carney (D-Del) (now Governor-Elect of the State of Delaware) and Congressman Sean Duffy (R-Wisc) and was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives in 2016. It was passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate on December 9, 2016, as part of a flurry of year-end bills passed by the Senate before it recessed for the year.

aaeaaqaaaaaaaafcaaaajgm2ndy3mdbkltqzn2mtngfmmi04ytrhlty2zdbkmzhlnzfiza

The bill had broad industry support upon its introduction in October 2015, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Venture Capital Association, National Small Business Association, Small Business Investor Alliance, SBEC, and the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), of which I served as its Chair and President at the time.

Remarkably, this Bill passed Congress unanimously without the support of the SEC. In testimony from SEC Chair Mary Jo White before the Senate Banking Committee in June 2016 she was asked by the Senate bill co-sponsor, Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), whether she supported this legislation. Her response:

 “We currently have the Office of Small Business Policy within the Division of Corporate Finance. I am an advocate for small business.” 

A roundabout way of saying “no” – it seems to me.

In the past I have referred to this bill as the missing title of the JOBS Act of 2012. Though it parallels to a large extent to the SEC Office of Investor Advocate – part of the Dodd Frank Act of 2010 – the need for this legislation goes back decades.

The successful passage of this law was the result of the participation and support of many individual and groups. However, I am proud to have had a major role in initiating this legislation, among other things:

  • I was the first person to publicly advocate for this legislation, in Feb 2014, in an article published on Crowdfund Insider.
  • I met with former SEC Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher in June 2014 to advocate for this bill.
  • I was cited by Commissioner Gallagher in a public address (Note 36) by Commissioner Gallagher given at the Heritage Foundation in September 2014 where he advocated for the need for a permanent Office of Small Business Advocate.
  • I worked with the original sponsor, Rep. John Carney (D-Del) (now Governor-elect of Delaware) in drafting this legislation prior to its introduction in Congress.
  • I assisted in procuring the initial Republican co-sponsor – Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis).

A special thank you is in order for SEC Commissioner Gallagher. Without his public and vocal support for this legislation it might have taken many more years for this historic legislation to become a reality.

A copy of the Bill can be found here.

For those of you who want to dig deeper on this subject, here is some background material on the Bill and my role in its journey:

http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2016/12/93592-sec-small-business-advocate-moves-closer-reality-senate-passes-bill/

http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2016/11/92607-unstacking-deck-smes-washington-call-sec-small-business-advocate/

This entry was posted in Capital Raising, Corporate Governance, Corporate Law, Crowdfunding, General, Regulation A+ Resource Center, SEC Developments and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

On the SEC’s New Intrastate Crowdfunding Rules and the Nanny State

By Samuel S. Guzik, CrowdFundBeat special guest editor,  Guzik & Associate

On October 26, 2016, the SEC’s three Commissioners convened at their headquarters to adopt new rules intended to modernize what had historically been a little used path of raising capital for startups, early stage businesses and community-based enterprises: the so called intrastate exemption. It had its origins in our federal securities regulation legislation adopted back in 1933, which required the federal registration of the sale of securities in the U.S.  absent an exemption from registration.

sec-meeting-commission-white-piwowar-stein


In 1933 Congress, in its wisdom, carved out from the registration requirement those offerings that were purely local in character, where offers and sales were made by local businesses within their state borders.  This area it left to regulation by the states – on a state by state basis – with each state left to decide for itself how best to balance the need to protect its investing public with the ability of local businesses to access capital.

And to facilitate the utilization of this exemption from registration the Commission enacted Rule 147, intended to be a non-exclusive safe harbor to facilitate compliance with the federal exemption.

Over the years it became more and more apparent that both the exemption itself and the Rule were flawed – hence its use languished – in favor of other more manageable exemptions from federal registration.   Its use was generally shunned by securities lawyers, as it was too easy to fall out of compliance with its requirements.

And time was not kind to the intrastate exemption. If your business was a corporation, the statutory exemption was limited to corporations incorporated in the state where the offering occurred, thus excluding local businesses who might elect to incorporate in out of state jurisdictions.   And with the onset of the Internet in the 1990’s the Commission struggled with how to address offers by a local business on the internet which by their very nature would cross state borders.  This struggle came to a head in 2014, when the SEC Staff issued an informal interpretation, a “CDI” (compliance and disclosure interpretation), opining that unrestricted Internet solicitation and advertising of an offering was taboo for an offering relying on the intrastate exemption.  This effectively put a damper on local investment crowdfunded offerings in the dozens of states that had adopted, or were to adopt, intrastate crowdfunding statutes relying on the intrastate exemption.

keith-higgins-corpfin-sec

The 2014 CDI was greeted with a growing chorus of mystified securities lawyers, state securities regulators and small business advocates.  At a time when the SEC was dragging its feet to adopt regulations to implement interstate (nationwide) investment crowdfunding,  it had in effect shut off many states from enacting local crowdfunding statutes which would enable SME’s to leverage the Internet in local investment crowdfunding campaigns.

Invest Today Billboard AdvertisementIn 2015 the Staff at the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance took the bull by the horns, recommending that the Commission adopt new rules to modernize and expand the federal intrastate crowdfunding exemption. On October 30, 2015, the same day that the Commission adopted the long-awaited final rules implementing JOBS Act Title III crowdfunding, it came with its own October surprise: proposed rules to update and expand the intrastate exemption – notably, allowing unrestricted Internet advertising of an offering.

One year later, on October 26, 2016, the Commission adopted final intrastate crowdfunding rules, much improved from the proposed rules. Gone in the final rules, among other things, was a provision which would have prohibited state legislatures and state securities regulators from authorizing local investment crowdfunded offerings in excess of $5 million per year.  Though no state has yet to authorize crowdfunded offerings above this amount, virtually all of those who commented on the propose rules were unanimous: this was a matter best left to the discretion of each state – not the federal government.  And in the UK, where investment crowdfunding has flourished, the $5 million dollar ceiling has been broken and is expected to go higher.

Though the vote by the Commissioners on the final rules was unanimous, not so with the sentiment of the Commissioners.  In Commissioner Kara M. Stein’s public remarks on the final rules, she was not shy about expressing reservations about the ability of the individual states to protect their local residents from questionable offerings and bad actors, cautioning of the need for continuing federal oversight:kara-stein-sec-intrastate

“Today’s rules amend Rule 147, and create a new federal offering exemption known as Rule 147A.  Hopefully, the updated safe harbor and new exemption before us today will foster opportunities and create new paths forward for such smaller firms, while still safeguarding investors.”

 

“At least, this is the theory.  Like other experimental capital-raising rules, such as Regulation A+ and Regulation Crowdfunding, only time will tell how well the theory works in practice. Only time will tell whether we can relax capital-raising regulations, while also maintaining appropriate investor protections.  So, while today’s rules may provide smaller companies with additional funding opportunities, today’s rules also raise some investor protection concerns.”

And in closing her remarks, Commissioner Stein  again emphasized what she viewed as the “experimental” nature of these new rules:

“Today’s amendments to Rules 147 and 504 and the new exemption under Rule 147A are part of a suite of rules focused on providing options for smaller businesses seeking to raise capital.  On balance, I think they are worth the experiment.  However, by collecting, sharing, and examining data on how these new options are working in practice, we should be able to recalibrate these rules if the experiment is not working out as planned.”

Most respectfully, I must take exception to Commissioner Stein’s characterization of these rules. It is not a question of whether the glass is half full, or half empty. In my opinion, the glass, from Commissioner Stein’s perspective, is simply upside down.

Science Chemistry TechnologyThe real “experiment,” historically, dates back not only to 1933, when Congress first carved out this statutory reservation of power to the states. The “experiment” also dates back to 1776, when our Founders adopted a Constitution which gave specified powers to the federal government, with all other powers being reserved to the states.  The “experiments” our Founders had in mind were those which would take place under laws enacted by each of the states – as they, and not the federal government, saw fit.  States were to set up their own laboratories of experiment for matters uniquely concerning their residents, and occurring within their borders – free from interference by a federal bureaucracy.

Seems that Commissioner Stein never got that memo. In her view, it would be up to the SEC to “recalibrate” the new rules if the states get it wrong – in the judgment of the Commission, of course.

So Why Does Any of This Matter?

It would be easy to be dismissive of the recently adopted intrastate rules.  After all, historically the intrastate exemption has not been in favor –there have been much better options – with far fewer pitfalls. Even more so now, with new pathways of capital formation opened up by the JOBS Act of 2012.  And with the advent of federal investment crowdfunding, most would yawn when examining the seemingly unimpressive statistics for the use of intrastate crowdfunding during brief period in which intrastate crowdfunding has been allowed.

I submit that current statistics are not very meaningful – as they do not tell the whole story. There is a lag between the time that new capital raising paths are created and when they become “mainstream.”  And let us not forget – until these new rules go into effect (April 2017), as a general matter broad internet solicitation is not permitted in intrastate crowdfunded offerings relying on the current Rule 147 – covering most of the 35 states which have adopted their own intrastate crowdfunding statutes.  And crowdfunding without the Internet is more akin to a day without sunshine. Not much can grow in that environment.

path-trail-utah-desert-blue-sky-mesa-scrub-bush

Size Does Not Always Matter

Statistics, however, do not tell the whole story. Most businesses start out as local businesses.  But when it comes to allocating investor capital in SME’s, most of it winds up in California, New York, and Massachusetts, leaving the vast majority of this country as “capital deserts.”

Patrick McHenry 2Those are not my words. They are the words of US Congressman and Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry, who hails from the Great State of North Carolina – the same gentlemen who has been unrelenting in his efforts to implement smart federal legislation intended to remove unnecessary federal regulatory barriers to SME capital formation: starting with the JOBS Act of 2012, and continuing to this day with a host of bills to further improve the access of SME’s to much needed capital – especially in capital-starved “flyover” states.

Make no mistake about it.  This is not a political issue, notwithstanding the heated rhetoric in 2016 which has saturated our media.  To put a fine point on this, I offer the views of our Democratic Vice President, Joe Biden, spoken in 2014 at the U.S. sponsored Global Economic Summit, on the other side of the world in Morocco to an assembly of thousands of entrepreneurs and government officials, including the head of the U.S. Small Business Administration, Maria Contreras – Sweet.

“The single most valuable resource on this planet I think we could all agree on in this room is not what’s in the ground, but what’s in the mind.  It’s the single least explored part of the world, the mind.  The things that are going to happen in the next two, five, 10, 15 years are breathtaking.  Investors, they have to be willing to expand the horizon and invest in early stage entrepreneurs — not only in Silicon Valley — but . . . everywhere, everywhere where there’s talent.”

maria-contreras“Governments have to unlock the marketplace of ideas by allowing people to express their views openly about what they’re thinking and what they’re trying.”

“They must unlock the commercial marketplace by eliminating barriers to access to capital; ensuring that rules are fair and predictable, removing excessive cumbersome regulations.”

“The government can’t grow the economy by itself.  As a matter of fact, it’s not the major reason.  It’s a catalyst for growth — no matter how big the megaproject.  To prosper in the 21st century, you also need to grow from the bottom up, allowing your people to unlock their talents through private enterprise and political and economic freedom and action.”

And there was some irony – not apparent from the remarks themselves.  They were spoken at a U.S. sponsored world conference intended to promote entrepreneurial activity in Muslim-majority countries – one of former Secretary of State Clinton’s initiatives started by her back in 2009.

Washington Monument DCSo let’s not be too “provincial” when pronouncing judgment on who knows best, when it comes deciding how investors should best be protected – or what is needed to enhance capital formation for SME’s –  or where those funds are needed most – especially when the boundaries of that “province” are marked by the Washington Beltway – and the matters at hand reside within the borders of a single state.

So let’s wake up – and give some deference to our local communities, big and small, U.S. entrepreneurs everywhere, including in the flyover states, and the state legislatures which regulate them.  Sometimes big ideas start in small, seemingly unlikely places.

“Bite-size” businesses, in the aggregate, are important to our economy and job creation. And in Finfair Panel with Amy Cortesethis day and age of readily accessible technology “Uber” sized businesses often have their genesis with relatively modest amounts of capital.

After all, it’s why one notable leader championing the importance of local investing, and New York Times contributor,Amy Cortese, calls it “Locavesting,” – not “Loco” – vesting.

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.

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.

 

 

 

NASAA and Members of Congress Come Together on the Need for the SEC to Expand Intrastate Crowdfunding Rules

By Samuel S. Guzik, CrowdFundBeat special guest editor,  Guzik & Associate

It is rare that I am able to find agreement with the publicly stated positions of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA). Equally rare – members of Congress who are traditionally strong advocates for “smart” regulatory reform of capital formation by SME’s to find themselves on the same page as NASAA.  However, there appears to be a growing, even overwhelming, consensus that the SEC’s proposed rules to modify current federal restrictions on the intrastate sale of securities – are on the one hand a step in the right direction.  But on the other hand, the SEC’s rule, as proposed, does not go far enough, and places unnecessary restrictions on the ability of states to decide what is in the best interests of their constituents – free of interference from the SEC.

By way of background, on October 30, 2015, the same day that the Commission announced final investment crowdfunding rules in furtherance of Title III of the JOBS Act of 2012 to implement investment crowdfunding on a national level – it also issued for comment a proposed rule, primarily intended to facilitate investment crowdfunding at the state level – Rule 147A. Significantly, the proposed rule would allow companies to advertise their offering on the Internet, something which the SEC Staff has stated is prohibited under current Rule 147 – and much to the consternation of state regulators and securities lawyers  alike.  In doing so, the SEC proposed to limit the amount that a state could authorize under its laws to $5 million. And it also proposed to eliminate the existing rule, Rule 147, in its entirety.

On October 7, 2016, a bi-partisan group of 15 members of Congress, many members of the House Financial Services Committee, signed a letter addressed to the SEC, encouraging the Commission to finalize its rulemaking, but with some important modifications. In particular, as proposed by the Commission, the existing “safe harbor” rule, Rule 147, which would allow states to regulate offerings occurring entirely within their state, would be scrapped in its entirety, and replaced by a new rule, Rule 147A, under the Commission’s general rulemaking powers.  This approach, if adopted in the final rules, has at least two untoward effects, as regards the ability of states to fashion their own rules for intrastate offering, including intrastate investment crowdfunding.

First, of the 35 or so states which have enacted their own investment crowdfunding statutes, adoption of the Rule, as proposed, would in effect, terminate these exemptions in many of the states which enacted their exemptions based entirely upon the current rule – proposed to be eliminated – bringing intrastate crowdfunding to a halt.  Comment letters to date have almost universally requested the SEC to clarify and expand the existing Rule 147, but to retain the existing rule.  Though a technicality of sorts, failure to fix this glitch would require the large majority of states authorizing intrastate investment crowdfunding to go back to their state legislatures to incorporate any new rule which replaces the current Rule 147. And until then, intrastate crowdfunding would be shut down.

Second, though the SEC’s proposed rule makes necessary improvements, it comes with some conditions which many find unpalatable – and unnecessary. In particular, the SEC rule, as proposed, would limit the ceiling under this proposed exemption to $5 million.  Opposition to this condition has been strong, simply because this is a matter which ought to be determined by each state – on a state by state basis.

The latest missive by 15 members of the House Financial Services Committee includes Congressman and Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry, a leading proponent of the JOBS Act of 2012 and subsequent legislation, and Congressman John Carney, the original sponsor of a Bill which passed the House this year which if enacted would create a new, independent office at the SEC – Office of Small Business Advocate – and would report to the full Commission and to Congress.  Undoubtedly, their letter will signal to the SEC the need to approval final rules as expeditiously as possible nearly a year after originally proposed. So look for good things to come from the Commission in this area in the coming months.

For those who want to dig a little deeper, I am providing links to my Comment Letter to the SEC as well as the Comment Letter submitted by NASAA, both back in January 2016.

Samuel S. Guzik has more than 35 years of experience as a corporate and securities attorney and business advisor in private practice in New York and Los Angeles, including as an associate at Willkie Farr and Gallagher, a major New York based international law firm, a partner at the law firm of Ervin, Cohen and Jessup, in Los Angeles, and in the firm he founded in 1993, Guzik & Associates.

 

samuel guzik

Samuel S. Guzik has more than 35 years of experience as a corporate and securities attorney and business advisor in private practice in New York and Los Angeles, including as an associate at Willkie Farr and Gallagher, a major New York based international law firm, a partner at the law firm of Ervin, Cohen and Jessup, in Los Angeles, and in the firm he founded in 1993, Guzik & Associates.

Mr. Guzik has represented public and privately held companies and entrepreneurs on a broad range of business and financing transactions, both public and private. Mr. Guzik has also successfully represented clients in federal securities litigation and SEC enforcement proceedings. Guzik has represented businesses in a diverse range of industries, including digital media, apparel, health care and numerous high technology based businesses.
Guzik is a recognized authority and thought leader on matters relating to the JOBS Act of 2012 and the ongoing SEC rulemaking, including Regulation D Rule 506 private placements, Regulation A+, and investment crowdfunding. He has been consulted by Congressional members, state legislators and the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy on matters relating to the JOBS Act and state securities matters.

Guzik & Associates

1875 Century Park East, Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: 310-914-8600

www.guziklaw.com

www.corporatesecuritieslawyerblog.com

@SamuelGuzik1

REPORT: Equity Crowdfunding – Risks and liabilities as the industry matures

 

aaeaaqaaaaaaaakcaaaajgrlowi1ztayltizowmtndq1ms05otrilwzinjuxnwflzgeznw

BY Ronald Kleverlaan Crowdfunding strategy, CrowdfundingHub, advisor European Commission, co-founder European Crowdfunding Network

Within the rapidly-expanding alternative finance industry, equity crowdfunding is emerging as a popular method of growth finance. Equity crowdfunding is a mechanism by which a broad group of investors can fund start-up companies and small businesses in return for equity.

In collaboration with UK insurance company AIG, the researchers of CrowdfundingHub worked together with leading European experts from SyndicateRoom, Seedrs, AIG, CrowdCube, Invesdor, Twintangibles and Legal Alternative to create a state-of-the-art overview of the Equity Crowdfunding industry.

Summary of report

Introduction: The rise and rise of equity crowdfunding

Overview of the growth of the equity crowdfunding industry globally and in Europa.

Chapter 1: Latest developments in equity crowdfunding

Secondary markets, business angels and equity crowdfunding, growth in deal sizes, serial crowdfunding and DIY crowdfunding campaigns.

Chapter 2: Striking the right regulatory balance

Investor protection versus access to finance for companies. Do regulations help or hinder the growth of the equity crowdfunding industry? What will be the impact of Brexit on the equity crowdfunding industry.

Chapter 3: Tackling investor protection

Direct shareholder versus nominee structure, due diligence and cross-border considerations

Chapter 4: Mind the gap: Risks and liabilities associated with crowdfunding platforms

Risks and liabilities associated with crowdfunding platforms, insurance as mechanism for sustainable growth of platforms and fraud risk case studies.

Download free report:

The full report can be downloaded here: Equity Crowdfunding – Considering potential risks and liabilities as the industry grows and matures.