Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
City AM | Harriet Green | Aug 8, 2016

Five dysfunctions of teams, by Patrick Lencioni
I love books that introduce me to concepts that change my world view. Sometimes that’s on big things (like the idea of black swans), and sometimes it can be on smaller topics. This short book (you can read the whole thing in a few hours!), is about smaller concepts. It’s about the pitfalls teams face as they work together. Through a really relatable story, it introduces a few concepts that I’ve found invaluable as we scale. Embracing conflict is the main one that I’ve kept with me. In the past, I’d always found it easy to shy away from difficult conversations. But by turning towards them, I’ve been able to improve my relationship with my team mates and create more productive discussions. I’d highly recommend this book to anyone interested in leading teams to work more productively together!
Made to Stick: Why some ideas take hold and others come unstuck, by Chip and Dan Heath
This was actually recommended to me by John Kerry’s speech writer. There’s no right answer when it comes to standing out from the crowd in business, but Made to Stick is almost it. Creating a compelling message, or telling a memorable story is vital in the early stages of any business, be it for making hires or pitching to investors. I’ve found this book so useful for effectively communicating the vision of the business to others, and learning how to make a message resonate with a stranger. It uses a series of anecdotes to show why we choose to remember and engage with some ideas and not others. It’s especially relevant for entrepreneurs thinking about brand values and promises. It’ll also play a big part in getting an audience to really buy in to what you’re saying.
The Hard Thing About Hard Things, by Ben Horowitz
This is a brutally honest collection of essays about leading a startup as “wartime” chief executive, recounting the battles Ben fought to keep his company from failing. Ben now runs one of the world's most successful venture capital funds and, as his co-founder Marc Andreessen explains, “running a startup is like eating glass. You just start to like the taste of your own blood”. He tackles many of the tough problems that founders face, from laying off senior executives to poaching staff, all the way through an IPO to his company’s eventual sale for $1bn. It’s a must-read that explores the gritty reality of running a company.
Too Big To Fail, by Andrew Ross Sorkin
Published in 2009, this is an oldie but a goodie. It sets out in minute-by-minute detail the events that played out when the world fell apart back in 2008, and the battle commenced to save Wall Street (and London). I recommend it to anyone who needs reminding of how badly financial services can be run – and what massive steps forward we’ve taken in a relatively short time since. We all know how the credit crunch played out, but for those of us who don’t let a spoilt punchline get in the way of a good story, his tales from the frontline of the world’s biggest banking crisis make for a gripping read.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1300+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at ncfacanada.org.
Crowdfund Insider | | July 27, 2016

Canada is the second largest country in the world by land mass and the 10th largest economy by nominal GDP. At around 35 million in total population, Canada is a country that has consistently punched above its weight class economically. The extensive border with the US has helped as the two countries have a robust trading environment. The combination of solid infrastructure, rule of law and a highly educated population, makes Canada a great place to live and work (if you don’t mind a bit of snow in the winter). What is missing from this North American country is a robust innovation-driven economy. Access to capital, always high on the list of fostering creative entrepreneurs, is an area Canada can do better. According to one alternative finance expert, a lot better, as Canada’s crowdfunding exemptions are dead in the water.
Crowdfund Insider recently spoke with this individual who, because of their interactions within the securities industry and crowdfunding sector, requested not to be named.
If you are not in the habit of working in the Canadian securities realm it can be a convoluted and confusing labyrinth of rules and regulations. There is no national securities regulator, everything is managed at the provincial level. Yes, the US is encumbered by a litany of state rules on top of federal exemptions but the Feds have the power to override the states in certain situations which means a more manageable playing field (at times … not always).
Crowdfund Insider’s update on the Canadian crowdfunding environment is below, along with several suggestions that regulators can embrace, to make things more workable for early stage companies.
Crowdfund Insider: Please describe the Canadian / Provincial approach to regulating investment crowdfunding?
Canada has three specific crowdfunding exemptions: (1) The “integrated crowdfunding exemption [NI 45-108]; (2) the startup crowdfunding exemption [CSA notice 45-316] and the newly adopted (3) startup business exemption [ASC Rule 45-517] that was adopted in Alberta today. Canadian issuers can also rely on the accredited investor exemption and the offering memorandum (OM) exemption, which is similar to Regulation A+ in the US to raise capital through crowdfunding their securities.
These crowdfunding exemptions are not available across Canada but only in certain provinces. The integrated crowdfunding exemption is available in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Novia Scotia. The Startup crowdfunding exemption is available in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Novia Scotia. The startup business exemption is available in Alberta (Nunavut had been looking to adopt this exemption as well when introduced in 2015, but has not done so as of today’s date).
| Availability of the Crowdfunding Regimes in Canada | ||||
| Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Québec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia |
British Columbia | Ontario | Alberta | |
| Start-up crowdfunding exemptions | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Integrated crowdfunding exemption | Yes | No | No | No |
| Startup business exemption | No | No | No | Yes |
These crowdfunding exemptions are not harmonized and vary considerably in terms of which issuers can use the exemption, offering limits, investor investment limits, disclosure requirements, and post raise filing requirements.
As a result, issuers in Canada do not have one clear crowdfunding road map.
It is too early to know how the startup business exemption will be received by issuers in Alberta as it was only adopted this week. The start-up crowdfunding exemption which came into force in May of 2015 has had modest use in the participating provinces. There have been no offerings under the integrated crowdfunding exemption which came into force in January of 2016.
Crowdfund Insider: Ontario is the economic center of Canada, yet no one is using the Integrated CF exemption since it was adopted. Why?
There are no funding portals registered as “restricted dealer funding portals” under the integrated crowdfunding exemptions. Registered dealers can amend their registration to include sales under the integrated crowdfunding exemption and there may be one registered dealer who has done so, but so far there are no active funding portals with issuers using this exemption.
There is also little to no interest by issuers in using the integrated crowdfunding exemption to raise capital. No one is using it. In fact, you would need to be a crazy person to use it if you were a tech startup or non-reporting issuer. The rule requires issuers to provide financial statements which are:
Using a cumulative threshold pretty much guarantees most issuers considering using the exemption would require audited financial statements. This wouldn’t be so bad on its own, but if you raise capital under the integrated crowdfunding exemption once (regardless of the amount raised or type of security offered), the issuer is required to provide financial statements to its shareholders and regulators annually.
Whether these annual statements are required to be audited is based on determining each year how much an issuer has raised to date. Issuers are also required to file other continuous disclosure documents such as annual disclosure of use of proceeds, and if resident in or raising capital in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, notice of key events.
There is no reasonable sunset clause to these continuous disclosure requirements. An issuer must either become a reporting issuer, wind-up or dissolve its business, or have fewer than 51 security holders worldwide before it can apply to stop these requirements.
Could you imagine raising $500,000 under the integrated crowdfunding exemption using a debt security and then be caught for the next 20 years of your business filing audited financial statements with securities regulators?
It would be a losing proposition as the cost of ongoing compliance alone could outstrip the amount actually raised.
Crowdfund Insider: Are there any types of businesses that may be inclined to use the exemption?
The integrated crowdfunding exemption is best suited for: public companies, companies considering going public in the near future, funds (other than investment funds), real estate limited partnerships, and other businesses either continually raising capital or which have a limited life span. All of these companies can take into consideration and absorb the cost of raising capital under the exemption and the cost of the ongoing continuous disclosure requirements. Its a very narrow band of issuers, which frankly, are already being served by other existing securities law exemptions which is why you have not seen any uptake to date by these issuers in using the integrated crowdfunding exemption.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1300+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at ncfacanada.org.
Money Week | | May 30, 2016

Yet as the banks have cut rates available, other providers have stepped in, hoping to tempt investors and savers with more attractive potential returns.
Alternative finance is one such niche area that has emerged from nowhere in the last eight years, with pioneer company Zopa leading the way in providing what are called “P2P (peer-to-peer) lending accounts”.
So what are these, how do they work, and should you consider using them?
The idea behind Zopa and its big rivals Ratesetter and Funding Circle is very simple. Why have a bank act as an intermediary between savers and borrowers?
Go direct. If you’re an investor, then why not lend your money directly to a lender through a marketplace – the financial equivalent of eBay.
Back when these P2P sites first launched, the idea was truly radical. You set the term (number of years) you’d want to lend over, and the interest rate you required. Then you’d wait for borrowers to accept your terms. The market in effect “set the rate” (that’s the idea behind Ratesetter as a brand).
Times have changed, of course, and now the big two platforms lending to consumers (Zopa and Ratesetter) operate much more like an online fund.
You lend your money into a pot. That pot of money is in turn lent out to borrowers, mostly prime or just below prime borrowers (the most creditworthy). The interest rate you receive depends on how long you want to lend for – and what protection you want in case of lenders defaulting on their payments to you.
The tables below explain the current investment rates on offer for lending on Zopa and Ratesetter.
| Term | Interest Rate |
|---|---|
| 1 month | 2.8% |
| 1 year | 3.5% |
| 3 years | 4.5% |
| 5 years | 5.7% |
Protection Fund size (see below for more on this): £17.7m, coverage ratio against expected defaults 133%
Total money lent: £1.11bn
| Product | Interest Rate | Safeguard | Fees |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access | 3.5% | Yes | 0% withdrawal fee |
| Classic | 4.5% | Yes | 1% fee |
| Plus | 6.5% | No | 1% fee |
Protection Fund size: £12.24m
Total money lent: £1.39bn
Both of these reasonably well-known brands now offer real choice for income-orientated investors – even more so when you consider that both are about to launch Innovative Finance Individual Savings Account (Isa) wrappers.
At a time when the average high streets savings account pays well under 2% a year, the rates above represent a real boost for income seekers. And both of these brands have been working incredibly hard to reassure investors that their money is safe.
Boiling it down, there are four big selling points to using a P2P lender:
Most historic data suggests that even in a recession, consumer default defaults remain well below 10% and most of the time stick below 5%. Current default levels are around 1% or less.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1300+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at ncfacanada.org.
MacWorld | Glenn Fleishman | May 27, 2016
Crowdfunding has always been risky, but several recent high-profile failures, delays, and significant shifts—including the CST-01 smartwatch, the Zano palm-sized drone, the Coolest Cooler, and the Glowforge laser cutter—reveal how fragile manufacturing-backed campaigns really are.
If your interest in a project isn’t so much “I want this thing to exist in the world” as it is “I want to place an early order,” it’s certainly wiser to wait until hardware products launch on the open market. But that seems especially so for projects that raise hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
As a percentage of all projects launched, the vast majority of crowdfunding projects achieve their promised goals, according to a substantial research project conducted last year. But hardware projects raise disproportionate sums, and so when a small percentage of them fail, they fail big, losing more money and disappointing more backers than sheer numbers of campaigns would indicate.
Other crowdfunding categories, like fashion or food, have their share of incomplete ignition or complete self-destruction, too. But those projects typically involve a lot less money and feature rewards that are often squishier, sometimes allowing a significant portion of rewards to be sent out, even if the main project doesn’t happen. Or, they were designed more like patronage, to let the creator advance his or her career, and a failure to deliver doesn’t necessarily make backers feel like their contributions went to waste.
There’s a gap been love and desire. If you don’t love the project, or at least like the creator, and you simply want the thing, you might become a backer for one of more of three reasons: to get an early crack at something other people will have to wait for; to get a discount off the ultimate list price; or to get a special edition or exclusive extras that won’t be available after the campaign.
With a number of prominent projects, even when they ship, only the “exclusive edition” factor gets met. Ultimate retail pricing may be discounted through sales channels and wind up not far off the “early bird” discount, and some prominent projects have put products for sale through retailers before all (sometimes any) backers received their goods.
Bigger projects also probably don’t need your support. After they pass a goal stage and start running a total that’s 1,000 percent or even 10,000 percent of the target, your pledge doesn’t make a difference. For smaller projects, that’s more of a concern—but then, your motivation is more likely closer to patronage, too.
Before I get into the issues around backing, let’s start with some nitty-gritty about the state of a number of big crowdfunding projects.
Just last August, our sister site TechHive wrote “The FitNatic Nourish, and other cautionary crowdfunding tales,” in part to explain why TechHive had backed off further from covering crowdfunding campaigns. The article lists several major electronics projects that had failed to deliver, most in the $100,000s, and one in the neighborhood of $1.5 million.
Since then—less than a year—projects totalling nearly $50 million, about half raised at Kickstarter, have had creating firms go bankrupt, teeter on the edge of partial failure, or have seen a significant delay. And that’s just a tally of some of the highest-profile ones, not a comprehensive look at the entire field.
The two biggest collapses are the CST-01, a watch with an e-ink display, and a tiny drone called Zano. The company behind the CST-01 raised over a million dollars in early 2013 from 7600 backers, said it couldn’t fulfill the product in mid-2015, and recently filed for bankruptcy, noting it had $30,000 in assets.
The Zano drone crashed and burned faster. Its maker crowdfunded £2.3 million (about $3.5 million) in early 2015 and accepted another £600,000 ($900,000) in pre-orders. By November, the Welsh company was put into a form of bankruptcy, with £1 million ($1.5 million) in debt. It did ship some units that worked poorly and stopped functioning after required cloud services shut down. Kickstarter paid for an independent investigative report of Zano’s implosion, which appeared in January 2016. (I was paid directly by its writer for editing services.)
The Coolest Cooler raised over $13 million in mid-2014, with a delivery date of February 2015 for most of the units. Coolest is a wheeled cooler with a built-in Bluetooth speaker, USB charger, and ice-crushing blender. Most backers—about 50,000 out 62,000—paid about $200 for the cooler and U.S. shipping.
After Coolest pushed back the delivery date by months between its choice to upgrade some features and typical production delays, the company began shipping some units in July, even as workers went on strike at the factory originally contracted to make the blender’s motor. This led to months of work to find and test a replacement motor. In November, the company put the cooler up for sale at Amazon for $500 (now $400) when fewer than half the backers’ units had shipped. The company’s founder said it needed the infusion of cash from Amazon sales, and it would need $15 million to complete production for units owed. (Reviews are mixed: At press time, 50 percent were five stars, while 30 percent were one star.)
In April, Coolest asked backers representing the 36,000 coolers remaining to ship for another $97 for each unit to push them earlier in the shipping queue. The company says about 10,000 backers ponied up. It’s extremely unclear what the future for Coolest is, although it’s apparently restarted shipments with that infusion.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1300+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at ncfacanada.org.
Crowdfund Insider | | May 17, 2016
Monday, May 16, 2016 is the first day that ordinary people—not just the super rich—will be able to invest in the next Uber or Snapchat. That’s because Title III of the JOBS Act, otherwise known as Regulation Crowdfunding or Reg CF, legalizes retail investment crowdfunding that day. This new regulation will open up the investor pool to over 300 million potential investors and aims to spur the growth of small businesses.
In April 2012, President Barack Obama signed into law the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS Act. The JOBS Act was so called because it aimed to facilitate access to capital for startups and small businesses, give more people the ability to participate in investment opportunities, and ultimately, create more jobs and stimulate economic growth. While other crowdfunding regulations from the JOBS Act, such as Title II and IV, were implemented more quickly, Title III is the third but most anticipated piece of crowdfunding regulation to become effective.
For the first time, Title III will allow issuers to raise funds online from ordinary people for investment purposes. The regulation creates a new exemption to the Securities Act of 1933. This essentially means that, for the first time since being written 80 years ago, our securities laws will be updated to recognize modern modes of online capital raising.
Previously, generally only accredited investors could invest in early stage startups. Accredited investors are those who earn an annual income of at least $200,000 (or $300,000 if married), or those with a net worth of at least $1M (excluding one’s primary residence).
You might argue that crowdfunding has been around for years now, which is true. Crowdfunding is essentially the act of raising capital from others via the Internet. Platforms like Kickstarter, IndieGogo, and GoFundMe have been around since at least 2008 and have given us the Pebble Watch, Veronica Mars, and every gadget imaginable. However, these portals practice rewards-based crowdfunding, or in the case of GoFundMe, donation-based crowdfunding. When backers give a crowdfunding campaign money, they either make a donation or get back a “reward”—maybe a thank you note, or the first edition of said widget.
Title III expands the possibilities to include investment crowdfunding, or the ability to buy equity in an early stage company and hopefully reap a monetary return on investment. On May 16, ordinary Americans don’t need to settle for just a Pebble watch (though that would be a great additional perk); instead, they can own a piece of the company that makes the Pebble watch. Title III democratizes access to startup investment opportunities, while greatly expanding the pool of available capital to small businesses and startups. And while the crowd may not replace angel investors and venture capital, they may now invest alongside them.
Issuers, or those looking to raise funds, should know the following basics about Title III:
Title III is historic in that it specifically recognizes a new type of intermediary for crowdfunding transactions, called a funding portal. At least 30 applications for funding portals have been received as of April, with likely many more to come. Funding portals are essentially modern online connectors between issuer companies and investors and amongst investors, and these platforms will be regulated by the SEC and FINRA.
Despite high hopes around a vibrant Title III crowdfunding industry, Title III may encounter some turbulence at takeoff following its May 16 debut. Although it took the SEC three and a half years to issue the final rules on Title III, regulators were said to be scrambling in the final days of the regulatory process to get the final rules out. And in doing so, the final rules came out short of optimal and, in the opinion of some, not workable.
Critics point out that the SEC’s final rules on Title III do just the opposite of its regulatory intent. That is, instead of creating a mechanism that would allow attractive startups to include retail investors, the SEC’s zealous concerns over small investor protection resulted in unrealistically high regulatory burdens that would disincentivize any company from using the regulation, except as a last resort. And that’s the opposite of what small investors should want to invest in—the companies otherwise rejected by accredited investors.
One of the major concerns around Title III is the high transaction costs required to raise $1M. Issuers will find themselves with bills in the tens of thousands of dollars right out of the gate to pay for legal and accounting services—and will then have to spend at least a couple thousand dollars after fundraising to comply with ongoing reporting requirements. Several industry experts have publicly criticized the final rules, including OneVest/1000 Angels co-founder and Chairman Alejandro Cremades who issued an open letter condemning Title III and publicly stating that his company would stay “far away” from utilizing the regulation.
Even with low cost solutions like iDisclose and Crowdcheck, the upfront costs to conduct financial audits—before an issuer may even determine whether it will be able to raise financing at all—is a gamble.
And issuers must all the while acknowledge the likelihood that its campaign will fail. If we take lessons from analogous models, Kickstarter has a 36% success rate for fully funded campaigns, while AngelList has testified that less than 10% of companies that list on its platform succeed in a raise. Some platforms that lean towards “listing” rather than “curating” may find that very few campaigns overall will reach their funding goal. Issuers will want to ensure that they surround themselves with good advisors and counsel, and to associate themselves with well-performing funding portals, or else they may find themselves in the red if they’ve raised less money than needed to even cover transaction costs.
Currently, Congressman McHenry has introduced proposed legislation called the Fix Crowdfunding Act (HR 4855) that has yet to be voted on by the House or Senate. The amendment fixes a number of issues with Title III to make it more workable, if approved and implemented. HR 4855 makes the following changes:
Testing the Waters
Issuers would be able to solicit interest prior to actually spending money on lawyers and accountants. Given that companies must brace themselves for the scenario in which they cannot cover transaction costs or loss money as a result of not having raised enough funds, the ability to gauge investor interest up front may save a number of issuers from being in the red on day one (and may encourage other companies to boldly steam forward).
Raising the Funding Cap From $1M to $5M
In his open letter, Cremades wrote “Nowadays startups on average raise, at a Seed stage, in the neighborhood of $2M+. The fact that startups will have a limit of $1M per year will either force them to be under capitalized or conduct another type of offering in parallel to raise the remaining capital from accredited investors, which means more costs from a legal perspective.” Raising the funding cap to $5M would make the transaction costs more justifiable and allow companies to raise the capital they need.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1300+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at ncfacanada.org.
WSJ | Ruth Simon | May 4, 2016
Some question whether services for helping entrepreneurs raise money are worth itThe first time Sami Gros tried to raise money through a Kickstarter campaign, she failed.
So for her second attempt two years later in 2015, Ms. Gros paid several firms about $2,300 to help generate publicity for her California-based business, which makes safety lights for horses. The campaign raised $47,000 for Tail Lights Inc., but Ms. Gros remains unsure whether the money for publicity was well spent.
“Because my first campaign failed, I was very nervous that I was not doing—and had not done—the correct thing,” Ms. Gros said. “You end up throwing money at all these things, hoping it’s going to work.”
As more entrepreneurs turn to online sites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo Inc. for fundraising, a cottage industry of service providers has emerged, promising assistance with everything from strategy and publicity, to communication and logistics.
The entrepreneurs behind 12% of Kickstarter projects hired a consultant to help set up their campaigns last year, up from 3% in 2011, according to Ethan Mollick, an assistant professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. But projects that use consultants “don’t seem to generate any extra money as a result,” said Prof. Mollick, who analyzed successful campaigns.
Since 2008, individuals have pledged more than $3.1 billion on Kickstarter and Indiegogo, the two largest sites that allow backers to fund projects in exchange for merchandise or other perks from the ventures. But the portion of Kickstarter campaigns that met or exceeded their financial goals fell to about a third last year from half in 2011, according to Prof. Mollick.
Crowdfunding sites attract both novice entrepreneurs and artists seeking initial funding, as well as more established companies that use the online platforms to generate preorders and market research. For many, a failed campaign can be a major setback. That is where these services come into play, and campaign organizers say they are inundated by offers.
David Weiner, founder of Priority Bicycles, which recently completed its third Kickstarter campaign, said he received several offers a day from public-relations or social-media services.
Among those that landed in his inbox: a marketing firm promising “press distribution (with guaranteed coverage)” at prices starting at $99; a “university student concentrating on social-media marketing” who offered to “tweet your project to more than One million people with GUARANTEED engagement for only $15.”
Mr. Weiner passed. Instead, he hired a public relations firm that specializes in the outdoor sports industry, which came via referrals from friends.
In his latest campaign, he also brought on a crowdfunding consulting firm, Vann Alexandra, whose founder he met at a Kickstarter event. The firm helped put his beach bikes in the hands of a dozen “influencers” with large social media followings.
Some services cost less than $100, while others take 30% or more of revenue, which could add up to $100,000 or more for successful fundraising ventures. Figuring out which services are worth the money isn’t easy, campaign organizers say.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1300+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at ncfacanada.org.
Crowdfund Insider | | May 3, 2016
Two years after Title II of the JOBS Act, known as 506(c), went into effect well over one billion dollars of financings have been closed through online funding portals under this provision and 506(b).
The year over year growth has been substantial. Entrepreneurs and real estate professionals have benefited and so have investors. Even with all that activity so far, there has been very limited reported fraud- one maybe two at most, representing significantly less than 1% of the capital raised. This is not to suggest that there won’t be more and no doubt other legitimate investor losses as well, but online 506(b) and (c) has thus far delivered on the promise of an alternative way for entrepreneurs to raise capital, for investors to participate in opportunities not previously available to them, and equally importantly, for this not to become a regulatory burden.
The data suggests that nearly two thousand such entrepreneurs have received such funding, which inevitably creates jobs. The key being that the balance of interests between capital formation and investor protection (from fraud, not losses) has been more than satisfied so far. The voiced concern of overwhelming fraud has not materialized and regulators generally acknowledge this reality.
All crowdfunding constituents continue to need to remain vigilant and keep the problems limited. We all share this responsibility if we want to benefit from this considerable departure from old securities law conventions. Building on the strength of this new approach to permitting capital formation, May 16 of this year marks the date upon which the third provision relating to crowdfunding under the JOBS Act, Regulation CF, makes available unregistered investment opportunities to all Americans. This isn’t open to debate, it’s the law. You might be surprised at how many events that I attend where panelists and attendees continue to debate the issues as if we were still in a time warp prior to the JOBS Act enactment in 2012.
For all of the genuine concern, many of these folks have neither read the Regulation CF rules, don’t fully appreciate the construct of the statute and rules, nor care to recognize that these rules came to be after a bi-partisan congressional action, signed by the President and extensively considered and refined by both the SEC and FINRA after four years of comment letters by both supporters and detractors of the legislation have had full opportunity to share their comments.
As a participant and observer, I am proud of what Titles III Regulation III Crowdfunding represents, how thoughtful the final rules are, the care and consideration that the staff members of both the SEC and FINRA have put into making the final approved rules viable and the institutional restraint from being inflexible. Moreover, tremendous credit must be given to the perseverance of the industry and the individuals that stayed the course and engaged in the process- this truly was a crowdsourced effort.
- Doug Ellenoff is Managing Partner of Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP,
We are well aware that there are investor protection concerns and believe that the current rules are quite respectful of those interests. We are also aware that some market participants must make a more concerted effort to fully recognize that this is a highly regulated industry for good reason and their business processes must become more compliant in order to protect investors even better. Certainly, we also support continuing efforts to address aspects of the final rules which would make the final rules more commercially viable. If the securities activity that gets transacted after May 16 under Regulation CF is as responsibly undertaken by the online 506(b) and (c) community, then legislators will have the necessary momentum to take additional positive action beneficial to the industry.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1300+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at ncfacanada.org.