Category Archives: Fintech Opinions

Exempt Market SURVEY: Transitioning to electronic filings via SEDAR / Marché dispensé : vers les dépôts électroniques sur SEDAR

CSA | Jennifer Bates | July 30, 2015

Electronic filing surveyOn June 30, 2015 the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) published a notice, regarding proposed amendments to Regulation 13-101 System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR) and Regulation 13-102 respecting System Fees for SEDAR and NRD (http://www.albertasecurities.com/industry/securities-law-and-policy/Pages/regulatory-developments.aspx). If adopted, these changes will require electronic submission of Exempt Market filings, currently filed in paper to all jurisdictions except British Columbia and Ontario, via the SEDAR system. Fees would also be paid via SEDAR. Exempt Market filings would continue to be filed in the BCSC’s eServices filing system and the OSC’s e-file system for those jurisdictions.

Using SEDAR will provide benefits to issuers, including:

  • enabling issuers to make filings in multiple jurisdictions through one electronic submission;
  • allowing both reporting issuers and non-reporting issuers to have their filings with the participating jurisdictions in one electronic location under a SEDAR profile; and
  • allowing issuers to verify the accuracy and completeness of their filing record without having to make an information request to the applicable jurisdiction.

We invite you to complete a short survey to assess the impact of the changes for market participants. Your responses will help us ensure that we provide the right user support needed by the exempt market issuers [https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/EMFonSEDAR].

Survey deadline:  We would appreciate your survey responses by August 21, 2015.  On the survey, you will be able to sign up for updates to help keep you informed on the status of these proposed changes and be provided with links to training materials.

To send your comments or sign up for updates, please contact us at:

EMFonSEDAR-Support@csa-acvm.ca

For more information on SEDAR, please refer to:  http://www.csa-acvm.ca/industry_resources.aspx?id=49

===============================

Le 30 juin dernier, les Autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières (ACVM) ont publié un avis concernant des modifications proposées au Règlement 13-101 sur le Système électronique de données, d’analyse et de recherche (SEDAR) et au Règlement 13-102 sur les droits relatifs aux systèmes de SEDAR et de la BDNI (http://lautorite.qc.ca/fr/consultations-valeurs-mobilieres-pro.html/). Si elles sont mises en œuvre, ces modifications viendront exiger le dépôt en format électronique des documents relatifs au marché dispensé qui sont actuellement déposés en format papier au moyen de SEDAR dans l’ensemble des territoires, sauf la Colombie-Britannique et l’Ontario. Des droits devraient également être acquittés au moyen de SEDAR. En Colombie-Britannique et en Ontario, le dépôt des documents relatifs au marché dispensé continuera de se faire au moyen du système eServices de la BCSC et du système de dépôt électronique de la CVMO.

L’utilisation de SEDAR procurera notamment aux émetteurs les avantages suivants :

  • elle leur permettra d’effectuer un dépôt dans plusieurs territoires en un seul envoi électronique;
  • elle permettra de conserver les documents déposés par les émetteurs assujettis et non assujettis auprès des autorités participantes en un seul endroit sous un profil SEDAR;
  • elle leur permettra de vérifier l’exactitude et l’exhaustivité des documents déposés sans avoir à faire une demande d’information aux autorités concernées.

Nous vous invitons à répondre à un court sondage afin de nous aider à évaluer l’incidence des modifications sur les participants au marché. Vos réponses nous permettront de nous assurer que nous offrons aux émetteurs du marché dispensé le soutien aux utilisateurs dont ils ont besoin. [https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SEDAR-MD]

Le sondage vous permet de vous abonner à nos mises à jour par courriel qui vous informeront de l’état d’avancement des modifications proposées et comprendront des liens vers des documents de formation.

Nous vous saurions gré de bien vouloir répondre au sondage d’ici le 21 août 2015.

Pour nous faire parvenir vos commentaires ou vous abonner à nos mises à jour par courriel, veuillez nous écrire à l’adresse assistanceSEDAR-MD@csa-acvm.ca.

Pour plus de renseignements sur SEDAR, visitez le http://www.autorites-valeurs-mobilieres.ca/ressources_professionnelles.aspx?ID=49&LangType=1036.

 

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 1100+ 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 About Us or visit ncfacanada.org.

 

Crowdfunding can’t fill gap left by government cuts

The Toronto Star | Anna Leventhal | Jul 18, 2015

First nation crowdfunding campaignAs sites like Kickstarter and GoFundMe become more popular, the trouble with free-market funding of social programs is becoming clear.

Of all the proposals to appear on the online crowdfunding platform Indiegogo, surely the most ambitious on record is “Greek Bailout Fund.” Its aim: to rescue the Greek government from its debts, with a fundraising goal of a cool 1.6 billion euros. Perks to donors included a postcard of Greek Prime Minister Alex Tsipras for a donation of three euros, Greek salad for six euros, a bottle of ouzo for 10. The gratitude of the people of Greece? Priceless. And/or one million euros, according to the site.

While Thom Feeney, the Greek Bailout Fund campaign's UK-based organizer, claims that his project is a genuine fundraising effort and not satire or social commentary, his poker face surely conceals a brilliant and cynical distillation of modern economy under austerity.

Like Kickstarter, GoFundMe and other crowdfunding platforms, Indiegogo offers a medium for individuals to put money toward a project in a fairly transparent way. The site holds the money pledged by backers, and if the project meets its fundraising goal, the money is transferred automatically from the backers to the creators. It allows people to give small amounts of money and see big results; it's also become an important way individuals are asked to close the gap left by the loss of social programs.

View: 

When I first encountered Kickstarter, I supported every campaign I was pitched (which was not that many). It was an easy and satisfying complement to other funding models; you could in a sense pre-purchase someone's art, giving them a little breathing room to create it.

Now campaigns are ubiquitous, and range from book tours to pet surgeries to basic subsistence for marginalized people in crisis. But with crowdfunding increasingly called on to plug the holes left by funding cuts (consider that in 2014 Canadians pledged over $27 million to Kickstarter alone, and that from 2013 to 2014 the amount crowdfunded globally jumped from US$6.1 billion to US$16.2 billion), the stakes are getting higher and the trouble with putting this support to the free market is becoming clear.

Do we back campaigns based on the perceived worthiness or importance of the project? The neediness of the asker? How well we know the asker and how bad we're likely to feel if their project can't be realized? Is it OK that we're being given the right, and the responsibility, to make these kinds of calls? Should the artist with the most Facebook friends win? Should the person to get support for a disability be the one with the best Twitter game? Letting the invisible hand guide these decisions seems not only flawed but dangerous.

Closer to home than Greece, a campaign has been created to aid the residents of Shoal Lake 40 First Nation, on the site fundrazr.com. The community, which sits on the border of Ontario and Manitoba, has been providing the city of Winnipeg with drinking water since the early 20th century, but has itself been under a boil-water advisory for 17 years. The campaign is attempting to raise $10 million to build an all-weather access road to connect the community with the mainland, and thus to clean drinking water — that's $10 million the federal government has refused to commit.

Frustrated citizens who care about the community's well-being can skip the arduous process of engaging with the federal government and trying to convince it that First Nations communities are worth caring about, and just give directly to the cause. Such a move seems part resourceful community-mindedness and part Band-Aid-over-metastasized-cancer. As Chief Edwin Resky is quoted as saying on the campaign's page, “While we appreciate your intentions, at the same time we wonder what kind of country Canada is when safe access to essential services, when our right to clean drinking water, when access to basic economic opportunity, must depend on the kindness of strangers?”

Continue to the full article --> here

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 1100+ 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 About Us or visit ncfacanada.org.

Securities Crowdfunding Breakthrough

NCFA Canada - About Us | Richard Remillard | June 11, 2015

Breakthrough

On May 14, six Canadian provincial securities commissions smartly moved to the forefront of debt and equity crowdfunding in North America by issuing the rules under which start up and early-stage companies can tap this new source of capital via funding portals.

These rules are in force for five years, up to May 13, 2020 at which time, presumably, the experience of the preceding five-year period will be assessed and a decision made to continue, continue but modify or discontinue the initiative.

Those six are: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Québec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They have each committed to allowing individual investors in their own provinces to put a maximum of CAD $ 1,500 per distribution into those companies. Issuers are allowed up to CAD $250,000 per distribution, with two distributions per year permitted. And, there is a dealer registration exemption for persons seeking to operate a funding portal.

The rules (eg., see BC 45-316 Start-up Crowdfunding Registration and Prospectus Exemptions [Multilateral CSA Notice]) come ring-fenced with constraints that apply to the issuers and the funding portals along with considerable investor protection measures.

For instance, the issuer must be a non-reporting issuer and cannot be an investment fund. As well, the issuer’s head office must be in one of the participating jurisdictions. And, the issuer will need to provide an offering document using a required form. However, the issuer will not have to provide investors with financial statements either at the point of sale or on an ongoing basis. And, none of the promoters, directors, officers and control persons of an issuer can be a principal of a funding portal that is used to raise funds for that issuer. A funding portal’s head office needs to be in Canada and the majority of its directors must be Canadian residents. A funding portal cannot provide advice to an investor or recommend a security or receive a commission or fee from an investor. Finally, an investor has the right of withdrawal as long as that right is activated within 48 hours of subscription to the offering.

Why Now and What’s Next?

Why have these provincial securities regulators acted? Partly, it’s the dearth of capital from other sources of supply of early stage company financing particularly in those areas of the country that are relatively underserved. For instance, the Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association reported that $338 million of $362 million, or 93%, of venture investments occurred in only three provinces in Q 1 of 2015. Ontario alone received $237 million in investing dollars in Q 1, or 65% of the total for the country, while Nova Scotia firms managed to attract only $14 million, or 2.2% in that same period.

In addition, this action by the Group of Six is recognition that investor appetite may be significant given that Canada is in the top ten countries for broadband internet penetration. Canada also has a deep pool of investors with a long tradition of backing early-stage firms in mining and oil and gas exploration. So, it is no surprise that crowdfunding has elicited huge interest in Canada. One only has to look at the overflow crowds attending introductory conferences and seminars put on by the National Crowdfunding Association of Canada.

In the short time that has elapsed since the six regulators acted, companies and investors are already moving to take advantage of the new freedom. For instance, a crowdfinancing firm in Vancouver is already reporting on the progress made by several companies towards achieving their fund raising targets with one reaching 33% of its goal in less than two weeks. But, it’s early days yet and crowdfunding participants are adjusting to the new opportunities that opened up with last month’s announcement.

Over the longer term, it is quite likely that levels of funding activity we will see in the next six to nine months in those provinces will jump. Canadian public policy has put a premium on spurring new company formation as incubators and accelerators have sprung up like mushrooms across the country.

View:  Trends show crowdfunding to surpass vc in 2016

All attention is now focused on Alberta and Ontario and what their crowdfunding plans might be going forward. Alberta has recently had a provincial election that resulted in the longstanding party in power being unceremoniously tossed out. One of the new government’s early decisions will be to name a new head of the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC). So, it’s not surprising that Alberta has lagged.

In Ontario, It’s likely that the actions of the six provincial regulators will prompt the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) to speed up its own deliberations. Prior to May 14, officials had said that the OSC would release its own amended proposals in the fall of 2015.

The OSC had already indicated in its opinion funding portals would need to be registered while investor and issuer limits could be raised to, respectively, CAD $2,500 per investor per investment with a CAD $10,000 per year maximum and an annual company raise of a maximum of CAD $1.5 million.

Interestingly, the six provinces that have already moved to permit securities crowdfunding have committed to working on an ‘integrated crowdfunding exemption’ together with the OSC. And, higher investing and offering limits as envisaged by the OSC could even co-existing with, and complement, those announced in mid-May.

What Crowdfunding Means for Politics and for Capital Providers

Despite the protections built in by the six securities regulators, there are those who don’t believe that people can be trusted with their money and who will still try to rob crowdfunding of its potential. They will continue to push regulators to tighten the rules in the name of investor protection. However, these naysayers will likely lose out to a coalition of financial libertarians, for whom people should be free to decide what to do with their money, and entrepreneurs and investors. Entrepreneurs feel the pinch of the capital shortage facing early-stage firms once they exhaust the family and friends route while investors have become increasingly fed up with the performance and prospects of securities on offer in public markets and who are actively looking for greater exposure to private market alternatives, much as the largest institutional investors in the country are already doing.

View:

Securities crowdfunding has also stoked the fires of debate around where it fits in relation to angels and domestic venture capitalists. Is crowdfunding the new competitor on the block? Or, will it turn into a venue for collaboration wherein angels and venture capitalists partner with successfully-crowdfunded enterprises to taken them to the next stages of growth? In short, is crowdfunding a potentially disruptive threat or a massive opportunity for the established suppliers of capital? Time will tell but there are already indications of crowdfunding organizations partnering with these capital providers to the mutual benefit of one another.

And, the reality is that the early-stage company financing market is so large that there will be more than ample room for all.

 

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 1100+ 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 About Us or visit ncfacanada.org.

Rebuttal piece: Crowdfunding has its place, but it’s a crazy way to invest

NCFA Canada | Craig Asano | June 8, 2015

Neil Gross FAIR Canada on CrowdfundingOn June 1, 2015, Neil Gross, Executive Director of Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights (FAIR Canada) contributed an article to the Globe and Mail that highlighted a series of risks to the reader community, specifically:  1. Extreme Failure Rate, 2. Fraud, 3. No Accountability, 4. Illiquidity, and 5. Dilution. (see original post which appeared both online and in print:  Crowdfunding has its place, but it's a crazy way to invest.

A few thoughts in response:

  • Crowdfunding can fill an important niche in any portfolio and is not meant to replace any existing platform.
  • People want to invest in something they believe in or that fills a need within the marketplace that they know exists, not just look at P/E or public markets.
  • Small businesses, especially startups, are critical to the Canadian economy and we need every possible avenue of funding to be open to give them the support they need.
  • Canada has been notoriously poor at supporting innovation at the ground level and this is the best thing to happen on this front in decades - let's not drag down these important gains.
  • Technology and the data it produces has already disrupted many major industries - and it's long overdue in this area.
  • There is always resistance to new ways of thinking and new approaches. Some people benefit from the status quo and will fight to keep it, but far more people benefit when from disrupting those power structures.
  • If you have an online trading account, you can borrow $100,000 with the click of a mouse and put it on any one of the several penny stocks - that's far riskier that what crowdfunding offers.
  • This is about choice. A healthy economy means consumers have choice in the marketplace and crowdfunding gives them more choice.
  • This is the way of the future - technology has given the individual more power than ever before, and people are demanding the right to exercise that power how they want.

Below are a few responses from the crowdfunding industry and community which intends to provide readers with a more holistic view of both the opportunities and risks inherent with investing in crowdfunding markets:


Equity Crowdfunding: Good and Necessary

Neil Gross’ article in the June 1 edition of the ROB (“Crowdfunding has a place, but it’s a crazy way to invest.”) is grounded in a fundamental misunderstanding of risk in business and in the investing world.

Mr. Gross contends that start-up businesses are intrinsically high risk and that equity crowdfunding actually increases the risk of investors in those types of firms.

Are Start-ups really riskier today?

Today’s business world has become intrinsically riskier up and down the spectrum of companies, from the largest to the smallest, as disruptive technologies attack established business models in the supposedly safest industries. Look what’s going on in banking. The CEO of RBC sounded the alarm several months ago when he commented that the banks were on a ‘collision course’ with the likes of Facebook and Google.

And, that’s just the tip of the iceberg as many specific banking business lines from foreign exchange to mobile payments come up for grabs by new upstart competitors unburdened by legacy branch networks and haphazardly-stapled together technology systems.

On the same ROB page was an article on P2P lending whose author called the development, “A game-changer – if we don’t hinder innovation.” Crowdfunding too can be a game-changer unless, as too often happens in the financial sector, this innovation is stifled by super-regulation.

The iron reality is that no firm of any size is safe today. Just ask Encyclopedia Britannica.

Does Crowdfunding Increase Investor Risk?

Just the reverse. Crowdfunding can decrease the risk for investors as a whole. A company that fails to excite potential investors and that fails to attract a crowd of those investors is likely going to fail in the marketplace.

Crowdfunding may simply lead to poorly-conceived firms with weak business plans getting frozen from accessing capital sooner, rather than later. So, crowdfunding may result in more efficient capital markets in Canada than we have today.

The Role of Retail Investors

An episodic debate in Canada has been around varying views over the role of retail investors in funding early-stage companies.

Mr. Gross’ article clearly lands on the side of those who distrust retail investors to look after their own interests – unless accompanied by huge dollops of regulation and professional advice.

It’s important to recognize that the regulators aren’t going away and have set strict limits on the exposure of individual investors to individual firms.

It’s also worth recalling that the advice channel has not been immune from fraudsters like Bernie Madoff. Under the present crowdfunding rules, it’s hard to imagine any repeat of the multiple billions that were siphoned off by Mr. Madoff…and, sadly, he hasn’t been the only one of his ilk, only the most egregious example.

This takes us back to risk. There is risk in every path to investing.

By Richard Remillard, President, Remillard Consulting Group, and NCFA Board member

Other posts by Richard:

A fearless forecast for 2015

Canada needs a financial innovation institute

 


Via email:  Equity Crowdfunding is Creating a New Playing Field

What I am confused about in this article is whether he is talking specifically about startups funding in general or crowdfunding?

Looking at the dot-com bubble bursting or past on-line IPOs that had a big downturn prior to some recovering, I sense this piece was written in haste without much research on relative investment options.

Each of his main categories, Extreme Failure Rate, Fraud, No Accountability, Illiquidity and Dilution can be attributed to angel investing and even seed rounds where the startup is being highly sought after. Realistically, the mandatory reporting of investment status is the only difference and as with any industry, expectations will dictate some information transfer. Eventually it may even become a way of weeding out riskier options if they are not very transparent.

Equity crowdfunding is creating a new playing field where people who have already been involved in the rewards/charity funding side of things can now take the risk with the longer-term reward for a company's success. If an investor does not do their due diligence and research the company, competition, industry and customer base, there is no difference in putting money in a risky stock market pick vs. equity crowdfunding.

The startups are still going to have to work  as hard to convince people to invest in the their company because they will be in it for the long-term success, not short-term rewards. All of the elements of the pitch deck, understanding the investors and showing your roadmap for success will still be there. What will happen is a number of angel investors will be able to expand their portfolios with smaller investments. Partners in Venture Capital firms can put a stake early on with less invested and less to lose.

If anything, I expect this to be a new stage of the investment process where the startup has no existing customers, run rate, prospect funnel or even a minimal viable product (MVP) to showcase. Concurrently or prior to bootstrapping they will have the ability to pilot the MVP, gauge market interest, market for recruiting talent and even pivot along the way depending on market traction with less investment early on.

By Shahab Khan, NCFA Ambassador

LinkedIN Post: here

IT Business Article - contributor:  here


Via Email:  Equity crowdfunding is working in several international jurisdictions

Interestingly FAIR has proposed practical "solutions":  here

Several international countries such as Australia, France and U.K. have used equity crowdfunding in all manners. This infographic for examples refutes what Neil Gross writes:
- "Startups" and especially tech startups are less than 24% of businesses funded.
- Many businesses come back for a 2nd rate of funding. Which means it works. A few have existed
Additionally, the "crowd" can do due diligence and make sure the business is good.
 l
Heri Rakotomalala, NCFA Ambassador

Via email:  Crowdfunding is not just for high risk Start-ups

My issue with this article is that they've applied the term crowdfunding only in the context of high risk startups offering equity in their new venture. In my mind this stance only looks at the industry providing access to capital for those that would never be approved by traditional banking. While that is a valuable aspect of crowdfunding, it completely ignores the firms with long track records of above average returns looking to provide quality investments, typically exclusive to high net worth investors. We're working with lots of groups and have spoke to many others with great strategies to provide low risk investments as well. Then there are asset backed securities and other variations that are great to the average investor limited to mutual funds through their financial advisor. Private markets can provide opportunities like the public markets as well.
These arguments are merely directed towards startups. I agree that a non sophisticated investor shouldn't be large sums in new ventures, but perhaps 5% that is already allocated in a speculative portfolio. Most average investors don't race into the public markets that are readily available so rule changes aren't going to cause a stampede of investment into crowdfunding projects. Investor protection groups should also be advocating access to better investment opportunities.
The rules will dictate who will participate in the market, so if the rules don't make sense for firms that really know what they are doing then of course it will make a high risk investment space.
d
Brock Murray, CEO/co-founder, Joi Media / Katipult and NCFA Board member
d

Interested in more?  Dispelling myths #1 and #2

 If you'd like to contribute your thoughts on this topic/article please email info@ncfacanada.org.


 

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 950+ 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 About Us or visit ncfacanada.org.

What startups need to know about B.C.’s new crowdfunding laws

BC Business | Geoff Dittrich | June 3, 2015

bc crowdfunding

IMAGE BY: KATARINA CASPERSEN/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

While exciting on the surface, issuing equity via crowdfunding could cause serious headaches later on

Crowdfunding has been all the rage for a while, and it’s popping up again as an area of interest among entrepreneurs. Startups have long been able to run crowdfunding campaigns to raise money, but they weren’t allowed to issue equity in their company for such contributions. Because of this restriction, crowdfunding has been more of a market validation or PR tool rather than a serious means of corporate financing.

But on May 14, the laws changed. Now, in B.C., startups can issue equity to the contributors of their crowdfunding campaigns. So, the big question: Should entrepreneurs now be considering crowdfunding as a serious option for financing their early- to growth-stage companies?

Related: [Breaking News]: Certain Canadian securities regulators to adopt start-up crowdfunding exemptions

Fast facts

First, some fast facts about the new crowdfunding exemption.

  • Startups can raise up to $250,000 per crowdfunding campaign, with up to two campaigns per year.
  • The maximum contribution amount per investor is $1,500 per campaign.
  • All of your investors must be residents of a participating jurisdiction in Canada (B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia). Ontario is not a participating jurisdiction at this time.
  • The distribution must occur on a crowdfunding portal based in Canada that is equipped to facilitate distributions in compliance with the new laws (U.S. portals are off the table).
  • Strict filing requirements must be met before and after the distribution.

Related: Equity Crowdfunding FAQs for Entrepreneurs, Investors and Portals

Practical implications

Let’s say you raise $250,000 in contribution sizes that average around $1,000 each, and you offer shares to each one of those investors. You now have 250 shareholders on your cap table. For shareholder resolutions and shareholder agreements, that’s 250 signatures you need to track down. Even for the most avid lover of administrative work, that’s a nightmare.

There are certainly ways that your lawyer can assist you in managing this, whether through a unique share structure, shareholder rights (like a drag-along), voting trusts or even something as simple as amending your by-laws to allow votes via email. But even with all of this creativity, the fact remains that you still have a large number of shareholders on your cap table, and that will be a recurring issue that needs dealing with.

Legal fees

Crowdfunding equity will engage two types of legal fees: exemption-specific fees and standard equity financing fees.

  1. Exemption-specific fees: You don’t want to take chances when issuing securities. The consequences for getting it wrong are too great. With all the forms required under this new exemption, and the filing requirements, you’ll incur new legal fees unique to a crowdfunding campaign. You’ll also need to get creative on the legal side to structure the deal in a way that allows you to manage your new investors as efficiently as possible. Again, increased fees.
  1. Standard equity financing fees: Regardless of which exemption you use, when you issue equity, you’re going to incur legal fees for the subscription agreements, resolutions and other corporate maintenance work required to effect the transactions. And in a crowdfunding campaign, with a large number of investors, the fees might end up reflecting the added paperwork.

So, while legal fees are a given in any equity financing, crowdfunding campaigns could deal you a greater hit.

Forfeiting the private issuer exemption

Here’s an implication that’s been overlooked by most. If your campaign is successful and you bring in over 50 new shareholders, you will be disqualified from using the private issuer exemption in future financings. This is a big price to pay.

Related: Exempt Capital Markets Critical for Small Business in Canada

Under the private issuer exemption, you can raise money (without a cap on investment amount) from close friends, family, close business associates and accredited investors. It is easily the most flexible and attractive fundraising tool available to early- and growth-stage companies, and you’ll lose that the moment your crowdfunding campaign exceeds 50 contributors (or fewer if you’ve already got investors on the books).

Continue to the full article on BC Business --> here

 

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 1100+ 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 About Us or visit ncfacanada.org.

 

When Crowdfunding Goes Wrong, But the Product Is Just Right

Entrepreneur | Eric Samson | Apr 8, 2015

Kickstarter crowdfunding optionOn Kickstarter, success stories such as Pebble Time and Coolest Cooler get all the attention -- and for good reason. Each created a newsworthy product, coupled with compelling marketing materials to propel these mere concepts into crowdfunding superstardom.

Crowdfunding is undoubtedly hot: In 2014, backers pledged more than half a billion dollars to projects on Kickstarter alone. Yet, while there are still a number of high-potential products that fall flat on their face, there are also those that initially fail, then find ultimate success.

Below are two stories of two failed crowdfunding campaigns that illustrate how success can happen when you are persistent in pursuing your dreams, and when you strategically use marketing to give your products the attention they deserve.

A failed first run and a confident second one

To inventor Leo Knight, his creation Campfire in a Can seemed like a perfect fit for the Kickstarter community.

Campfire in a Can is a neat product -- a portable propane fire pit -- that aims to enhance the outdoors experience. With that and an ambitious pledge goal of $80,000, Knight launched his first crowdfunding project on June 3, 2014. But just three days shy of the July 31 campaign deadline, he decided to cancel fundraising after receiving only 297 backers and nearly $38,000 in pledges.

Defeated but undeterred, Knight spent the remainder of 2014 planning his comeback. On January 6, 2015, he introduced a new campaign to revive Campfire in a Can. The revived product, using updated marketing content, including a new, shorter promotional video, new pricing tiers and more in-depth text descriptions, Campfire in a Can this time raised almost $125,000, far exceeding its conservative funding goal of $48,000.

Ditching crowdfunding and taking a product to market

Physical therapist Akiva Shmidman first conceived the idea for what would become BeActive Brace in 2003. Shmidman, my close friend since elementary school, released a prototype for the pressure brace in 2008, testing it with family members, friends and patients who experienced back pain.

Over the next five years, he spent late nights conducting research and development and building out further iterations of the product. In 2013, Shmidman felt ready to sell BeActive Brace to a larger audience and turned to crowdfunding to market and promote it. On May 20 that year, he launched an Indiegogo project. But by the campaign's end date of July 9, Shmidman had raised $1,170, a mere 2 percent of his $50,000 goal.

Reluctant to quit, he decided to take his business elsewhere. “I knew nothing about marketing or how to run a business, but found out the hard way that the crowdfunding community is more interested in products that represent the bleeding edge of innovation," Shmidman said. "A back pain-relieving brace solves a very old problem crowdfunding supporters just weren’t interested in.”

View:  Is Crowdfunding right for me?

Realizing his true target audience was not among the backers who frequent Kickstarter or Indiegogo, Shmidman found himself browsing an online forum for inventors to discover ways to distribute what he considered a a life-changing device. Online, he heard about an inventors' speed pitch in Philadelphia and made a commitment to attend. On stage at the event, Shmidman and his product wowed the audience when a judge yelled, “I have back pain,” and reported feeling instant relief after trying BeActive Brace.

Top Dog Direct, a direct response marketing company, then approached Shmidman. And several meetings later, the two parties signed a licensing agreement which has placed BeActive Brace in-store at Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, Bed Bath & Beyond and other retailers across the nation. In 2014, BeActive Brace was the most successful product sold under the “As Seen on TV” category. Within 10 months, demand for the brace exploded; together, Shmidman and Top Dog Direct have sold well over one million units.

Final thoughts

To turn Campfire in a Can from a campaign failure into a crowdfunding success the second time around, Leo Knight hired a professional to help him recreate the Kickstarter video. Noting, in an interview with LaunchLeader.com, how he had brought in a professional news videographer, Knight recommended, “Hire somebody to give you a hand. It doesn't have to be a big media company.” While some may see this as a luxury expense, it can help you convert viewers into customers.

Continue to the full article --> here

 

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 950+ 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 About Us or visit ncfacanada.org.

Crowdsourcing – A Powerful Marketing Tool for Startups

Guest post by Mark Evans | April 8, 2015

mark evans incubesAt a startup demo event a couple of years ago, I sat beside an entrepreneur who had recently tapped Indiegogo to raise nearly $300,000.

I thought the decision to use of crowdsourcing to raise money was somewhat surprising given the startup could have easily raised venture capital. So I asked the entrepreneur why she used crowdsourcing.

She gave me a one-word answer: “marketing”.

In thinking about, it made a lot of sense to leverage a crowdsourcing as a marketing campaign.

Given the startup was developing hardware, it could provide units to people who supported the crowdsourcing campaign. In return for their money, they received something tangible, cool and innovative.

The campaign not only got the hardware into the hands of early believers, but, as important, the startup did not have to give away equity to raise capital. In other words, the crowdsourcing campaign was a win-win proposition for everyone involved.

This example illustrates the power of crowdsourcing as a marketing tool, particularly for companies that have successful campaigns. They can show the world they are creating something so interesting that people are happily willing to support it.

This creates a brand aura around a startup, which is important given many startups have low profiles, no track records and little credibility. As well, these startups likely have small or non-existent marketing budgets, so crowdsourcing can be a cost-efficient way to attract the spotlight.

A good example is Waterloo-based Polar, which raised $817,164 from more than 14,000 supporters for a modular pen made out of magnets. The success of Polar’s Kickstarter campaign was newsworthy. It was a compelling story about an entrepreneur who was able to finance a project for a product that was interesting and unique.

If Polar had decided to seek media coverage rather than do a crowdsourcing campaign, I would suggest it would have been lucky to attract media coverage. There is just so much competition that a pen made from magnets may have not been sexy enough. But when you are able to raise a lot of money for a pen, it becomes newsworthy.

For now, crowdsourcing is a relatively new phenomenon so there are still good opportunities for startups to leverage it as a marketing vehicle. If a startup can strike a chord with people, it can capitalize on this success to raise its profile and drive more sales.

For startups thinking about using crowdsourcing for marketing purposes, there are a few things it needs to consider:

  1. First, the product has to be interesting enough to rise above the crowd (no pun, intended!) At the end of the day, they are competing with many other startups looking for attention. As a result, the product has to be innovative, different or interesting. And potential backers need to believe the product has enough value to justify an investment.
  2. Second, I would suggest that a good video can play an important role as part of a marketing campaign via crowdsourcing. You have to remember many startups using Kickstarter or Indiegogo, for example, are probably unknown or little known entities. A video goes a long way in showcasing their product so it generates interest, excitement and, hopefully, capital.
  3. Third, it is important for a startup to promote its crowdsourcing efforts as part of an overall marketing campaign. Toronto-based DreamQii, which raised $2.1-million on Indiegogo, raised its profile by going on a press tour in the U.S.

While not every startup can afford a press tour, they need to do whatever it takes to drive awareness of their product and crowdsourcing efforts.

Like any marketing activity, it is important to invest the time, effort and sometimes the money to succeed. Crowdsourcing is an attractive opportunity because it can raise a startup’s profile, attract evangelists and influencers, and put money in the bank for growth.

In other words, it is a marketing opportunity that every startup should seriously explore.

 

mark evansstorytelling for startups

Mark Evans is a marketing and brand storytelling consultant who helps startups and fast-growing companies tell better stories. To learn more about startup marketing and the power of storytelling, check out his new book, Storytelling for Startups.

 

Related: