Category: Title III

The Crowdfunding Bad Actor Rules Don’t Apply To Investors

On By crowdfundattnyIn 100 Investor Rule, Accredited Investor, Investor, Investor Disclosures, Reg CF, Regulation A, Rule 506, Title III, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

I often see Subscription Agreements asking the investor to promise she’s not a “bad actor.” This is unnecessary. The term “bad actor” comes from three sets of nearly indistinguishable rules:

  • 17 CFR §230.506(d), which applies to Rule 506 offerings;
  • 17 CFR §230.262, which applies to Regulation A offerings; and
  • 17 CFR §227.503, which applies to Reg CF offerings.

In each case, the regulation provides that the issuer can’t use the exemption in question (Rule 506, Regulation A, or Reg CF) if the issuer or certain people affiliated with the issuer have violated certain laws.

Before going further, I note that these aren’t just any laws – they are laws about financial wrongdoing, mostly in the area of securities. Kidnappers are welcome to use Rule 506, for example, while ax murderers may find Regulation A especially useful even while still in prison.

Anyway.

Reg CF’s Rule 503 lists everyone whose bad acts we care about:

  • The issuer;
  • Any predecessor of the issuer;
  • Any affiliated issuer;
  • Any director, officer, general partner or managing member of the issuer;
  • Any beneficial owner of 20 percent or more of the issuer’s outstanding voting equity securities, calculated on the basis of voting power;
  • Any promoter connected with the issuer in any capacity at the time of filing, any offer after filing, or such sale;
  • Any person that has been or will be paid (directly or indirectly) remuneration for solicitation of purchasers in connection with such sale of securities; and
  • Any general partner, director, officer or managing member of any such solicitor.

Nowhere on that list do you see “investor.” The closest we come is “Any beneficial owner of 20 percent or more of the issuer’s outstanding voting equity securities,” but even there the calculation is based on voting power. In a Crowdfunding offering you wouldn’t give an investor 20% of the voting power, for reasons having nothing to do with the bad actor rules. 

So it just doesn’t matter. This is one more thing we can pull out of Subscription Agreements. 

I know some people will say “But we want to know anyway.” To me this is unconvincing. If you don’t ask about kidnapping you don’t need to ask about securities violations.

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding web portal

Updated Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet, Regulation CF, Regulation S, Rule 506(c), Title II, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III, Title III Crowdfunding, Title IV of the JOBS ActLeave a comment

I first posted this Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet in January of 2014. Since then the rules have continued to change and improve. So here’s the current version, up to date with all the new rules and also expanded to answer questions my clients ask. For example, I’ve added a column for Regulation S because many clients want to raise money from overseas while simultaneously raising money here in the U.S.

I hope this helps, especially those new to the world of Crowdfunding.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE UPDATED CROWDFUNDING CHEAT SHEET

Questions? Let me know.

Using A SAFE In Reg CF Offerings

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Reg CF, Regulation CF, SAFE, Title III, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

The SEC once wanted to prohibit the Simple Agreement for Future Equity, or SAFE, in Reg CF offerings. After a minor uproar the SEC changed its mind, and SAFEs are now used frequently. I think prohibiting SAFEs would be a mistake. Nevertheless, funding portals, issuers, and investors should think twice about using (or buying) a SAFE in a given offering.

Some have argued that SAFEs are too complicated for Reg CF investors. That’s both patronizing and wrong, in my opinion. Between a SAFE on one hand and common stock on the other, the common stock really is the more difficult concept. As long as you tell investors what they’re getting – especially that SAFEs have no “due date” – I think you’re fine.

The reason to think twice is not that SAFEs are complicated but that a SAFE might not be the right tool for the job. You wouldn’t use a hammer to shovel snow, and you shouldn’t use a SAFE in circumstances for which it wasn’t designed.

The SAFE was designed as the first stop on the Silicon Valley assembly line. First comes the SAFE, then the Series A, then the Series B, and eventually the IPO or other exit. Like other parts on the assembly line, the SAFE was designed to minimize friction and increase volume. And it works great for that purpose.

But the Silicon Valley ecosystem is very unusual, not representative of the broader private capital market. These are a few of its critical features:

  • Silicon Valley is an old boys’ network in the sense that it operates largely on trust, not legal documents. Investors don’t sue founders or other investors for fear of being frozen out of future deals, and founders don’t sue anybody for fear their next startup won’t get funded. Theranos and the lawsuits it spawned were the exceptions that prove the rule.
  • The Silicon Valley ecosystem focuses on only one kind of company: the kind that will grow very quickly, gobbling up capital, then be sold.
  • Those adding the SAFE at the front end of the assembly line know the people adding the Series A and Series B toward the back end of the assembly line — in fact, they might be the same people. And using standardized documents like those offered by the National Venture Capital Association ensures most deals will look the same. Thus, while SAFE investors in Silicon Valley don’t know exactly what they’ll end up with, they have a good idea.

The point is that SAFEs don’t exist in a vacuum. They were created to serve a particular purpose in a particular ecosystem. To name just a couple obvious examples, a company that won’t need to raise more money or a company that plans to stay private indefinitely probably wouldn’t be good candidates for a SAFE. If it’s snowing outside, don’t reach for the hammer.

If you do use a SAFE, which one? The Y Combinator forms are the most common starting points, but in a Reg CF offering, you should make at least three changes:

  1. The Y Combinator form provides for conversion of the SAFE only upon a later sale of preferred stock. That makes sense in the Silicon Valley ecosystem because of course the next stop on the assembly line will involve preferred stock. Outside Silicon Valley, the next step could be common stock.
  2. The Y Combinator form provides for conversion of the SAFE no matter how little capital is raised, as long as it’s priced. That makes sense because on the Silicon Valley assembly line of course the next step will involve a substantial amount of capital from sophisticated investors. Outside Silicon Valley you should provide that conversion requires a substantial capital raise to make it more likely that the raise reflects the arm’s-length value of the company.
  3. The Y Combinator form includes a handful of representations by the issuer and two or three by the investor. That makes sense because nobody is relying on representations in Silicon Valley and nobody sues anyone anyway. In Reg CF, the issuer is already making lots of representations —Form C is really a long list of representations — so you don’t need any issuer representations in the SAFE. And dealing with potentially thousands of strangers, the issuer needs all the representations from investors typical in a Subscription Agreement.

The founder of a Reg CF funding portal might have come from the Silicon Valley ecosystem. In fact, her company might have been funded by SAFEs. Still, she should understand where SAFEs are appropriate and where they are not and make sure investors understand as well.

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding web portal

The Legal Liability of A TITLE III Funding Portal

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Portals, Title III, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

In this blog post I summarized the potential legal liability of issuers raising capital using Title II Crowdfunding (aka Rule 506(c)), Title III Crowdfunding (aka Reg CF), and Title IV Crowdfunding (aka Regulation A). Here, I’ll summarize the potential legal liability of a registered Title III funding portal.

To start, let’s distinguish between two kinds of liability:  liability to the government (e.g., to the SEC) for breaking rules; and liability to private parties. Most people think about the first kind of liability but often the second is more important. The government doesn’t know about most violations of securities laws and even if it knows must pick and choose which cases to prosecute. Conversely, private parties – issuers and investors – are likely to know about actual or potential violations and there are plenty of plaintiffs’ lawyers willing to take a shot.

Section 4A(c) of the Securities Act

Section 4A(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 makes an “issuer” liable to an investor where:

  • The issuer made an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated or necessary in order to make the statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading;
  • The investor didn’t know of the untruth or omission; and
  • The issuer cannot demonstrate that the issuer did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the untruth or omission.

The statute defines “issuer” to include:

  • Any person who is a director or partner of the issuer;
  • The principal executive officer, principal financial officer, and controller or principal accounting officer of the issuer;
  • Any person occupying a similar status or performing a similar function, regardless of title; and
  • Any person who offers or sells the security in the Reg CF offering.

The SEC has declined to say one way or another whether a funding portal is an “issuer” for these purposes. Given the role of funding portals in presenting securities to the public, however, it seems likely except in unusual circumstances.

If a funding portal is an issuer and a Form C contains false statements or omits important information, the funding portal would be liable to private lawsuits from investors unless the funding portal can prove that it didn’t know about the false statements or omissions and couldn’t have learned about them by exercising reasonable care.

The language of section 4A(c) is very similar to the language of section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, which applies to public companies. But the playing field is different. The document used in a public filing – a prospectus – is typically subject to layer upon layer of due diligence, not only by the issuer and its lawyers but also by the underwriter and others. In contrast, many of the Form Cs we see on funding portals are prepared by people with little or no experience in securities, typically online. I expect to see lots of litigation under section 4A(c), as courts decide what “reasonable care” means for funding portals.

Private Lawsuits:              Yes

Rule 10b-5

17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5, issued by the SEC under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, makes it unlawful, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security:

  • To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
  • To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
  • To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.

Liability arises under Rule 10b-5 only with the intent to deceive, known in legal jargon as “scienter.”

The Supreme Court has held that only the person who “makes” a deceptive statement or omission can be liable under the second prong of Rule 10b-5 – not a person who merely disseminates the statement innocently. But that begs the question:  does a funding portal merely disseminate information from issuers, or does it “make” the statements along with the issuer? Given the role of funding portals in Reg CF, very possibly the latter, although that could depend on the facts of a given case.

But that question could be moot. Under recent court decisions, a funding portal that knows about the misleading statements or omissions and allows them on its website anyway could be liable under either the first or third prongs of Rule 10b-5.

Private Lawsuits:              Yes

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act makes it unlawful for any person, including the issuer, in the offer or sale of securities, to:

  • Employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or
  • Obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
  • Engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.

Even if it is not the issuer, a funding portal participating in a scheme to mislead investor could be subject to section 17(a) of the Act just as it could be liable to investors under Rule 10b-5.

Private Lawsuits:              No

Crowdfunding and FINRA Regulations

A funding portal that violates the regulations issued by the SEC or FINRA could be sanctioned or, in the extreme case, have its registration with the SEC and/or its membership in FINRA suspended, effectively putting it out of business.

An investor who loses money and learns that the funding portal violated SEC regulations will probably claim that the regulatory violation gives rise to a private right of action – that is, that if she was harmed by the regulatory violation then she can sue the funding portal. Although we can never say never, her claim should fail.

Private Lawsuits:              No

State Common Law

A funding portal could be liable to investors under a variety of state “common law” (as opposed to statutory law) theories, including fraud and misrepresentation. In the typical case, the investor would try to show that (i) the issuer did something wrong, and (ii) the funding portal is responsible for it.

Private Lawsuits:              Yes

Liability to Issuers

Funding portals will be sued by issuers. Among the possible claims:

  • The funding portal made promises about the offering that proved false (e.g., “You’re sure to raise at least $2 million!”);
  • The funding portal conducted the offering ineffectively (e.g., failing to notify subscribers by email);
  • The funding portal made factual misrepresentations (e.g., the number of its registered users or the percentage of its successful raises); and
  • Actions by the funding portal caused the issuer to face lawsuits from investors (e.g., the funding listed the issuer’s year-over-year revenue growth as 1,300% rather than 130%).

Private Lawsuits:              Yes

Criminal Rules

If a funding portal really screws up, it could even be subject to Federal and state criminal penalties, including:

  • Criminal penalties for intentionally violating securities laws
  • Criminal penalties for mail fraud
  • Criminal penalties for wire fraud
  • Criminal penalties for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Liability of People

Entrepreneurs too often believe that operating through a corporation or other legal entity protects them from personal liability. For example, an entrepreneur on her way to a business meeting swerves to run over a gaggle of doctors and jumps from her car, laughing. “You can’t sue me, I operate through a corporation!”

No. She did it, so she’s personally liable, corporation or no corporation. If her employee did it, the story might be different (unless he was drunk when she handed him the keys).

The same is true in securities laws. To the extent you’re personally making decisions for the funding portal, all the potential liability I’ve described applies to you personally as well.

Reducing Your Risk

A funding portal can and should take steps to reduce its legal risk. These include:

  • Strong Contract with Issuers:  Funding portals should have a strong contract with issuers, clearly defining who is responsible for what and disclaiming liability on the funding portal’s part.
  • Training:  A junior employee of a funding portal once told my client to do something that clearly violated the securities laws. Recognizing that funding portals, like other employers, are liable for the acts of their employees, funding portals should have in place a strong training program. Among other things, employees should know about the funding portal’s potential liability and be familiar with its Manual of Policies & Procedures.
  • Due Diligence Processes:  Funding portals should have in place processes and policies for conducting due diligence. How much due diligence is required is an open question, but if a funding portal is sued for failing to discover a misstatement in a Form C, it’s going to be asked about its due diligence policies. The answer can’t be “None.”
  • Insurance:  Like any other business, funding portals should carry insurance. Even a very weak lawsuit can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend.
  • Culture:  The sea at the tip of South America is among the roughest in the world, as two oceans collide. Crowdfunding is like that, sort of. On one hand, Crowdfunding is new and disruptive and attracts people who want to do something. On the other hand, the legal landscape in which Crowdfunding takes place is old and well-worn, developed before many American homes had radio. Leaping into the brave new world of online capital formation, eager to move fast and at least dent things, funding portals must nevertheless create a culture that takes seriously the often-tedious responsibility associated with selling securities.

Using Reg CF To Raise Money For A Non-U.S. Business

On By crowdfundattnyIn Title III, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

To use Reg CF (aka Title III Crowdfunding), an issuer must be “organized under, and subject to, the laws of a State or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia.” That means a Spanish entity cannot issue securities using Reg CF. But it doesn’t mean a Spanish business can’t use Reg CF.

First, here’s how not to do it.

A Spanish entity wants to raise money using Reg CF. Reading the regulation, the Spanish entity forms a shell Delaware corporation. All other things being equal, as an entity “organized under, and subject to, the laws of a State or territory of the United States,” the Delaware corporation is allowed to raise capital using Reg CF. But all other things are not equal. If the Delaware corporation is a shell, with no assets or business, then (i) no funding portal should allow the securities of the Delaware corporation to be listed, and (ii) even if a funding portal did allow the securities to be listed, nobody in her right mind would buy them.

Here are two structures that work:

  • The Spanish business could move its entire business and all its assets into a Delaware corporation. Even with no assets, employees, or business in the U.S., the Delaware corporation could raise capital using Reg CF, giving investors an interest in the entire business.
  • Suppose the Spanish company is in the business of developing, owning, and operating health clubs. Today all its locations are in Spain but it sees an opportunity in the U.S. The Spanish entity creates a Delaware corporation to develop, own, and operate health clubs in the U.S. The Delaware corporation could raise capital using Reg CF, giving investors an interest in the U.S. business only.

NOTE:  Those familiar with Regulation A may be excused for feeling confused. An issuer may raise capital using Regulation A only if the issuer is managed in the U.S. or Canada. For reasons that are above my pay grade, the rules for Reg CF and the rules for Regulation A are just different.

Questions? Let me know.

Can an LLC Serve as a Crowdfunding Vehicle for a Corporation?

On By crowdfundattnyIn Title II, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Crowdfunding doesn’t screw up the issuer’s cap table. Nevertheless, because many issuers and investors think it does, the SEC adopted 17 CFR §270.3a-9 earlier this year, providing that a Reg CF issuer may use a “crowdfunding vehicle” to issue securities to investors, thereby adding only one entry to its own cap table.

The use of SPVs to own securities is common in the Title II (Rule 506(c)) world and in the world of securities generally. We form a separate entity, typically a limited liability company, to own securities of the “main” company. Indeed, a variation of the SPV structure is required in securitized real estate financing.

But that’s not what the SEC has in mind with crowdfunding vehicles in Title III. The SEC has in mind an entity that is a mirror image, you might say an alter-ego, of the issuer. For example, the crowdfunding vehicle:

  • Can have no purpose other than owning securities of the issuer;
  • Must have the same fiscal year end as the issuer;
  • May not borrow money;
  • Must be reimbursed for all its expenses only by the issuer; and
  • Must “Maintain a one-to-one relationship between the number, denomination, type and rights of crowdfunding issuer securities it owns and the number, denomination, type and rights of its securities outstanding.”

What does that last requirement mean? To me, it sounds as if the “rights” associates with the issuer’s securities must be the same as the “rights” associated with the crowdfunding vehicle’s securities.

The “rights” associated with securities are defined in part by contract, which we can control, but in part by state law. Corporate laws vary widely from state to state and even within a state the laws of corporations are often very different than the laws of limited liability companies. This is intentional:  limited liability company statutes were written to be different than the corresponding corporate statutes. For example, LLC statutes typically give members of an LLC far greater freedom of contract while corporate laws, for historical reasons, take a more paternalistic view.

When the regulations were proposed, CrowdCheck (Sara Hanks) submitted the comment pointing out that because of the differences in laws among types of entities and states, it would be difficult or impossible for the rights associated with owning an issuer to be identical to the rights associated with owning a crowdfunding vehicle. When the final regulations were issued, the SEC had not changed the language of the regulation and responded to comment as follows:

“As one commenter pointed out, because investors are investing in the crowdfunding vehicle, and not directly in the crowdfunding issuer, there may be slight differences in the rights in the crowdfunding vehicle that investors receive. However, we do not believe these slight differences in rights should in any way affect the ability of the crowdfunding vehicle to issue securities with rights that are materially indistinguishable from the rights a direct investor in the crowdfunding issuer would have [bold added].”

The differences in rights described in the CrowdCheck’s comments were not “slight.” To the contrary, the differences in rights between, say, a New Jersey corporation and a Delaware limited liability company would be “material” in any other area of the securities laws. Having filed a registration statement that identified the wrong type of entity and the wrong state, I can imagine a lawyer arguing to the SEC staff “Who cares? Those are only slight differences!”

How should we interpret the SEC’s response? Why didn’t the SEC just change the language of the regulation, rather than pretend the differences in state laws aren’t “material”? Can issuers and funding portals do whatever they want?

There are two issues:

  • The first issue is just cost. Issuers and portals want to automate SPVs, using the same type of entity, the same state, and the same contracts for all of them.
  • The second issue is taxes. If the issuer is a corporation and the crowdfunding vehicle is also a corporation, then dividends paid by the issuer to the crowdfunding vehicle will be subject, in part, to double tax.

The question is more than academic. When investors lose money they’re unhappy and often look for someone to blame. If a Mississippi corporation uses a Delaware limited liability company as a crowdfunding vehicle and an investor loses money, a clever plaintiff’s lawyer (no jokes here) won’t find it hard to argue that the Delaware LLC failed to qualify under 17 CFR §270.3a-9 and that the offering was therefore illegal, giving his client the right to get her money back from the issuer and its principals and possibly from the funding portal and its principals as well.

As readers know, I think the SEC has done a terrific job with Crowdfunding, going out of its way to support the industry time after time. For that matter, the SEC introduced crowdfunding vehicles only because of the mistaken impression that Crowdfunding “screws up your cap table.” As crowdfunding vehicles become more widely-used, however, I think more straightforward guidance is required, if only to dissuade clever plaintiffs’ lawyers. For example, the SEC could say explicitly “Differences in rights arising solely from state laws governing corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnership and other legal entities will not be taken into account for these purposes.”

Until that happens, I would be cautious and bear in mind that issuers don’t really need a crowdfunding vehicle in the first place.

Using a Transfer Agent Doesn’t Mean You Have a Single Entry on Your Cap Table

On By crowdfundattnyIn Title III, Title III Crowdfunding, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Many issuers are concerned that “Crowdfunding will screw up my cap table.” In response, several Title III funding portals offer a mechanism they promise will leave only a single entry on the issuer’s cap table, no matter how many investors sign up.

The claim is innocuous, i.e., it doesn’t really hurt anybody. But it’s also false.

The claim begins with section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act. Under section 12(g), an issuer must register its securities with the SEC and begin filing all the reports of a public company if the issuer has more than $10 million of total assets and any class of equity securities held of record by more than 500 non-accredited investors or more than 2,000 total investors.

17 CFR §240.12g5-1 defines what it means for securities to be held “of record.” For example, under 17 CFR §240.12g5-1(a)(2), securities held by a partnership are generally treated as held “of record” by one person, the partnership, even if the partnership has lots of partners. Similarly, under 17 CFR §240.12g5-1(a)(4), securities held by two or more persons as co-owners (e.g., as tenants in common) are treated as held “of record” by one person.

With their eyes on this regulation, the funding portals require each investor to designate a third party to act on the investor’s behalf. The third party acts as transfer agent, custodian, paying agent, and proxy agent, and also has the right to vote the investor’s securities (if the securities have voting rights). The funding portal then takes the position that all the securities are held by one owner “of record” under 17 CFR §240.12g5-1.

Two points before going further:

  • Title III issuers don’t need 17 CFR §240.12g5-1 to avoid reporting under section 12(g). Under 17 CFR §240.12g6(a), securities issued under Title III don’t count toward the 500/2,000 thresholds, as long as the issuer uses a transfer agent and has no more than $25 million of assets.
  • 17 CFR §240.12g5-1(b)(3) includes an anti-abuse rule:  “If the issuer knows or has reason to know that the form of holding securities of record is used primarily to circumvent the provisions of section 12(g). . . . the beneficial owners of such securities shall be deemed to be the record owners thereof.”

But put both those things to the side and assume that, by using the mechanism offered by the funding portal, the issuer has 735 investors but only one holder “of record.”

Does having one holder “of record” mean the issuer has only a single entry on its cap table? Of course not. At tax time, the issuer is still going to produce 735 K-1s.

The fact is, how many holders an issuer has “of record” for purposes of section 12(g) of the Exchange Act has nothing to do with cap tables. The leap from section 12(g) to cap tables is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

As I said in the beginning, the sleight-of-hand is mostly harmless. Except for some additional fees, neither the issuer nor the investors are any worse off. And the motivation is understandable:  too many issuers think Crowdfunding will get in the way of future funding rounds, even though that’s not true.

Even so, as a boring corporate lawyer and true believer in Crowdfunding, I’m uncomfortable with the sleight-of-hand. When SPVs become legal on March 15th perhaps the market will change.

Crowdfunding Real Estate

PODCAST: The Storage Investor Show

On By crowdfundattnyIn Accredited Investor, Crowdfunding, Title III, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Real Estate Crowdfunding in 2021 with Mark Roderick – episode 9

In This Episode:

  • Updates to Accredited Investor qualifications
  • Who qualifies as a “Finder” of capital?
  • Title III crowdfunding changes
  • How can sponsors and investors take advantage of recent changes
  • Why crowdfunding is a marketing business

Guest Info:

Mr. Roderick concentrates his practice on the representation of privately-owned and emerging growth companies, including companies in the technology, real estate, and health care industries. Mark specializes in the representation of entrepreneurial, growth-oriented companies and their owners.

Two Reasons Why Every Title II Portal Should Add A Title III Portal

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Portals, Regulation A, Title II, Title II Portal, Title III, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

If you operate a Title II Crowdfunding platform, whether Rule 506(c) or Rule 506(b), you should add the functionality for Title III. Two reasons:

  • It will be good for you, i.e., you will make more money.
  • It will be good for our country.

Adding Title III Will Be Good for You

Any day now the SEC will announce a bunch of changes to the Title III rules, including these: 

  • Sponsors will be able to raise $5M rather than $1.07M.
  • There will be no limit on the amount an accredited investor can invest.
  • The limits for non-accredited investors will be raised.

Most of the deals on your site are less than $5M. Even though the $5M limit under Title III is per-sponsor rather than per-deal, this means that if your Title III portal were up and running today you could expand your potential audience from about 10 million households to about 120 million households.

There are four benefits to making deals available to non-accredited investors.

The first, immediate benefit is that non-accredited investors do have money. By adding non-accredited investors you make it easier to fill deals.

The second, immediate benefit is that adding non-accredited investors allows you to market to affinity groups. If you’re selling a mixed-use project in Washington, D.C. you can market to the neighbors. If you’re selling a company developing a therapy for cystic fibrosis you can market to everyone whose family has been affected.

The third, immediate benefit is you can start taking commissions. If you’re like most Title II portals you spend time and effort to make sure you’re not a broker-dealer. If you were a Title III portal those issues would disappear.

The fourth benefit is not immediate but is much more important than the first three, in my opinion. It’s about building a brand and a funnel of investors.

If you operate a portal you are selling a product, no different than shoes or automobiles. Just as Mercedes offers the A-Class sedan to bring less-affluent customers into the showroom and the Mercedes family, adding Title III can vastly increase your audience and revenue as some non-accredited investors become accredited and the SEC further relaxes the rules for non-accredited investors.

Alternatively, they could start shopping in somebody else’s Title III showroom.

Adding Title III Will Be Good for the Country

Our country is suffering in many ways. Yes, we’re suffering politically, but in some ways the political suffering is just one manifestation of our deep and deepening income and wealth inequalities. You can find a hundred charts showing the same thing:  the very wealthy are becoming wealthier while everyone else, especially the lower 50%, becomes poorer and more desperate.

When I was a teenager I delivered newspapers in Arlington, Virginia. In my suburban territory I delivered papers to accredited investors, whose houses were a little bigger and drove Cadillacs and Town Cars, and to non-accredited investors, whose houses were a little smaller and drove Chevies and Toyotas. One of my customers was George Shulz, the Secretary of the Treasury, who came to the door in his bathrobe and tipped well.

Tax policies, trade policies, all the instrumentalities of government have been focused over the last 40 years to serve the interests of the well-off. Part of it was cynical politics, part too much faith (which I shared) in the power of markets to lift all boats. Most of the boats in our country remain moored at low tide. Steve Mnuchin and his wife wouldn’t dream of living in that neighborhood today while 98% of Americans couldn’t afford to.

Call me an idealist, but I believe Crowdfunding can at least claw back some of the inequality. The deals on your Title II portal should be available to ordinary Americans. They should participate in those returns. They should regain faith that the capitalist system can work for them. We should all hope that the phrase “institutional quality,” when applied to investments, will lose its meaning.

Crowdfunding isn’t the whole solution, but it’s part of the solution. And you can make it happen.

Questions? Let me know.

PODCAST: Title III Crowdfunding Changes with Mark Roderick

On By crowdfundattnyIn Podcasts, Title III, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Crowdfunding continues to grow in popularity. It is a way to democratize the world of real estate investing, which historically has only been open to super-wealthy Americans. Its growth and positive outcomes have led to several changes being made in the space. Mark Roderick, our guest today, joins us to unpack these developments and the positive influence that they will have on real estate investing. In this episode, Mark presents an overview of the current crowdfunding space.

Title III Crowdfunding Changes with Mark Roderick

Key Points From This Episode:

  • Learn more about Mark and his expertise as a crowdfunding attorney
  • An overview of the crowdfunding basics and the difference between Title II, III, and IV.
  • Find out about some of the excellent changes the SEC has made related to crowdfunding.
  • How broker-dealers with a wide product mix make real estate accessible to more people.
  • ‘Title’ refers to the different types of crowdfunding as per the JOBS Act of 2012.
  • Why the Title III changes will make it easier to syndicate, even if you’re not a broker-dealer.
  • An explanation of what a funding portal is and the simple steps to set one up.
  • Learn about some of the drawbacks of establishing a funding portal.
  • Some of the changes Mark expects will happen with Title III advertising.
  • Other changes that the SEC has made around crowdfunding.
  • How Mark gives back and where you can get hold of him.