Crowdfunding has long been pitched as a game-changer for raising private capital—opening the door for everyday investors to participate in opportunities once reserved for institutions. But how much of that promise has actually held up?
In a recent episode, crowdfunding attorney Mark Roderick cuts through the noise to explain how the JOBS Act has really reshaped the landscape—and what real estate sponsors need to know before choosing a path.
The Three Paths to Crowdfunding
Not all crowdfunding is created equal. Mark breaks down the three primary frameworks:
Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) – Designed to allow non-accredited (“mom and pop”) investors to participate in deals.
Rule 506(c) – Allows sponsors to publicly market offerings, but limits investors to accredited individuals.
Regulation A (Reg A) – A more complex, mini-public offering that can reach a broader audience but comes with heavier compliance requirements.
While each option has its place, their real-world performance has been far from equal.
Accredited vs. Non-Accredited Investors: Why It Matters
One of the biggest distinctions in crowdfunding comes down to who you’re raising money from.
I’ve been asked by more than a handful of entrepreneurs about using Reg CF in a Shark Tank format. The founder appears in a TV studio with experienced investors, who pepper her with questions. If viewers like what they see, they scan a QR code at the bottom left, which takes them through the Reg CF investment process.
Non-accredited investors getting easy access to great startups, agnostic as to geography. Exactly what the JOBS Act wanted.
I’ve had to tell each of those entrepreneurs No.
Each entrepreneur thought I was the bad guy, but the real bad guy is Rule 204, the Reg CF advertising rule. Rule 204 gives a company raising money two choices for advertising outside the funding portal. One, you can say anything you want as long as you don’t mention any of the six “terms of the offering.” Two, you can mention the terms of the offering but say almost nothing else, just the company’s name, address, phone number, and URL, and a brief description of the business (i.e., a “tombstone” ad).
The six deadly “terms of the offering” are:
How much you’re trying to raise
What kind of securities you’re selling (e.g., stock or SAFE)
The price of the securities
How you plan to use the money
The closing date of your offering
How much you’ve raised to date
Now imagine the founder answering questions in the studio. She can say anything she wants about the product, about herself, her team of advisors, the market, the social benefits of the company, all that stuff. Even with careful scripting, however, it’s unrealistic to think she can answer questions accurately and generate enthusiasm in the audience (which is the point) without mentioning any of those six items. Maybe a founder can do it here and there, but you wouldn’t bet your TV show on it.
The purpose of Rule 204 is to ensure that every Reg CF investor gets the same information as every other investor. The regulations want everything about the company and the offering to be in one place: the funding portal. They don’t want someone who watches your TV show to know either more or less than someone who doesn’t.
Personally, I think Rule 204 is misguided. If there’s a risk that someone who watches your TV show will know either more or less than someone who doesn’t, you can (i) post a video of the TV show on the funding portal, and (ii) make sure TV viewers invest through the funding portal’s platform, where they can see everything. Eliminating Rule 204 would invigorate the Reg CF market without hurting investors.
Eliminate Rule 204 and stop issuers and portals from using artificially low minimums. That’s my platform for 2026.
In the meantime, I’m afraid a Shark Tank for Reg CF isn’t going to work.
Many smart people believe the main impediment to Crowdfunding in general and Reg CF in particular is the lack of liquidity. Who wants to invest without the chance to get out?
I don’t agree. I note that:
Plenty of money flows into real estate projects with no guaranty of liquidity.
Enormous amounts of money has flowed through Silicon Valley over the last 40 years with no guaranty of liquidity.
Even before Crowdfunding and outside Silicon Valley, lots of money flowed into private companies with no guaranty of liquidity.
Nevertheless, I agree the lack of liquidity is important and have a proposal to fix it, for those willing to take some risk.
Too often, in my opinion, proposals to allow liquidity focus on the SEC. For example, smart people propose that the SEC should adopt a rule providing that an online marketplace for Reg CF securities won’t be treated as an “exchange.”
I don’t agree with that, either. One, the SEC probably doesn’t have that authority. Two, and far more important, it wouldn’t help. As described here and here, the absence of vibrant secondary markets for private securities isn’t because of the law. It’s because private securities are really hard to market and sell. The lack of transparency, the reliance on a tiny management team, the lack of the investor protections built into NASDAQ and other national exchanges, the miniscule market cap and public float – all these things and more make private securities illiquid.
Forget about petitioning the SEC or introducing another “Improvements in Crowdfunding” bill in Congress. Trying to create liquidity by legal fiat is like pushing string.
Funding portals can provide liquidity on their own. A funding portal could simply require every issuer to provide for liquidity in its organizational documents. The organizational documents could provide, for example, that within some period of time, say seven years, the issuer would either (i) buy out investors, or (ii) arrange for an exit, either a cash sale or a merger with a company with publicly traded securities. Only with a majority vote of investors (super majority?) could the deadline be extended.
Even an individual issuer could provide such a guaranty, without a mandate from the funding portal.
Think of the marketing campaigns. “Our company guaranties liquidity!” “Every company on our platform guaranties liquidity!”
For those who think seven years is too long, don’t buy private securities if you might need to sell them sooner. For those who think seven years is too short, write your own blog!
Seriously, the proposal has one big flaw, from the perspective of issuers. I’ve recommended before that Crowdfunding investors shouldn’t have the right to vote. My liquidity proposal, in contrast, gives investors the right to force the sale of the company. That might hamstring the company and, more important, it might inhibit the company’s ability to attract future, large investors.
To address that flaw, should we provide that the right of liquidity goes away if the company raises $X in the future?
Everything is a tradeoff. If you believe a guaranty of liquidity will open the floodgates of investors, you’ll consider taking the plunge. If you doubt that a guaranty of liquidity will attract investors, on the other hand, then the tradeoff might be too high. But that takes us back to the beginning. If you think liquidity is the key, and you acknowledge that no change in the law will get us there, a proposal like this could be an option worth considering.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Rules are always changing in the crowdfunding space. Make sure that it is the best way for you to raise private capital by understanding the mechanics of this process. In this episode, let one of the leading Crowdfunding and FinTech attorneys, Mark Roderick, get you up to speed with the new laws and technology, and how the internet has disrupted this industry. Mark also talks about three flavors of Equity Crowdfunding and the rules for each type. Get an investor’s point-of-view and determine factors that dictate how much money you need to raise.
When a married couple invests in an offering under Rule 506(b), Rule 506(c), or Tier 2 of Regulation A, we have to decide whether the couple is “accredited” within the meaning of 17 CFR §501(a). How can we conclude that a married couple is accredited?
A human being can be an accredited investor in only four ways:
Method #1: If her net worth exceeds $1,000,000 (without taking into account her principal residence); or
Method #2: If her net worth with her spouse exceeds $1,000,000 (without taking into account their principal residence); or
Method #3: Her income exceeded $200,000 in each of the two most recent years and she has a reasonable expectation that her income will exceed $200,000 in the current year;
Method #4: Her joint income with her spouse exceeded $300,000 in each of the two most recent years and she has a reasonable expectation that their joint income will exceed $300,000 in the current year.
A few examples:
EXAMPLE 1: Husband’s net worth is $1,050,001 without a principal residence. Wife’s has a negative net worth of $50,000 (credit cards!). Their joint annual income is $150,000. Husband is accredited under Method #1 or Method #2. Wife is accredited under Method #2.
EXAMPLE 2: Husband’s net worth is $1,050,001 without a principal residence. Wife’s has a negative net worth of $500,000 (student loans!). Their joint annual income is $150,000. Husband is accredited under Method #1. Wife is not accredited.
EXAMPLE 3: Husband’s net worth is $850,000 and his income is $25,000. Wife’s has a negative net worth of $500,000 and income of $250,000. Husband is not accredited. Wife is accredited under Method #3.
Now, suppose Husband and Wife want to invest jointly in an offering under Rule 506(c), where all investors must be accredited.
They are allowed to invest jointly in Example 1, because both Husband and Wife are accredited. They are not allowed to invest jointly in Example 2 because Wife is not accredited, and they are not allowed to invest jointly in Example 3 because Husband is not accredited.
The point is that Husband and Wife may invest jointly only where both Husband and Wife are accredited individually. At the beginning, I asked “How can we conclude that a married couple is accredited?” The answer: There is no such thing as a married couple being accredited. Only individuals are accredited.
CAUTION: Suppose you are an issuer conducting a Rule 506(c) offering, relying on verification letters from accountants or other third parties. If a married couple wants to invest jointly, you should not rely on a letter saying the couple is accredited. Instead, the letter should say that Husband and Wife are both accredited individually.
Three and a half years into Title II Crowdfunding, I am asked this question a lot, sometimes by portals, sometimes by issuers.
A Chart, of Course
Three Important Differences
Verification
In a Rule 506(b) offering, the issuer may take the investor’s word that he, she, or it is accredited, unless the issuer has reason to believe the investor is lying.
In a Rule 506(c) offering, on the other hand, the issuer must take reasonable steps to verify that every investor is accredited. The SEC regulations allow an issuer to rely on primary documents from an investor like tax returns, brokerage statements, or W-2s, but they also allow the issuer to rely on a letter from the investor’s lawyer or accountant. In practice, that’s how verification is typically handled.
I strongly recommend that issuers do not verify investors themselves. Instead, they should use a third party like VerifyInvestor. If an issuer handles verification itself and makes a mistake, it’s possible that the entire offering could be disqualified. Conversely, once an issuer hands the task to VerifyInvestor, the issuer has, by definition, taken the “reasonable step” required by the SEC, and can sleep well at night.
Information
If all the investors are accredited, there is no difference between Rule 506(b) and Rule 506(c).
If there is even one non-accredited investor in a Rule 506(b) offering, on the other hand, the issuer must provide a lot more information, specifically most of the information that would be included in a Regulation A offering.
The technicalities are important to the lawyer, but to the issuer or the portal, the bottom line is that if non-accredited investors are included the offering will cost $5,000 – $7,500 more, and take a little longer to prepare.
Advertising
In a Rule 506(b) offering you can advertise only the brand. In a Rule 506(c) offering you can advertise the deal.
Ever watch the commercials for brokers and investment banks during a golf tournament? They feature an older guy and his very attractive wife, planning for a carefree and meaningful retirement. They message is: we can help you achieve your dreams. But they don’t show any of the actual investments they recommend! They’re only advertising the brand.
That’s the model for a website offering investments under Rule 506(b). We can advertise the website – the brand – but we cannot show actual investments. The website attracts investors who sign up and go through a KYC (know your customer) process following SEC guidelines. We have the investor complete questionnaires, we speak with the investor on the phone a couple times, we learn about his or her experience and knowledge investing – we develop a relationship. Then, and only then, can we show the investor actual investments.
In contrast, a website offering investments under Rule 506(c) can show actual investments to everyone right away.
Which is Better?
If I own a jewelry store, I have two choices:
I can display jewelry in the front window where passersby can see it.
I can display a sign in the front window saying “Great jewelry inside. Must register to enter.”
That’s why I prefer Rule 506(c).
But I also acknowledge three benefits of Rule 506(b):
To include non-accredited investors, you must use Rule 506(b), or another kind of offering altogether.
If you use Rule 506(c), you might lose bona fide accredited investors who are unwilling to provide verification.
If you use Rule 506(b), which doesn’t require verification, you might get money from non-accredited investors who are willing to lie.
Switching Midstream
You can start an offering using Rule 506(b), then switch to Rule 506(c), as long as you haven’t accepted any non-accredited investors.
Conversely, once you’ve advertised a Rule 506(c) offering, you cannot go back and accept non-accredited investors, claiming you’re relying on Rule 506(b).
A couple weeks ago, Howard Marks of StartEngine and I presented a webinar about Regulation A. Listeners asked far more questions than we were able to answer in the time given, and I promised to post their questions and answers on the blog. Here goes.
What’s the difference between Regulation A and Regulation A+?
There is no difference. Regulation A has been around for a long time, but was rarely used primarily because issuers could raise only $5 million and were required to register with every state where they offered securities. Title IV of the JOBS Act required the SEC to create a new and improved version of Regulation A, and the new and improved version is sometimes referred to colloquially as Regulation A+. But it’s the same thing legally as Regulation A.
Can I use Regulation A to raise money from non-U.S. investors?
Definitely. Non-U.S. investors may participate in all three flavors of Crowdfunding: Title II, Title III, and Title IV (Regulation A).
But don’t forget, the U.S. isn’t the only country with securities laws. If you raise money from a German citizen, Germany wants you to comply with its laws.
Can non-U.S. companies use Regulation A?
Only companies organized in the U.S. or Canada and having their principal place of business in the U.S. or Canada may use Regulation A.
What about a company with headquarters in the U.S. but manufacturing facilities elsewhere?
That’s fine. What matters is that the issuer’s officers, partners, or managers primarily direct, control and coordinate the issuer’s activities from the U.S (or Canada).
Is Regulation A applicable to use for equity or debt for a real estate development project?
I believe that real estate will play the same dominant role in Regulation A that it plays in Title II. I also believe that real estate development will be more difficult to sell than stable, cash-flowing projects simply because of the different risk profile.
Is there any limit on the amount an accredited investor can invest?
No. An accredited investor may invest an unlimited amount in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 offerings under Regulation A. A non-accredited investor may invest an unlimited amount in Tier 1 offerings, but may invest no more than 10% of her income or 10% of her net worth, whichever is greater, in each Tier 2 offering.
What kinds of securities can be sold using Regulation A?
All kinds: equity, debt, convertible debt, common stock, preferred stock, etc.
But you cannot sell “asset-backed securities” using Regulation A, as that term is defined in SEC Regulation AB. The classic “asset-backed security” is where a hedge fund purchases $1 billion of credit card debt from the credit card issuer, breaks the debt into “tranches” based on credit rating and other factors, and securitizes the tranches to investors. However, the SEC views the term more broadly.
Can I combine a Regulation A offering with other offerings?
In general yes. For example, there’s no problem if an issuer raises money using Rule 506 (Rule 506(b) or Rule 506(c)) while it prepares its Regulation A offering. The legal issues become more cloudy if an issuer wants to combine multiple types of offerings simultaneously. Theoretically just about anything is possible.
Can the same platform list securities under both Regulation A and Title II?
Yes. In fact, the same platform can list securities under all three flavors of Crowdfunding: Title II, Title III, and Title IV. But on that platform, only licensed “Funding Portals” can offer Title III securities.
Does a platform offering securing under Regulation A have to be a broker-dealer?
The simple answer is No. But a platform that crosses the line into acting like a broker-dealer, or is compensated with commissions or other “transaction based compensation,” would have to register as a broker-dealer or become affiliated with a broker-dealer.
Can a non-profit organization use Regulation A?
Regulation A is one exception to the general rule that all offerings of securities must be registered with the SEC under section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. Non-profit organizations are allowed to sell securities without registration under a different exception. So the answer is that non-profits don’t have to use Regulation A.
With that said, I represent non-profit organizations that have created for-profit subsidiaries that plan to engage in Regulation A offerings. For example, a non-profit in the business of urban development might create a subsidiary to develop an urban in-fill project, raising money partly from grants and partly from Regulation A.
Can I use Regulation A to create a fund?
If by “fund” you mean a pool of assets, like a pool of 30 multi-family apartment communities, then Yes. You can either buy the apartment communities first and then raise the money, or raise the money first and then deploy it in your discretion. If you want to own each apartment community in a separate limited liability company subsidiary, that’s okay also.
If by “fund” you mean a pool of investments, like a pool of 30 minority interests in limited liability companies that themselves own multi-family apartment communities, then No. Your “fund” would be treated as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and Regulation A may not be used to raise money for investment companies.
Can a fund be established for craft beverages?
Same idea. You could use Regulation A to raise money for a brewery that will develop multiple craft beverages. You cannot use Regulation A to buy minority interests in multiple craft beverage companies.
For a brand new company, can the audited financial statements required by Tier 2 be dated as of the date of formation, and just show zeroes?
Yes, as long as the date of formation is within nine months before the date of filing or qualification and the date of filing or qualification is not more than three months after the entity reached its first annual balance sheet date.
How does the $50 million annual limit apply if I have more than one project?
The $20 million annual limit under Tier 1, and the $50 million limit under Tier 2, are per-issuer limits. A developer with, say, three office building projects, each requiring $50 million of equity, can use Regulation A for all three at the same time.
NOTE: This is different than Title III, where the $1 million annual limit applies to all issuers under common control.
What does “testing the waters” mean?
It means that before your Regulation A offering is approved (“qualified”) by the SEC, and even before you start preparing all the legal documents, you can advertise the offering and accept non-binding commitments from prospective investors. If you don’t find enough interest, you can save yourself the trouble and cost of going through with the offering.
NOTE: Any materials you use for “testing the waters” must be submitted to the SEC, if the offering proceeds.
Where can Regulation A securities be traded?
Theoretically, Regulation A securities could be registered with the SEC under the Exchange Act and traded on a national market. But I’m sure that’s not what the listener meant. Without being registered under the Exchange Act, a Regulation A security may be traded on the over-the-counter market, sponsored by a broker-dealer.
This sounds expensive! Can you give us an estimate?
Borrower-dependent notes secured by real estate are the backbone of today’s Crowdfunding industry. Here’s a diagramshowing one possible structure. There are others, but I like this best in most situations.
Caveat #1: A diagram can’t address these critical issues:
Broker-dealer registration
The terms of the Notes and the Indenture
The terms of the Trust
The assignment of collateral
State lending laws
Caveat #2: This structure doesn’t work for Title III or Title IV. More on that later.
Very few retail investors have the skill to pick a great deal from a mediocre deal. I know I don’t, and I’ve been representing real estate developers and entrepreneurs my whole career.
Taking a cue from the public stock market, one way to address the retail market is to create the equivalent of a mutual fund for Crowdfunding investments. You would create a limited liability company to act as the fund, raise money from investors using Crowdfunding, and the manager would select investments from Crowdfunding portals.
Great idea conceptually, but it doesn’t work legally:
The LLC would, by definition, be an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940. As such, you would be prohibited from using Title III or Title IV to raise money for the fund.
You could use Title II to raise money for the fund, but as an investment company the fund would be subject to extremely onerous and costly regulation, e., the same regulation that applies to mutual funds. To avoid the regulation, you would have to limit the fund to either (1) no more than 100 accredited investors, or (2) only investors with at least $5 million of investments. In either case, you defeat the purpose.
But there is another way! A licensed investment adviser could offer investment advice with respect to investments in Crowdfunding projects and, for that matter, make the investments on behalf of his or her retail customers, charging an annual fee based on the amount invested. The adviser would allow each retail investor to effectively create his or her own “mutual fund” of projects based on individual preferences.
Not only would the investment adviser make money, the availability of unbiased advice would draw retail investors into the space – a win for the industry.
