Tag: Investors

Carriages, Cars, And Policeman – By Scott Picken, Senior Managing Partner of Wealth Migrate

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Investing, JOBS Act, Real Estate, UncategorizedLeave a comment

WM ScottBy: Scott Picken, Founder & Senior Managing Partner of Wealth Migrate.

I’m Scott Picken, the founder and Senior Managing Partner of Wealth Migrate. Our investment committee has collectively 227 years of experience in international real estate. We have facilitated 10,779 investments to a value of over $1.3 billion and invested on five continents. We’re passionate about Crowdfunding as an enabler of our current business, helping to make everything more efficient, accessible, and transparent.

When I spoke at the Coastal Shows event in New York City at the end of June, many of those speaking and attending seemed to believe that Crowdfunding was invented in America in 2012. Far from it! In Australia and elsewhere around the globe, companies have been Crowdfunding for years. At this moment I’m returning from a Crowdfunding conference in Singapore, which was conservatively speaking 10 times the size of the New York City event.

Why invest globally? Because real estate markets do not all move in synch. When the U.S. market was plummeting in 2007-8, the Australian market was doing quite well, actually growing on average by 8.6% in 2009. And if anyone hasn’t noticed, the U.S. dollar has lost about 72% of its value against other major currencies over the last 10 years. No one market, not even the U.S., can protect itself against that kind of loss.

It is just like in nature. When winter comes in the Northern hemisphere the birds fly south and when summer returns they fly north. Migration is a law of nature, and yet we humans remain firmly planted in one place, winter and summer. It is why we called our company Wealth Migrate, as in the 21st century it is about finding the safest and best returns, globally.

Robert Kiyosaki, the author of Conspiracy of the Rich and Jim Rogers in Street Smarts, both teach that the easiest way to get rich is to follow long-term trends. If the globalization of the international economy is not a long-term trend, then I don’t know a long-term trend.

Actually, globalization is not enough – just try selling American cheeseburgers in China. At Wealth Migrate we believe in glocalization, which means thinking globally and acting locally. McDonald’s modifies its menu to fit local tastes and we find best-of-breed partners on the ground in local markets and then partner with them. A bird in a flock can fly 70% further than a bird flying on its own.

Read my book, Property Going Global. It’s all about successful investing in foreign markets.

When I read Ben Miller’s post about the problems he faced with his first Crowdfunding offering, I knew exactly what he was talking about. You can’t imagine how many accountants and lawyers told us “No!” when we started to look at the U.S. investor market and the opportunities in the US. With everyone using the Internet for everything, with Twitter literally driving the Arab Spring, the investment world needed to change from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles and these “experts” were like policemen not giving us a license to drive a car. It just about drove me crazy but fortunately not so crazy that I gave up.

In 1998 I wrote a dissertation about the real estate market and the coming IT revolution. My synopsis said “taking an old industry, steeped in tradition and run by many smaller, disparate and often inefficient operators, and redefining it through the use of web technology to increase global reach, partnerships and efficiencies of scale, so as to provide a ‘one stop’ enhanced and personalized service to our clients.” I didn’t realize then that I was talking about Crowdfunding, the real estate finance market, and Wealth Migrate, but that sums up our business model pretty well.

Look, almost 50% of the world’s wealth is held in real estate yet only a small fraction of the world’s population (12.9%) owns real estate, much less has access to great deals. I am a firm believer in the business philosophy of Zig Ziglar that “You can have anything you want in life if you help enough other people get what they want.” The Afrikaans say “Ver van jou goed, na aan jou skade,” which loosely translated means “Keep your assets close to home, if you don’t want to lose them.” But in the 21st century that is no longer true. To give millions of individuals what they want, we need to look beyond our own homes, even beyond our own national borders, and ultimately help create global wealth for all.

In my opinion it’s a great time for cars, not a great time for carriages or outdated policemen, but the cars do need to be driven safely. It is all about trust, transparency and most importantly everyone’s interests being aligned. You are no longer bound to a country, a currency, an economy or even an asset class. I believe it is less about where you live and more important about where you wealth lives.

 

Title III And The Evolution Of Business Law

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurs, JOBS Act, SECLeave a comment

I’m not optimistic about Title III for the usual reason:  I think the cost of complying with the statute will prove too high. I’ve even proposed my own fix to the statute. But there are plenty of smart people who think otherwise, including Ron Miller of StartEngine, and ultimately opinions don’t matter. The market will decide whether Title III can work in its current form.

The SEC proposed regulations last October 23rd and the comment period ended long ago. Rather than wait for the statute to improve, I’m ready for the SEC to consider the comments, make changes to the proposed rules as it sees fit, finalize the regulations, and let the market do its job.

Whatever the defects of current Title III, and there are many, chances are they will be fixed over time. Time after time, almost from the beginning of time, the legal system has responded to the needs of the business community. Examples:

  • Hundreds of years ago, governments created corporations in direct response to the need of traders and investors to limit liability on foreign adventures.
  • With the advent of income taxes in the 20th century, business people had to choose between the limited liability of a corporation and the pass-thru tax treatment of a general partnership. But not for long. Soon legislatures created limited partnerships and S corporations, providing the best of both worlds.
  • When defects were discovered in limited partnerships and S corporation – for example, the risk that limited partners could face unlimited liability – legislators fixed them and fixed them until, lo and behold, Wyoming created an even better entity, the limited liability company we all know and use today (which, in turn, has already been improved).
  • Private placements have always been legal, regulated by the SEC through no-action letters and other guidance. But the private placement market needed clear rules. Hence, Regulation D in 1982. And now Title II of the JOBS Act has improved Regulation D by adding Rule 506(c).
  • Since I have been practicing law (less than a century) the corporate laws of most jurisdictions, including Delaware, have improved dramatically, as state legislatures respond to the needs of businesses large and small.

There are two things you never want to see being made:  sausage and law. But over time, commercial laws do change, usually for the better. If Wyoming can invent limited liability companies, surely we and our Federal government can improve Title III as the need becomes apparent.

So with malice toward none, with charity toward all, let’s stop debating whether Title III can work and let the market figure it out.

Questions? Let me know.

A Constructive Approach To Accredited Investor Definition

On By crowdfundattnyIn Accredited Investor, Crowdfunding, Dodd-Frank Act, JOBS Act, SECLeave a comment

crowdfunding_investorSection 413(b) of Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Act allows the SEC to evaluate the current definition of “accredited investor,” which has been in place since 1982, and to revisit the issue at four year intervals. As the SEC deliberates, alarm bells are sounding in the industry, warning that a new definition could destroy not only the nascent Crowdfunding industry but the entire ecosystem around private capital formation.

Though well-intended, these warnings are misguided, in my opinion.

If the SEC indexed the existing definition to the CPI over the last 32 years, leading to an income threshold of about $500,000 and a net worth threshold of about $2.5 million, the effect would indeed be devastating, with only star athletes and Google employees allowed to invest. However, I see no reason to believe the SEC has anything like that in mind, for several reasons:

  • The SEC could have changed the definition on its own initiative at any time over the last 32 years but hasn’t.
  • Not only has the SEC not changed the definition, it has never expressed any particular concern with Rule 506, where most private placements take place.
  • Most important, the Dodd-Frank Act instructs the SEC to modify the definition “as the Commission may deem appropriate for the protection of investors, in the public interest, and in light of the economy.” In my own extensive but necessarily anecdotal experience, I have seen no evidence that the current income or net worth requirements fail to protect investors or, for that matter, that they are particularly relevant to protecting invesors. In the absence of widespread problems, there is simply no reason to make the definition more stringent than it is today and, given the Congressional mandate to keep one eye on the economy – that is, on the economic benefits of making capital available – there are probably stronger reasons to relax the current definition.

According to the Chairman of the SEC, Mary Jo White, the SEC is considering a more nuanced definition of accredited investor, one that takes into account not just income and net worth but also financial sophistication. That sounds right to me.

For now, the best way to help the SEC adopt a sensible definition of accredited investor is to provide real data. If you have reliable information about the incidence of fraud in private placements, for example, or about the correlation (or lack thereof) between financial sophistication and annual income, the SEC would love to see it. Feel free to send it to me and I will forward it.

In the meantime, don’t worry. . . .too much.

Questions? Let me know.

Investor Verification: Questions & Answers from The SEC

On By crowdfundattnyIn Investor, Investor Verification, Rule 501(a)(5), SEC, Securities Exchange CommissionLeave a comment

The SEC recently issued four questions and answers dealing with investor verification.

Question #1

If a purchaser’s annual income is not reported in U.S. dollars, what exchange rate should an issuer use to determine whether the purchaser’s income meets the income test for qualifying as an accredited investor?

Answer: The issuer may use either the exchange rate that is in effect on the last day of the year for which income is being determined or the average exchange rate for that year.

Question #2

Can assets in an account or property held jointly with another person who is not the purchaser’s spouse be included in determining whether the purchaser satisfies the net worth test in Rule 501(a)(5)?

Answer: Yes, assets in an account or property held jointly with a person who is not the purchaser’s spouse may be included in the calculation for the net worth test, but only to the extent of his or her percentage ownership of the account or property. [July 3, 2014]

Question #3

Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A) sets forth a non-exclusive method of verifying that a purchaser is an accredited investor by, among other things, reviewing any Internal Revenue Service form that reports the purchaser’s income for the “two most recent years.” If such an Internal Revenue Service form is not yet available for the recently completed year (e.g., 2013), can the issuer still rely on this verification method by reviewing the Internal Revenue Service forms for the two prior years that are available (e.g., 2012 and 2011)?

Answer: No, the verification safe harbor provided in Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A) would not be available under these circumstances. We believe, however, that an issuer could reasonably conclude that a purchaser is an accredited investor and satisfy the verification requirement of Rule 506(c) under the principles-based verification method by:

  • Reviewing the Internal Revenue Service forms that report income for the two years preceding the recently completed year; and
  • Obtaining written representations from the purchaser that (i) an Internal Revenue Service form that reports the purchaser’s income for the recently completed year is not available, (ii) specify the amount of income the purchaser received for the recently completed year and that such amount reached the level needed to qualify as an accredited investor, and (iii) the purchaser has a reasonable expectation of reaching the requisite income level for the current year.

Where the issuer has reason to question the purchaser’s claim to be an accredited investor after reviewing these documents, it must take additional verification measures in order to establish that it has taken reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser is an accredited investor. For example, if, based on this review, the purchaser’s income for the most recently completed year barely exceeded the threshold required, the foregoing procedures might not constitute sufficient verification and more diligence might be necessary.

Question #4

A purchaser is not a U.S. taxpayer and therefore cannot provide an Internal Revenue Service form that reports income. Can an issuer review comparable tax forms from a foreign jurisdiction in order to rely on the verification method provided in Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A)?

Answer: No, the verification safe harbor provided in Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A) would not be available under these circumstances. In adopting this safe harbor, the Commission noted that there are “numerous penalties for falsely reporting information” in Internal Revenue Service forms. See Securities Act Release No. 33-9415 (July 10, 2013). Although the safe harbor is not available for tax forms from foreign jurisdictions, we believe that an issuer could reasonably conclude that a purchaser is an accredited investor and satisfy the verification requirement of Rule 506(c) under the principles-based verification method by reviewing filed tax forms that report income where the foreign jurisdiction imposes comparable penalties for falsely reported information.

Where the issuer has reason to question the reliability of the information about the purchaser’s income after reviewing these documents, it must take additional verification measures in order to establish that it has taken reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser is an accredited investor.

The Takeaway

The lesson is that issuers and portals should not try to verify investors on their own. Leave that to a third party service like Crowdentials or VerifyInvestor – they keep track of these rules so you won’t have to.

Questions? Let me know.

Our Experience With Regulation A – by Ben Miller, Co-Founder of FundRise

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Portals, Crowdfunding Real Estate, Guest Blog, JOBS Act, Regulation ALeave a comment

To improve the user experience, I am inviting guest bloggers. The first is Ben Miller, a Co-Founder of Fundrise, who explains how he and his brother Dan invented Crowdfunding through Regulation A.

Please let me know if you would like to post. I’m looking for content like Ben’s – interesting, informative, educational.

-MARK RODERICK

____________________________________________________________________________________

By: Ben Miller, Co-Founder of Fundrise.

My brother Dan and I were in the real estate business for a long time, developing commercial and residential projects in the Washington, D.C. area, before we thought about crowdfunding. We got some of our capital from the same place many real estate developers get their capital: from investment funds in New York or even outside of the country.

Most of them had little connection to the places we were building and often had never even heard of the neighborhood. On the other hand, our friends and neighbors, people with real connection to the projects, couldn’t invest with us.

fundriseWe started to imagine a world where everyone could invest in high-quality real estate deals, which were then limited to professional investors. We thought about ordinary people investing in their own communities, creating a win-win for the community and business owners. Like every other developer, we’ve had our share of battles with local zoning agencies. We imagined how that process might change if actual investors from the community showed up at council meetings to support the project.

This was before crowdfunding or the JOBS Act were on the table, and every lawyer we spoke to (and we spoke to plenty) told us that our idea was impossible.

Finally we discovered SEC Regulation A. Although Regulation A had been around since 1936, before we came along it had been used very rarely, which probably explains why the lawyers hadn’t heard about it. In all of 2012 fewer than a dozen companies had used Regulation A to raise capital across the whole country, as compared to more than 7,000 Regulation D offerings.

We soon found out why. Although Regulation A allows you to raise money from anybody, including from non-accredited investors, first you have to file a disclosure document with the SEC and with the state securities regulators in any state where you offer the security, and get the regulators to approve your offering. Regulation A is nothing like the new Crowdfunding under SEC Rule 506(c), which is simple and streamlined by comparison.

Once we figured out how to file the disclosure document, which is really like a mini registration statement, we learned that neither the SEC nor the state regulators had ever seen a real estate development project offered under Regulation A. We spent hundreds of hours and way too much in legal fees working through all of the issues. We were literally doing something that had never been done in the history of the U.S. capital markets, and at the same time paving the way for everyone else.

After lots of work, lots of frustration, and lots of conversations with regulators, we succeeded. Our Regulation A filing was approved and we raised $325,000 for the project. I won’t even tell you how much it cost to raise that $325,000, but we were okay with it because we saw the experience then, and still do, as an investment in our future.

We have completed three Regulation A offerings since then. Each time we’ve gotten better and faster, not to mention that the regulators have learned along with us.

Here’s what it took to complete our most recent Regulation A offering:

reg a breakdown

Our most recent filing:

fedex

Fundrise has branched out since those early days. As the leading real estate portal in the world we offer not only Regulation A projects but Rule 506(c) investments under the JOBS Act. And we’re very excited about the new Regulation A+. Regulation A+ improves on Regulation A by allowing us to raise up to $50 million of equity from non-accredited investors (subject to a limitation on how much each person can invest) and further streamline the process by filing only with the SEC, and not with state securities regulators. Fundrise has always been a pioneer, and we expect to pioneer the possibilities of Regulation A+ as well as soon as it becomes available.

Whatever the future holds for Fundrise, and we believe our future is unlimited, we’ll always remember that Regulation A allowed us to open the door into the world of crowdfunding and give unaccredited investors the chance to invest in real estate for the first time in history.

Follow @BenMillerise and @Fundrise on Twitter.

 

Austin Roundup

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Real Estate, Crowdfunding Speaking Engagements, JOBS Act, Speaking Engagements, Title II, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III Crowdfunding, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Austin cityscapeHats off to the folks at Coastal Shows for making the Austin event – officially the CFGE Crowdfund Real Estate Summit – the best Crowdfunding event ever.

The event featured the leading players in the industry:

Title III of the JOBS Act may be flawed, and the final rules for Regulation A+ may be long overdue, but the speakers and panelists agree that Crowdfunding is here to stay, with Title II leading the way. Two days before the conference began, Fundrise raised $31 million of capital in a Series A round of financing. That served as a very useful background, illuminating the potential of a market that promises to transform the U.S. capital formation industry.

Over coffee during the day and beer in the evening, I spoke with dozens of real estate developers and entrepreneurs. Their message came through loud and clear: We’re tired of dealing exclusively with our traditional sources of capital and are eager to raise money through Crowdfunding channels.

Developers are eager for new sources of capital, and individual investors are eager to participate in a market that, until now, has been reserved for institutions and the very wealthy. That’s Crowdfunding, in a nutshell.

What happens in Vegas might stay in Vegas, but what happened in Austin is going to spread across the country. Thanks for a great event, Coastal Shows.

Marc Andreessen On The Future Of Title II Crowdfunding Portals (Sort Of)

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Articles, Crowdfunding Portals, New York Times, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

On the Technology page of yesterday’s New York Times, Nick Bilton reports on an interview with famed tech guru Marc Andreessen.

Mr. Bilton asks Mr. Andreesen, can other cities compete with Silicon Valley?

“In Mr. Andreessen’s view, there shouldn’t be 50 Silicon Valleys. Instead, there should be 50 different kinds of Silicon Valley. For example, there could be Biotech Valley, a Stem Cell Valley, a   3-D Printing Valley or a Drone Valley.”

A different “Valley,” each specializing in a different vertical, with its own ecosystem of entrepreneurs, favorite tweetinvestors, and experts. I believe Title II Crowdfunding portals, now in their infancy, will develop in exactly the same way.

Carve out a niche vertical. Attract investors looking to place bets on the top companies in that vertical. Find the companies. Create the ecosystem.

Mr. Andreessen was talking about real cities, not virtual cities. But in my opinion the point is exactly the same.

 

Crowdfunding And The Life Sciences: An Evening With The Experts

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Speaking Engagements, Entrepreneurs, Investing, Investor, JOBS Act, Life Sciences, Portals, Technology PlatformsLeave a comment

Last night I had the honor of moderating an all-star panel hosted by Pharmaceutical Consulting Consortium International (PCCI) in Philadelphia, focused on Crowdfunding in the life science space.

Our panelists:

  • Don Skerrett, the President of PCCI and a serial entrepreneur, who spoke from the perspective of an early-stage life science CEO
  • Barbara Schilberg, an experienced life science investor, the CEO of BioAdvance, a leading life science fund that has invested in almost 60 companies – leading to $1.7 billion of additional financing – and a senior executive in four active life science businesses
  • Darrick Mix, a shareholder at Duane Morris and an expert in Federal and State securities laws
  • Samuel Wertheimer, the Chief Investment Officer at Poliwogg, a Title II portal devoted to the health care industry and one of the most exciting and innovative portals of any kind in the world

Among the issues discussed:

  • The advantages and disadvantages of Crowdfunding from the perspective of a life science company
  • The nuts-and-bolts mechanics of Crowdfunding
  • The role of portals
  • The due diligence process for life science companies
  • The legal liability of life science companies and portals
  • The effect of Crowdfunding on the life science market specifically and the capital formation industry generally

The panel agreed that while Crowdfunding in the real estate market is very active, with more than 100 real estate portals already in operation, Crowdfunding in the life science market is at a very early stage. How the market will develop, how much capital it will provide to life science companies, how existing capital sources like BioAdvance will coordinate with new capital sources like Poliwogg, whether the life science market will divide into sectors as the real estate market is doing – these questions are all unanswered. But the panel also agreed that Crowdfunding holds great opportunities for the life science sector even if the details have yet to be worked out.

Thanks to those who attended, to PCCI for making the event possible, and especially to our excellent panelists for making the event so informative and worthwhile.

Questions? Let me know.

SEC Rules 506(B) And 506(C): Clearing Up The Confusion

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Portals, Rule 506, Rule 506(b), Rule 506(c), SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Securities LawsLeave a comment

Some Crowdfunding portals offer Rules 506(b) transactions in addition to, and sometimes even in lieu crowd funding word cloudof, Rule 506(c) transactions. Let’s clear up the confusion.

In the beginning. . . .

Long before the JOBS Act, section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 provided that an issuer of securities did not have to go through the time and expense of a registered public offering in a transaction “not involving any public offering.” Recognizing the putting-the-rabbit-in-the-hat nature of that language and wishing to provide more clarity to the public, the SEC issued Regulation D in 1982, which provides a series of Rules guiding issuers through the shoals of private – as opposed to public – offerings.

One of the Rules in Regulation D, Rule 506(b), describes a kind of private offering that has been the favorite of issuers and their lawyers for many years:

  • An unlimited amount of money raised
  • An unlimited number of accredited investors plus 35 non-accredited investors
  • Exemption from state Blue Sky registration

Rule 506(b) provides great flexibility to issuers. However, consistent with the distinction inherent in Regulation D between private and public offerings, Rule 506(b) prohibited the use of “general solicitation and advertising” to find investors. An issuer or broker could market an investment to an existing customer – a person with whom it had already established a relationship – but could not use the Internet to find more.

2013 No-Action Letters

In the beginning of 2013, the SEC issued no-action letters to FundersClub and AngelList under Rule 506(b). These no-action letter provided that if an online portal merely “registered” a user with a name and email address, the portal could immediately show investments to the user. To many familiar with the history of Rule 506(b) that sounded a lot like general solicitation and advertising, but the SEC concluded that it was not.

With the two no-action letters, the SEC effectively launched the Crowdfunding industry even before the JOBS Act officially came into effect.

The JOBS Act

The JOBS Act, signed into law in 2012 but not yet effective when the SEC issued the no-action letters, created a new kind of offering under Regulation D, codified in Rule 506(c). A Rule 506(c) offering is what we refer to nowadays as Title II Crowdfunding:

  • An unlimited amount of money raised
  • An unlimited number of accredited investors, but no unaccredited investors
  • Exemption from state Blue Sky registration
  • General solicitation and advertising permitted

If Rule 506(c) sounds a lot like Rule 506(b), that’s because it is. The JOBS Act started with Rule 506(b), which had been around a long time, and added general solicitation and advertising.

Why Both?

Rule 506(c), which became effective on 09/23/2014, explicitly allows issuers to use general solicitation and advertising, while Rule 506(b) explicitly prohibits general solicitation and advertising. Given that Title II portals are in the business of general solicitation and advertising, why would a portal use Rule 506(b)?

There are a few reasons.

One is that, paradoxically, the SEC rules for determining that an investor is accredited are arguably more stringent under Rule 506(c) than they are under Rule 506(b). Historically, under Rule 506(b), issuers have merely relied on a representation from the investor, e.g., “I promise I am accredited.” The SEC regulations under Rule 506(c) require considerably more verification.

Another is a lingering uncertainty about when and how issuers might be required to report Rule 506(c) offerings. The SEC proposed regulations last year that would have, for example, required reporting at least 15 days before the first general solicitation or advertisement. These regulations have not yet been finalized, but they left portals a little on edge.

More broadly, with the two no-action letters in hand, portals may feel they have a clear road map to legal Rule 506(b) offerings, while they remain hesitant about Rule 506(c) pending more advice from the SEC. My own view is that portals are probably more comfortable with the no-action letters than they should be, but that is a story for another day.

The Future

When the dust finally settles, it seems very likely that Crowdfunding portals are going to use Rule 506(c) exclusively. Until then we will have a mix and maybe just a little confusion.

Questions? Let me know.

A Downpour Of #CrowdfundingRealEstate Advice And Ideas

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Real Estate, Entrepreneurs, Harvard Business School Club of New York, Investing, JOBS Act, Real Estate, SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Thank you to the panelists and audience members who braved a biblical downpour to attend the SOLD OUT Harvard Business School Club Innovations in Real Estate: Crowdfund Investing program last night at the UJA Federation of NY Conference Center. Former New York Governor David Paterson kicked off the evening with his typical wit and insight before our panel of Crowdfunding industry experts shared their experiences and knowledge with an extremely engaged and thoughtful audience.

Our panelists:

  • Jason Fritton of Patch of Land and William Skelley of iFunding, two of the earliest Crowdfunding innovators and most successful Title II portals
  • Elvin Ames of Golden Eye Investments and Erin Wicomb of Mavrix Group, two experienced and successful real estate developers who have recently turned to Crowdfunding to raise capital
  • Scott Lichtman, a real estate investor who has himself invested in Crowdfunded deals and did a super job putting the conference together

Thus, all sides the Crowdfunding triangle were represented: portals, developers, and investors. And Jason, William, Elvin, Erin, and Scott – not to mention Governor Paterson – acquitted themselves with flying colors, demonstrated why they have been so successful generally and specifically why they have been leaders in Crowdfunding.

Some of the issues discussed:

  • The build-out of the Title II portal market, and how it is likely to segment into verticals
  • How portals successfully distinguish themselves
  • What investors look for in a portal and a project sponsor
  • The legal basis for Crowdfunding, and its significance in the marketplace
  • Why Crowdfunding is attractive to developers
  • How portals can participate in community development and “do well by doing good”
  • How portals market and price their services
  • How developers distinguish their projects
  • What due diligence means in a Crowdfunded environment

Judging by the number and quality of questions from the audience following the presentation, there are likely a few dozen more Crowdfunding entrepreneurs this morning than there were yesterday. Including one statistician, who asked about the standard deviation of Crowdfunding investments.

Thanks again to everyone. I hope to stay in touch with all of you. Questions? Let me know.