Nobody, in our opinion, should invest in seed-stage companies that raise capital under Regulation A+. This new securities exemption, based on Title IV of the JOBS Act of 2012, is structured primarily for growth- and later-stage companies. Prominent securities lawyers agree with us on this, but I’m going to present a dissenting opinion below. As the Reg A+ exemption is so new, we just don’t know for certain how the market will react and adjust to it.
Title IV, launched in June 2015, allows securities offerings up to $50 million by private companies, to tens of millions of non-accredited angel investors. Issuers can list their offerings on crowdfunding platforms, or via old-style brokers, or both. Some of the platforms that currently host Title IV offerings include W.R. Hambrecht, SeedInvest, and Wefunder.
Title IV, colloquially referred to as Regulation A+ because it blasts Regulation A wide open, went into effect Friday (June 19, 2015). Before this new regulation, Regulation A offerings were capped at $5 million.
A number of companies that have been planning their Reg A+ offerings have hired CrowdCheck, a Virginia-based compliance and due diligence firm, to help them meet the requirements of Title IV and other relevant securities regulations. According to Sara Hanks, CEO of CrowdCheck, those companies include some that she considers seed-stage startups. Certainly they are entitled to attempt to raise capital under Reg A+, but investors should question the wisdom of their decision to do so. Sam Guzik, a Los Angeles-based securities lawyer and past president of the Crowdfunding Professional Association , said on April 7, 2015: “I do not recommend Reg A+ for startups.” Here’s why:
There will be plenty of growth- and later-stage companies raising money under Reg A+ that you can consider investing in. But seed-stage is too early for Reg A+, and you should ask founders of seed-stage companies why they chose an expensive and perhaps culture-shifting way to raise capital—and how they plan to grow, in terms of revenue and market share, fast enough to justify the expense and disruption of a Reg A+ raise.
CrowdCheck’s Hanks, who is also a securities lawyer, disagrees with our perception of Reg A+ as too expensive and culturally disruptive for seed-stage startups. “I think Tier 2 of Regulation A is a viable option for startups,” she comments. “The initial compliance costs for a $5 million offering need not amount to more than 1 percent of the overall raise. Providing a company is willing to comply with the ongoing disclosure requirements, I don’t think startups should automatically reject Reg A as a capital-raising option.” CrowdCheck’s comprehensive disclosure and compliance review for a Reg A+ raise would cost a startup about $40,000. And a CPA who knows the crowdfunding scene would charge as little as a few thousand bucks for an audit. “Even on a $1 million raise, this is not insane,” Hanks says.
For the sake of the entrepreneurial community and non-accredited investors who have not had access to angel capital deals, I actually hope Hanks is right. Until we have some anecdotal evidence, at least, of the effectiveness of Reg A+ for seed-stage companies, we advise caution for inexperienced angel investors and novice entrepreneurs alike.
David M. Freedman has worked as a financial and legal journalist since 1978. He has served on the editorial staffs of business, trade and professional journals, most recently as senior editor of The Value Examiner (National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts). He is coauthor of Equity Crowdfunding for Investors, published in June 2015 by…
Beyond the Fringe: The Evolution of Mainstream Alternative Investments
Exploring Risk-Reward Tradeoffs in Venture Capital Investment Opportunities
Swimming in the “Shark Tank”: Is Reality TV Investing the Real Deal?
Leonardo DiCaprio Investments Stay Afloat in Spite of Choppy Waters
Gold Investments Remain a Stable Choice Despite Economic Uncertainty
Laws of Attraction: Can Conservative Value Investors Love Venture Capital too?