- Home
- Q&A
-
What is CfPA's stance on simplifying Reg CF investment limits and advertising rules to reduce confusion and improve accessibility for issuers and investors? What is CfPA's stance on simplifying Reg CF investment limits and advertising rules to reduce confusion and improve accessibility for issuers and investors?
Thank you for the great question! This topic aligns closely with CfPA's policy platform, and here is our perspective on the matter.
Simplification of Rules
We support streamlining overly complicated requirements such as the per investor annual investment limit, which could mirror the simpler r... more
- Unclassified
-
What is CfPA's position on improving the process for Reg CF investors to transfer shares to brokerage accounts after an IPO? What is CfPA's position on improving the process for Reg CF investors to transfer shares to brokerage accounts after an IPO?
Great question! This relates to CfPA's policy platform. Here is our position on the topic.
When a Reg CF Issuer Goes Public
Investors that have invested in an issuer via Reg CF have difficulty getting their securities into a brokerage account when the issuer conducts an IPO. This sometimes results i... more
- Unclassified
-
What is CfPA's stance on standardizing the term 'Regulated Investment Crowdfunding' to reduce confusion and enhance industry integrity? What is CfPA's stance on standardizing the term 'Regulated Investment Crowdfunding' to reduce confusion and enhance industry integrity?
Great question! This relates to CfPA's policy platform. Here is our view on the topic.
Consistency of Terminology
The term “equity crowdfunding” is used frequently by industry participants. This term is misleading because it implies that what investors are getting is an equity investment which is of... more
- Unclassified
-
What is CfPA's view on increasing FINRA's transparency and consistency in portal regulation What is CfPA's view on increasing FINRA's transparency and consistency in portal regulation
Consistency and Transparency in Oversight of Portals
a. Consistent regulatory compliance is necessary to ensure the viability of the industry. All portals should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and enforcement. Rule violations should be addressed quickly to maintain the public’s confidence ... more- Unclassified
-
What is CfPA's view on easing Reg CF financial reporting for early-stage businesses? What is CfPA's view on easing Reg CF financial reporting for early-stage businesses?
Great question! This relates to CfPA's policy platform. Here is our view on the topic.
Reform of Requirements for Financial Reporting
The requirement to provide an independent review or audit is nonsensical for a business with no operating history – we support tailoring the financial reporting requi... more
- Unclassified
-
What is CfPA's stance on creating a new regulatory tier under Reg CF to simplify requirements for small raises up to $350,000? What is CfPA's stance on creating a new regulatory tier under Reg CF to simplify requirements for small raises up to $350,000?
Great question! This relates to CfPA's policy platform. Here is our position on the topic.
Exemptive Relief for Small Offerings
Reg CF should be an accessible and useful tool for diverse businesses from small mom-and-pop shops to high-growth tech companies. The current rules make it financially infe... more
- Unclassified
-
What is difference in cost between a Reg A offering and an S-1 IPO?
The costs associated with a Regulation A (Reg A) offering are generally lower than those for a traditional S-1 filing (also known as an Initial Public Offering, or IPO). However, the S-1 process has its own set of advantages, such as access to a broader pool of institutional investors and the abilit... more
The costs associated with a Regulation A (Reg A) offering are generally lower than those for a traditional S-1 filing (also known as an Initial Public Offering, or IPO). However, the S-1 process has its own set of advantages, such as access to a broader pool of institutional investors and the ability to list on a national exchange. Here's a breakdown of the cost comparison between a Reg A offering and an S-1 IPO:
1. Filing and Regulatory Fees
Reg A (Form 1-A) Filing Fees:
The filing fee for Form 1-A (Reg A) is calculated based on the amount of securities being offered. The SEC charges a fee of $118.20 per $1 million in securities offered.
Example: For a $75 million Reg A offering, the filing fee would be about $8,865.S-1 (IPO) Filing Fees:
The filing fee for an S-1 registration statement is based on the offering amount as well. The SEC charges $129 per $1 million of securities offered.
Example: For a $75 million S-1 offering, the filing fee would be about $9,675.
Comparison: The filing fees for Reg A and S-1 are relatively close, but an S-1 filing can be marginally more expensive. The real cost difference comes from other areas, such as the legal and underwriting fees.
2. Legal and Accounting Fees
Reg A Legal and Accounting Fees:
For Reg A offerings, legal and accounting fees tend to be lower than those for an IPO because the process is less complex. The company is not subject to the same level of regulatory scrutiny, and the disclosure requirements are less stringent.
Typical range: $50,000 to $250,000 (for a Tier 2 offering, which is more common for larger deals).S-1 Legal and Accounting Fees:
The legal and accounting fees for an S-1 IPO are significantly higher because of the more intensive SEC review process, greater disclosure requirements, and the need to meet the listing standards of a national exchange (e.g., NYSE, NASDAQ).
Typical range: $500,000 to $2 million (or more), depending on the complexity of the offering and the size of the company.
Comparison: Legal and accounting fees are significantly higher for an S-1 IPO, largely due to the additional regulatory requirements, extensive due diligence, and ongoing compliance obligations post-offering.3. Underwriting Fees
Reg A Underwriting Fees:
In a Reg A offering, underwriting fees generally range from 5% to 7% of the total amount raised, though this can vary based on the type of offering and the underwriters’ relationship with the company.
Example: For a $75 million offering, underwriting fees could range from $3.75 million to $5.25 million.
S-1 Underwriting Fees (IPO):Underwriting fees for an S-1 IPO tend to be higher than those for a Reg A offering. They typically range from 6% to 7%, but the size and complexity of the deal could push these fees higher.
Example: For a $75 million offering, underwriting fees could range from $4.5 million to $5.25 million.
Comparison: Underwriting fees are generally similar between Reg A and S-1, but for larger IPOs, underwriting fees could be slightly higher due to the greater number of institutional investors and a more complex underwriting process.
4. Marketing and Investor Relations Costs
Reg A Marketing Costs:
Reg A offerings often require significant marketing efforts, particularly if the company is using an online platform. Marketing costs typically range from $100,000 to $500,000 depending on the scale of the offering and the target investor base.
Reg A offerings can be marketed to both accredited and non-accredited investors, meaning a more extensive retail investor outreach may be necessary.
S-1 Marketing Costs (IPO):
IPO marketing costs can be significantly higher due to roadshows, institutional investor targeting, and broader media outreach. Marketing costs for an IPO can range from $500,000 to several million dollars.
Unlike Reg A, IPO marketing is targeted primarily at institutional investors, and the company typically needs to travel internationally to promote the offering.
Comparison: Marketing costs for an S-1 IPO tend to be much higher, especially due to the extensive roadshow and media campaign required to target institutional investors.
5. Ongoing Compliance and Reporting Costs
Reg A Ongoing Costs:
Tier 1: Less expensive compliance, as the company only needs to file with state securities regulators in addition to the SEC.
Tier 2: Requires more extensive ongoing reporting, including semi-annual and annual reports, as well as compliance with ongoing SEC regulations. These costs are typically lower than the ongoing costs for a public company with an S-1.
Typical range: $50,000 to $200,000 per year.
S-1 Ongoing Costs (IPO):
After an S-1 IPO, the company must comply with Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirements and file periodic reports (e.g., 10-Q, 10-K, 8-K), as well as proxy statements, and other disclosures required by the SEC. Additionally, there are the costs of being listed on a stock exchange.
Typical range: $500,000 to $2 million per year or more, depending on the size and complexity of the company.
Comparison: Ongoing compliance costs are significantly higher for a public company after an S-1 IPO, especially considering the more rigorous reporting requirements and additional governance requirements (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley).
6. Total Cost of Capital
Reg A Total Costs:
Total cost of capital for a Reg A offering typically ranges from 7% to 15% of the total funds raised, depending on the size of the offering, the complexity of the business, and the professional fees involved.
S-1 (IPO) Total Costs:
The total cost of capital for an IPO can be much higher, typically ranging from 10% to 20% of the total offering amount. This includes underwriting fees, legal and accounting fees, marketing costs, and other expenses.
Comparison: Reg A offerings are generally less expensive than an S-1 IPO, particularly in terms of legal, accounting, and compliance costs.
7. Key Differences Beyond Costs
Investor Base: Reg A allows for both accredited and non-accredited investors, meaning a broader retail investor base can participate, while an IPO typically focuses on institutional investors and accredited individuals.
Regulatory Requirements: IPOs involve more detailed SEC scrutiny and extensive due diligence, which increases the complexity and cost of the process.
Time to Market: Reg A offerings can often be completed more quickly (e.g., 3 to 6 months) compared to an IPO, which may take 6 months to over a year due to regulatory review, roadshows, and other steps.
Liquidity: An IPO provides liquidity by listing on a major exchange like the NYSE or NASDAQ, while Reg A can result in a listing on smaller exchanges or over-the-counter (OTC) markets, which may have less liquidity.
Conclusion
Reg A is more cost-effective than an S-1 IPO and is often used by companies looking for a faster, lower-cost alternative to going public, especially if they don't need to raise large sums of capital or are targeting a retail investor base.
S-1 IPOs are better suited for larger companies with significant capital needs, as they provide access to institutional investors and listing on major exchanges, but they come with a significantly higher cost and more regulatory scrutiny.
less -
What criteria has the SEC set for a self-regulatory organization (SRO) under Regulation Crowdfunding to oversee funding portals?
Under Regulation Crowdfunding, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established specific criteria that a self-regulatory organization (SRO) must meet to oversee funding portals. These criteria ensure that the SRO can effectively regulate the activities of funding portals to protect inves... more
Under Regulation Crowdfunding, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established specific criteria that a self-regulatory organization (SRO) must meet to oversee funding portals. These criteria ensure that the SRO can effectively regulate the activities of funding portals to protect investors and maintain market integrity. The key criteria include:
1. Registration with the SEC: An SRO must be registered with the SEC. This ensures that the SRO is recognized by the SEC and subject to its oversight.
2. Rulemaking Authority: The SRO must have the authority to create and enforce rules governing the conduct of funding portals. These rules should be designed to:
- Prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.
- Promote just and equitable principles of trade.
- Protect investors and the public interest.
- Facilitate capital formation.3. Compliance and Enforcement: The SRO must have the capacity to enforce compliance with its rules. This includes having procedures for monitoring the activities of funding portals, conducting investigations, and taking disciplinary actions when necessary.
4. Governance and Independence: The SRO must have a governance structure that ensures its independence from the funding portals it regulates. This includes having a board of directors or a similar governing body with a significant representation of non-industry members.
5. Transparency: The SRO must operate in a transparent manner. This includes making its rules, disciplinary actions, and other regulatory information publicly available.
6. Resources: The SRO must have adequate resources, including financial, technological, and human resources, to carry out its regulatory responsibilities effectively.
7. Conflict of Interest Policies: The SRO must have policies and procedures in place to manage conflicts of interest. This includes ensuring that the regulatory activities are not influenced by the business interests of the funding portals.
8. Record-Keeping: The SRO must maintain comprehensive records of its regulatory activities, including rulemaking, enforcement actions, and communications with funding portals and the SEC.
These criteria are designed to ensure that the SRO can provide effective oversight and maintain the integrity of the crowdfunding market, thereby protecting investors and facilitating capital formation through crowdfunding platforms.
less2 -
"Equity crowdfunding" is a misleading term because many deals don't actually offer equity. The leading industry association, the Crowdfunding Professional Association, recommends that people use the term "Regulated Investment Crowdfunding." Thoughts?
You bring up an important point about terminology in the crowdfunding industry. The term "equity crowdfunding" can indeed be misleading if it implies that all offerings provide equity stakes, when in fact, many do not. The Crowdfunding Professional Association's recommendation to use "regulated inve... more
You bring up an important point about terminology in the crowdfunding industry. The term "equity crowdfunding" can indeed be misleading if it implies that all offerings provide equity stakes, when in fact, many do not. The Crowdfunding Professional Association's recommendation to use "regulated investment crowdfunding" is a more accurate and inclusive term.
Here’s an expanded discussion on this topic:
Equity Crowdfunding vs. Regulated Investment Crowdfunding
Equity Crowdfunding
- Traditional Definition: In its original sense, equity crowdfunding refers to a method of raising capital where investors receive shares or equity in the company in exchange for their investment.
- Misleading Aspects: The term can be misleading because not all investment crowdfunding campaigns offer equity. Some might offer other types of securities, such as debt instruments, revenue shares, or convertible notes.Regulated Investment Crowdfunding
- Broader Definition: This term encompasses all types of crowdfunding that involve regulated securities offerings, not just equity.
- Types of Securities: This can include equity, debt, revenue shares, and other forms of investment contracts.
- Regulatory Frameworks: These offerings are typically conducted under specific regulatory frameworks, such as Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF), Regulation A+, and Regulation D in the United States, which provide different levels of oversight and investor protection.Benefits of Using "Regulated Investment Crowdfunding"
1. Clarity and Accuracy:
- The term "regulated investment crowdfunding" accurately reflects the range of financial instruments available and the regulatory environment governing these offerings.
- It helps avoid confusion for investors who might otherwise expect equity stakes in all crowdfunding opportunities.2. Investor Education and Protection:
- Using precise terminology is crucial for investor education. It ensures that potential investors understand the nature of the securities being offered and the associated risks and returns.
- It underscores the fact that these offerings are subject to regulatory scrutiny.3. Inclusiveness:
- The broader term encompasses a wider array of investment opportunities, making it more inclusive of different types of fundraising campaigns.
- It reflects the diversity in the crowdfunding space, acknowledging that companies might choose different financial instruments based on their specific needs and strategies.Examples of Regulated Investment Crowdfunding
1. Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF):
- Purpose: Allows smaller companies to raise up to $5 million per year from a large number of investors through an online platform.
- Securities Offered: Can include equity, debt, and other types of securities.2. Regulation A+:
- Purpose: Enables companies to raise up to $75 million per year from the public with fewer disclosure requirements than a full public offering.
- Securities Offered: Primarily equity, but can also include debt and other securities.3. Regulation D (Rule 506(c)):
- Purpose: Allows companies to raise an unlimited amount of money from accredited investors with general solicitation and advertising.
- Securities Offered: Can include equity, debt, and other types of investment contracts.Conclusion
The shift from using "equity crowdfunding" to "regulated investment crowdfunding" is a positive development that enhances clarity, accuracy, and inclusiveness in the crowdfunding industry. This terminology better reflects the variety of financial instruments available to investors and underscores the regulatory framework that governs these offerings. By adopting this term, industry stakeholders can help ensure that investors have a clear understanding of what they are investing in, ultimately fostering a more transparent and trustworthy investment environment.
less1 -
What do you think of Chat GPT's response to my query?
There is a federal exemption for Demo Days but it is useless because it doesn't preempt state law. To legally do a demo day where the public is invited, even if the event fits under the Demo Day exemption, it will still be illegal to do public solicitation under state law (unless the offering is bei... more
There is a federal exemption for Demo Days but it is useless because it doesn't preempt state law. To legally do a demo day where the public is invited, even if the event fits under the Demo Day exemption, it will still be illegal to do public solicitation under state law (unless the offering is being done under Reg CF or Rule 506(c) in which case there is federal preemption).
less