- Home
- Q&A
-
How do you view Reg A crowdfunding deals compared to traditional IPO deals?
The larger Reg A crowdfunding deals I've followed tend to be high-risk. The companies have gone to crowdfunding, in part, because they've likely struggled to convince VCs to invest. That they can go to the crowd to raise is great, but I fear investors are participating because of exceptional marketi... more
The larger Reg A crowdfunding deals I've followed tend to be high-risk. The companies have gone to crowdfunding, in part, because they've likely struggled to convince VCs to invest. That they can go to the crowd to raise is great, but I fear investors are participating because of exceptional marketing and storytelling rather than investment fundamentals.
I've seen and invested in some deals where existing customers who know the product are invited to invest. This is a positive trend that investors are hoping will increase with traditional IPOs (Reddit offered shares to customers, for example).
But the Reg A+ IPOs haven't caught on, and private companies pursuing the traditional IPO are waiting longer. Plenty of VC dollars out there for strong business models.
less0 -
How does CfPA propose addressing restrictions on portals raising funds on their own platforms? How does CfPA propose addressing restrictions on portals raising funds on their own platforms?
Thank you for a good question! This topic aligns closely with CfPA's policy platform, and here is our position on the matter.
Crowdfunding by Portals
We support allowing portals to raise funding on their own platforms as long as the relationship is fully disclosed and the number of raises is limited... more
- Unclassified
-
What measures does CfPA recommend to ensure issuers understand portal fees, privacy policies, and crowdfunding vehicles in Reg CF offerings? What measures does CfPA recommend to ensure issuers understand portal fees, privacy policies, and crowdfunding vehicles in Reg CF offerings?
Great question! This topic aligns closely with CfPA's policy platform, and here is our perspective on the matter.
Disclosures to Issuers
Issuers must receive clear and complete disclosures regarding portal fees, privacy policies, and the use of crowdfunding vehicles. Portals should be required to pr... more
- Unclassified
-
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