I really appreciate you weighing in on this, because I'm not familiar with finance law by any means. Can you give some context to this paragraph:
That kind of revenue sharing comes with some significant strings for the time being; only Accredited Investors with at least $1 million in net assets can join in, and they have to invest at least $1,000. But Fig plans to open the investment plan up to regular gamers in the next few months, pursuant to a 2012 law that lowered the regulatory burden for everyday people to get into such markets.
They seem to believe that they can make their model accessible to the general public. this is the 2012 law that was linked in the paragraph.
[+]bulksalty0 points1 point1 point
ago
(edited ago)
[–]bulksalty0 points
1 point
1 point
(+1|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
The only companies I'm familiar with that offer crowd source financing to non-accredited investors, Lending Club and Prosper, use a technicality (the investors all invest in the aggregating company directly and everyone just pretends to invest in the actual loan/project), the problem with that is that both investor and investee legally have only agreements with the parent company (leaving investors in a difficult position should the aggregating company fail--any other creditors could seize the investments since the investors are just unsecured creditors in the aggregating company).
The Jobs Act reduces the requirements, but it doesn't nearly remove them, and any project companies would still be almost certainly to be better off going public (the amount of money available on wall st is massive and the requirements are the same). Basically, unless there is substantial marketing value in crowd sourcing the financing, once a firm has cleared the requirements to crowdsource to non-accredited investors they've also cleared the requirements to file an IPO and typically that is far more lucrative.
That is interesting. Some of the ideas are pretty far outside my wheelhouse, but it's an interesting insight into some of the factors at work. Thank you for the summary!
[–] ChillyHellion [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I really appreciate you weighing in on this, because I'm not familiar with finance law by any means. Can you give some context to this paragraph:
They seem to believe that they can make their model accessible to the general public. this is the 2012 law that was linked in the paragraph.
[–] bulksalty 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
The only companies I'm familiar with that offer crowd source financing to non-accredited investors, Lending Club and Prosper, use a technicality (the investors all invest in the aggregating company directly and everyone just pretends to invest in the actual loan/project), the problem with that is that both investor and investee legally have only agreements with the parent company (leaving investors in a difficult position should the aggregating company fail--any other creditors could seize the investments since the investors are just unsecured creditors in the aggregating company).
The Jobs Act reduces the requirements, but it doesn't nearly remove them, and any project companies would still be almost certainly to be better off going public (the amount of money available on wall st is massive and the requirements are the same). Basically, unless there is substantial marketing value in crowd sourcing the financing, once a firm has cleared the requirements to crowdsource to non-accredited investors they've also cleared the requirements to file an IPO and typically that is far more lucrative.
[–] ChillyHellion [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That is interesting. Some of the ideas are pretty far outside my wheelhouse, but it's an interesting insight into some of the factors at work. Thank you for the summary!