Tag Archives: Crowdfunding Real Estate

Podcast: A Primer on Real Estate Crowdfunding

Real Estate Investing for Cash Flow

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

In this episode of The Real Estate Investing for Cash Flow Podcast, Kevin shares the mic with Mark Roderick — Corporate Securities Lawyer with a special focus in Fintech and Crowdfunding. Since the JOBS act of 2012, Mark has spent the majority of his time advising and representing the interests of upstart firms and companies on their fundraising activities. In addition, the contributions to his personal blog give detailed insight into the best fundraising strategies of the digital era.

HIGHLIGHTS [10:52] What was the ultimate catalyst for the JOBS act of 2012? [16:28] What is Mark’s “3 Flavors” of Crowdfunding? [25:44] What are the costs associated with setting up a Regulation A Public Offering? [33:42] What role has investor portals played in the last few years? [41:23] Mark’s closing thoughts.

Questions? Let me know.

Why Qualified Opportunity Zone Funds Are the Hottest Topic of Crowdfunding Real Estate

Podcast: MAPABLE USA 

Why Qualified Opportunity Zone Funds Are the Hottest Topic of Crowdfunding Real Estate

Mapable USA Podcast

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

The word is out about Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZ) and just about every real estate professional in the country is interested about how this IRS sanctioned program works. Investing in a QOZ Fund provides all Americans with a way to save money on their taxes and provides real estate developers with a great angle to raise money for their projects. But are these investment vehicles securities? Can non-accredited investors participate in this form of crowdfunding? How can issuers create their own fund? Listen to attorney Mark Roderick from Flaster Greenberg PC address these questions, what the intricacies of QOZ investing are, and many other items of interest on this episode of the Mapable USA crowdfunding podcast.

While most funds center around real estate projects, any form of substantial improvement into a Qualified Opportunity Zone will satisfy the requirement of a QOZ fund – and that includes bringing in businesses and employment opportunities into these distressed communities. As such, the QOZ Marketplace is a website in progress connecting and identifying Qualified Opportunity Zone tracks and census data, along with a list of Opportunity Zone Funds and real estate properties for those interested in QOZ investing. Because of their tax deferral benefits, getting people seeking to defer their capital gains taxes to invest in these funds probably won’t be an issue. But Mr. Roderick brings up a great point: because QOZ Funds are self-certified, it’s important to be on the outlook for fraud. His advice? Look for a deal with a strong foundation with reputable people – the tax deferral savings is just icing on the cake!

Recent Blog Posts related to QOZ Fund:

Questions? Let me know.

Raising Capital Online: An Introduction For Real Estate Developers

If you’re a real estate developer accustomed to raising capital through traditional channels, you’re probably wondering about Crowdfunding. In this post, I’m going to provide some basic information, then try to answer the questions I hear most.

Basics of Crowdfunding

  • It’s Not Kickstarter. On Kickstarter, people make gifts, often to strangers. You’re not going to ask for gifts. Instead, you’re looking for investors, and in exchange for their money you’re going to give them the same kinds of legal instruments you’d give an investor in the offline world: an interest in an LLC, a convertible note, or something else.
  • It’s Just the Internet. For better or worse, a certain mystique has developed around Crowdfunding, if only because it’s so new. But Crowdfunding is just the Internet, finally come to the capital formation industry. We buy airline tickets online, we call a cab online, we search for significant others online, now we can search for capital online. If you’re comfortable buying socks on Amazon, you’ll be comfortable raising money using Crowdfunding.
  • Why Crowdfunding? How many investors do you know? Twelve? Seventy-two? With Crowdfunding, you can put your project in front of every investor in the world. And you’ll probably get better terms.
  • The Market Is Small But Growing Quickly. Title II Crowdfunding became legal in September 2013, Title IV in June 2015, and Title III in May 2016. The amounts being raised are in the billions of dollars per year, small in terms of the overall U.S. capital markets but growing quickly.
  • There Are Three Flavors of Crowdfunding. Crowdfunding was created by the JOBS Act of 2012. The three flavors of Crowdfunding are named for three of the sections, or “Titles,” of the JOBS Act:
    • Title II, which allows only accredited investors (in general, those with $200,000 of income or $1 million of net worth, not counting a principal residence) but is otherwise largely unregulated.
    • Title III, which allows issuers to raise up to $1 million per year, through a highly-regulated online process.
    • Title IV, which allows issuers to raise up to $50 million per year in what amounts to a mini-public offering.

For more information, take a look at this chart. But first, read the next bullet point.

  • You Don’t Have to Learn the Legal Rules. You’re a real estate developer, not a lawyer. You don’t have to become a lawyer to raise money using Crowdfunding, and in terms of lifestyle I wouldn’t recommend it.
  • You Don’t Have to Write Computer Code. You’re a real estate developer, not an IT professional. You don’t have to know or learn anything about technology to raise money through Crowdfunding.
  • Crowdfunding is About Marketing. It’s not a technology business, it’s not even a real estate business. Crowdfunding is all about marketing. You create a product that investors will want, and you market both the product and your track record. Just as you rely on your lawyer for legal advice and your IT folks for technology, you rely on marketing professionals to sell yourself and the product.

Common Questions

  • Will I Have More Liability? Here’s a long and technical blog post, listing all the ways that an issuer of securities in Crowdfunding can be liable. By all means share this with your regular lawyer and ask for his or her opinion. But the bottom line is that if you do it right, raising money through Crowdfunding creates no more liability than raising money through traditional channels. It’s just the Internet.
  • Will Banks Lend Money for Crowdfunded Deals? In the earliest stages of Crowdfunding, some lenders balked at deals that involved a bunch of passive investors. But we crossed that bridge long ago. Today, banks and other institutional lenders routinely finance Crowdfunding deals.
  • Isn’t It a Hassle Dealing with All Those Investors? It can be, but doesn’t have to be. For one thing, investors in the Crowdfunding world get no voting or management rights. If you’re used to the private equity guys looking over your shoulder, you’ll be thrilled with Crowdfunding. For another thing, if you use one of the existing Crowdfunding portals (see below), you can outsource a large part of the initial investor relations.
  • I’ve Heard That Investors Must Be Verified – How Does That Work? In Title II Crowdfunding, the issuer – you – must verify that every investor is accredited. In theoretical terms that could mean asking for tax returns, brokerage statements, and other confidential information. But in practical terms it just means engaging a third party like VerifyInvestor. Most verification is done with a simple letter from the investor’s lawyer or accountant.
  • How Much Money Can I Raise? In a typical Title II offering, developers typically raise $1M to $3M of equity.
  • If Crowdfunding is Still Small, Why Start Now? One, you can raise capital for smaller deals. Two, it’s about building a brand in the online market. In a few years, when developers are raising $30M rather than $3M, the developer who built his brand early is more likely to be funded.
  • Is Crowdfunding All or Nothing? No, not at all. You can raise part of the capital stack through Crowdfunding and the balance through traditional channels.
  • Will I Need a PPM? You’ll generally provide the same information to prospective investors in the online world as you’re accustomed to providing in the offline world.
  • Why Am I Seeing All These REITs in Crowdfunding? Three reasons:
    • Most retail investors have neither the skill nor the desire to select individual real estate projects. Just as retail investors prefer mutual funds to picking individual stocks, retail investors will prefer to invest in pools of assets that have been chosen by a professional.
    • Theoretically, thousands of retail investors could invest in a traditional limited liability company. But when you own equity in an LLC you receive a K-1 each year. For someone who’s invested $1,000, the cost of adding a K-1 to her tax return at H&R Block could be prohibitive. In a REIT you receive a 1099, not a K-1.
    • Privately-traded REITs have a very bad reputation, plagued by high fees and sales commissions. But if light is the best disinfectant, the Internet is like a spotlight, relentlessly driving down costs and providing investors with instantly-accessible information.
  • What Kind of Yields Do Investors Expect? That’s a tough question, obviously. But here are two data points. For an equity investment in a high-quality, cash-flowing garden apartment complex, investors might expect a 7% preferred return and 70% on the back end (e., a 30% promote for you). For a debt investment in a single-family fix-and-flip, with a 65% LTV, they might expect a 9% interest rate on a one-year investment.
  • Should I Use Rule 506(b) or Rule 506(c)? If you’re asking that question, you probably shouldn’t be reading this blog post. Try this one.
  • Do I Need a Broker-Dealer? Two answers:
    • As a general rule, you are not legally required to be registered as a broker-dealer, or to be affiliated with a broker-dealer, if you’re offering your own deals. For a more technical legal answer, you can read this blog post.
    • To sell your deal, you might want to use a broker-dealer, or a broker-dealer network.
  • How Can I Get Started? You have two choices:
    • You can establish your own website and list your own deals. But there are millions of websites in the world, many featuring photographs of naked people. Against that competition you might find it difficult to attract eyeballs.
    • You can get your feet wet by listing projects on an existing real estate Crowdfunding portal, one with a good reputation and a large pool of registered investors. If that goes well, you can think about establishing your own website later. The portal will take the mystery out of the online process, making it look and feel like any other offering from your perspective.

Questions? Let me know.

Targeted IRRs in Crowdfunding

Targeted internal rate of return, or IRR, is used widely to advertise deals on Crowdfunding sites, real estate and otherwise. While target IRR means something to sophisticated sponsors and investors, its widespread and uncritical use makes me a little uneasy, for the following reasons:

  • If pressed, many people don’t know what IRR really means. Investors assume that a higher IRR is better than a lower IRR, but many couldn’t explain exactly why or how.
  • IRR can be misleading. For example, a bond purchased for $100 that pays interest of $10 at the end of each of the first four years and $110 at the end of the fifth year has an IRR of 10%. A bond purchased for $68.30 that pays nothing for four years and $110 at the end of the fifth year also has an IRR of 10%. But those two investments are very different. The IRR calculation assumes that the $10 interest payments on the first bond can be reinvested at 10%, which is probably not true.
  • The IRR of a real estate deal (or any deal) increases when the asset is refinanced and the proceeds distributed to investors. But refinancing the asset doesn’t necessarily make for a better investment.
  • There being no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism, a higher IRR generally coincides with higher risk. For example, I can usually increase my IRR by borrowing more money. That relationship is not typically highlighted.
  • For a typical startup outside the real estate industry, IRR has no meaning. Or to put it differently, a 28% target IRR for a startup plus $2.75 gets you on the New York subway.
  • The term “target IRR” tends to mask what’s really important:  the factual assumptions concerning sales and asset appreciation. To say “We expect a target IRR of 18%” is somehow easier to sell than “We expect the property to appreciate at 6% per year.”
  • Under FINRA Rule 2210, offerings conducted through a broker-dealer may not advertise target IRRs. FINRA also prohibits Title III Funding Portals from advertising target IRRs, and the SEC prohibits new issuers from advertising a target IRR in Regulation A offerings, even for sponsors with extensive track records. Hence, target IRR cannot be used to compare offerings across all platforms and all deal types.

What can we do better as an industry? Here are a few ideas:

  • We can explain internal rate of return better, maybe with examples and a standardized presentation and graphics.
  • We can develop other apples-to-apples metrics for comparing deals.
  • We can make clear that higher IRRs generally come with higher risks.
  • In Regulation A offerings, and even in Rule 506(b) offerings where non-accredited investors are involved, the issuer is required to provide extensive information about the sponsor’s track record. Some version of that concept, applied consistently and allowing for side-by-side comparison, might be the most valuable information for investors.

Questions? Let me know.

No Demo Days For Title III Issuers

Crowdfunding is a marketing business. But when it comes to marketing an offering of securities by a Title III issuer, things get complicated. That’s why this is three times longer than any blog post should be.

Why It Matters

No Demo Days For YouSection 5(c) of the Securities Act provides that an issuer may not make an “offer” of securities unless a full-blown registration statement is in effect, of the kind you would prepare for a public offering.

There are lots of exceptions to the general rule and Title III is one of them: you can make “offers” of securities without having a full-blown registration in effect, if you comply with the requirements of Title III.

On one hand that’s good, because if you market your offering as allowed by Title III, you’re in the clear. On the other hand, if you make “offer” of securities without meaning to, or without complying with the intricacies of Title III, you could be in trouble in two ways:

  • You might have violated section 5(c), putting yourself in jeopardy of enforcement action by the SEC and other liability.
  • By making an illegal offer, you might have jeopardized your ability to use Title III at all.

What is an “Offer” of Securities?

Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act defines “offer” very broadly, to include “every attempt or offer to dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or interest in a security, for value.” And the SEC has defined “offer” even more broadly than those words suggest. Going back to 1957, the SEC said that any publicity that could “contribute to conditioning the public mind or arousing public interest” could be treated as an “offer.”

These examples illustrate the spectrum:

  • A company continues to advertise its services as usual, keeping its plans for an offering under wraps, then files an S-1 registration statement.
  • A company steps up its public relations efforts before a new product announcement, which happens to coincide with a new public offering.
  • For six months before it files a registration statement, a company triples its advertising budget, trying to build brand recognition specifically with the investing public.
  • A company puts up a website announcing “Please buy our common stock!”

The SEC has adopted a number of rules describing behavior that will not be treated as an “offer” for purposes of section 5(c). For example, Rule 135 allows so-called “tombstone” advertisements of registered offerings, Rule 135c allows notices of private offerings by publicly-reporting companies, and Rule 169 allows factual business information released by an issuer that has filed or intends to file a registration statement. But all these rules apply only to companies that are or intend to become public or publicly-reporting. There are no equivalent rules dealing with the behavior of small companies.

A Different Definition for Small Companies?

With that background, advice given by the SEC in 2015 catches your attention:

Question: Does a demo day or venture fair necessarily constitute a general solicitation for purposes of Rule 502(c)?

SEC Answer: No. Whether a demo day or venture fair constitutes a general solicitation for purposes of Rule 502(c) is a facts and circumstances determination. Of course, if a presentation by the issuer does not involve an offer of a security, then the requirements of the Securities Act are not implicated.

The italicized statement is true, by definition. If there is no “offer,” the securities laws don’t apply. Even so, it’s hard to reconcile with the SEC guidance for public companies. A “demo day” iDemo Day Presentations, by any definition, an event where companies make presentations to investors. Not to customers, to investors. If merely “conditioning the public mind” can be an offer, it is very hard to understand how presenting to a roomful of investors could not be an offer.

Trying to reconcile the two, you might conclude that the SEC is, in effect, using different definitions of “offer” depending on the circumstances. During the period surrounding a public offering of securities a stringent definition applies (the 1957 ruling involved the period immediately following the filing of a registration statement) while outside that period a more lenient definition applies. If that were true, those of us trying to advise Title III issuers would sleep better.

There are two glitches with the theory, however:

  • Maybe the SEC will view the period surrounding a Title III listing in the same way it views the period surrounding a public registration statement.
  • The preamble to the final Title III regulations actually cites Rule 169 and cautions that “The Commission has interpreted the term ‘offer” broadly. . . .and has explained that ‘the publication of information and publicity efforts, made in advance of a proposed financing which have the effect of conditioning the public mind or arousing public interest in the issuer or in its securities constitutes an offer. . . .’” That sure doesn’t sound like a more lenient rule for Title III.

The Title III Rule for Advertising

Title III is about Crowdfunding, right? Doesn’t that mean Title III issuers are allowed to advertise anywhere and say anything, just like Title II issuers?

Not exactly.

A core principle of Title III is that everything happens on the portal, where everyone can see it, so nobody has better access to information than anyone else. A corollary is that that Title III issuers aren’t allowed to advertise freely. If a Title III issuer put information about its offering in the New York Times, for example, maybe readers of the New York Post (are there any?) wouldn’t see it.

A Title III issuer can advertise any where it wants – Twitter, newspapers, radio, web, etc. – but it can’t say any thing it wants. All it can do is provide a link to the Funding Portal with an ad that’s limited to:

  • A statement that the issuer is conducting an offering tweet
  • The terms of the offering
  • Brief factual information about the issuer, e.g., name, address, and URL

In the public company world, those are referred to as “tombstone” ads and look just about that appealing. In the online world issuers can do much better. A colorful post on the issuer’s Twitter or Facebook pages saying “We’re raising money! Come join us at www.FundingPortal.com!” is just fine. 

Insignificant Deviations From The Rules

Recognizing that Title III is very complicated and new, section 502 of the Title III regulations provides:

A failure to comply with a term, condition, or requirement. . . .will not result in the loss of the exemption. . . .if the issuer shows. . . .the failure to comply was insignificant with respect to the offering as a whole and the issuer made a good faith and reasonable attempt to comply. . . .”

The language is vague, as it has to be, but it certainly suggests that Title III issuers can make mistakes without losing the exemption. And there’s no reason why mistakes in advertising an offering should be treated more harshly than other mistakes.

The purpose of the advertising rule, as we’ve seen, is to ensure that every investor has access to the same information. If a Title III issuer mistakenly provides more information about its offering in a Facebook post than it should have, the infraction could be cured easily – for example, by ensuring that any information in the Facebook post appeared on the Funding Portal for at least 21 days before the offering goes live, or by correcting the Facebook post and directing Facebook friends to the Funding Portal.

Where Does That Leave Us?

Ideally, a company thinking about raising money using Title III would follow these simple rules:

  • Don’t attend demo days.
  • In fact, don’t mention your plan to raise money to any potential investors until you register with a Title III Funding Portal.
  • The minute you want to talk about raising money, register with a Title III Funding Portal.
  • After registering with a Title III Funding Portal, don’t mention your offering except in “tombstone” advertising.
  • After registering with a Title III Funding Portal, don’t meet, speak, or even exchange emails with investors, except through the chat room on the Funding Portal.

ducks in a row 2A company that follows those rules shouldn’t have problems.

That’s ideal, but what about a company that didn’t speak to a lawyer before attending a demo day? What about a company that posted about its offering on Facebook before registering with a Funding Portal, and included too much information? What about a company that’s spoken with some potential investors already? What about a real company?

Nobody knows for sure, but unless the SEC takes a very different position with regard to Title III than it has taken with regard to Regulation D, I think a company that has engaged in any of those activities, or even all of those activities, can still qualify for a successful Title III offering.

Let’s not forget, the SEC has been very accommodating toward Crowdfunding, from the no-action letters in March 2013 to taking on state securities regulators in Regulation A. With section 502 in its toolbox, it’s hard to believe that the SEC is going to smother Title III in its cradle by imposing on startups the same rules it imposes on public companies.

It’s instructive to look at the way the SEC has treated the concept of “general solicitation and advertising” under Regulation D.

By the letter of the law, any contact with potential investors with whom the issuer does not have a “pre-existing, substantive relationship” is treated “general solicitation,” disqualifying the issuer from an offering under Rule 506(b) (and all of Rule 506, before the JOBS Act). But the SEC has taken a much more pragmatic approach based on what it refers to as “long-standing practice” in the startup industry. In fact, in a 1995 no-action letter the SEC concluded that there had been no “general solicitation” for a demo day event even when investors had been invited through newspaper advertisements.

I think the SEC will recognize “long-standing practice” in interpreting Title III also.

Bearing in mind the language of section 502, I think the key will be that an issuer tried to comply with the rules once it knew about them, i.e., that a company didn’t violate the rules flagrantly or intentionally. If you’re a small company reading this post and start following the rules carefully today, I think you’ll end up with a viable offering. Yes, there might be some legal doubt, at least until the SEC issues clarifications, but entrepreneurs live with all kinds of doubt, legal and otherwise, all the time.

It’s Not Just the Issuer

The issuer isn’t the only party with a stake in the advertising rules. The Funding Portal might have even more on the line.

Here’s the challenge:

  • Before allowing an issuer on its platform, a Funding Portal is required to have a ”reasonable basis” for believing that the issuer has complied with all the requirements of Title III.
  • We’ve seen that one of the requirements of Title III is that all advertising must point back to the Funding Portal.
  • Before the issuer registered with a Funding Portal, advertising by the issuer couldn’t have pointed back to the Funding Portal.
  • Therefore, if a would-be issuer has engaged in advertising before registering with the Funding Portal, including any activity that could be construed as an “offer” for purposes of section 5(c), the Funding Portal might be required legally to turn the issuer away.

QuestionnaireWith their legal obligations in mind, dozens of Funding Portals are preparing questionnaires for would-be issuers as I write this, asking questions like “Have you made any offers of securities during the last 90 days? Have you participated in demo days?”

If the Funding Portal denies access to any issuer that answers “I don’t know” or “Yes,” it might end up with very few issuers on its platform. On the other hand, if it doesn’t ask the questions, or ignores the answers, it’s probably not satisfying its legal obligation, risking its SEC license as well as lawsuits from investors.

The Funding Portal will have to make some tough calls. But its answer doesn’t have to be limited to “Yes” or “No.” For one thing, using its own judgment, the Funding Portal might suggest ways for the issuer to “fix” any previous indiscretions. For another, rather than make the call itself, the Funding Portal might ask for an opinion from the issuer’s lawyer to the effect that the issuer is eligible to raise money using Title III.

Advertising Products and Services

We’ve seen that product advertisements by a company that has filed, or is about to file, a public registration statement can be viewed as an “offer” of securities for purposes of section 5(c) if the company uses the product advertisement to “arouse interest” in the offering.  However, I don’t believe this will be a concern with Title III:

  • A company that has registered with a Funding Portal should be free to advertise its products and services however it pleases. There’s no “quiet period” or similar concept with Title III the way there is with a public registration.
  • A company that has not yet registered with a Funding Portal and is not otherwise offering its securities should also be free to advertise its products or services. Just not at a demo day!

Many companies in the Title III world will be looking to their customers as potential investors. For those companies it makes perfect sense to advertise an offering of securities in conjunction with an advertisement of products or services. Sign up with a Funding Portal, follow the rules for advertising, and “joint” advertisements of product and offering should be fine.

Will a Legend Do the Trick?

Suppose a company thinking about raising money using Title III Crowdfunding makes a presentation to a roomful of investors at a demo day, but includes on each slide of its deck the disclaimer: “This is Not An Offering Of Securities.”

The disclaimer doesn’t hurt and might tip the balance in a close case, but don’t rely on it.

An Issuer With A Past:  Using Rule 506(c) to Clean Up

Great Gatsby original ad

Photo Credit: Fast Company editor Jason Feifer

In Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, the main character reaches for a new future but, in the end, finds himself rowing “against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” In this final section I’ll suggest a way that an issuer might raise money using Title III notwithstanding a troubled past, succeeding where Jay Gatsby could not.

Suppose an issuer registers with a Funding Portal, raises money using Title III, then fails. Looking for a basis to sue, investors learn that the issuer attended a demo day three weeks before registering with the Funding Portal. An illegal offer! Gotcha!

“No,” says the issuer, calmly. “You’re right that we attended a demo day and made an offer of securities, but that’s when we were thinking about a Rule 506(c) offering. As you know, offers made under Rule 506(c) are perfectly legal. It was only afterward that we started to think about Title III.”

As long as the record – emails, promotional materials, investor decks, and so forth – demonstrates that any “offers” were made in contemplation of Regulation D rather than Title III, I think the issuer wins that case. The case would be even stronger if the issuer actually sold securities using Rule 506(c) and filed a Form D to that effect, before registering with the Funding Portal.

An issuer with a troubled past – one that has attended lots of demo days, posted lots of information on Facebook and met with a bunch of different investors – might go so far as to engage in and complete a Rule 506(c) offering before registering on a Funding Portal. With the copy of the Form D in their files, the issuer and the Funding Portal might feel more comfortable that the troubled past is behind.

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding in Midtown

when pigs fly

Some say it will be a cold day in hell before Wall Street embraces Crowdfunding. If so, we were very nearly there Thursday, February 19th at the offices of the Citrin Cooperman in Midtown. Braving temperatures in the single digits and a gale blowing pedestrians north on Fifth Avenue, a large group of brave souls turned out to learn about Crowdfunding.

Citrin Cooperman, to my knowledge the first accounting firm to specialize in Crowdfunding, co-sponsored the panel discussion with iFunding, one of the earliest and certainly one of the best real estate Crowdfunding portals. The panel was moderated by Harmen Bakker, a partner in Citrin Cooperman’s real estate practice, and included William Skelley, the founder and CEO of iFunding, and Mark Mascia, the President of Mascia Development. Mark actually wore two hats: one, as a developer who has used Crowdfunding successfully to raise equity for his own deals; and two, as an investor in Crowdfunding deals offered by other sponsors.

As much as I try to know about Crowdfunding, I’m always amazed how much I can learn from the guys in the trenches, i.e., portals and developers.

To my delight, Mr. Skelley revealed that iFunding is exploring two new products:

  • A pooled-assets fund, where investors can invest in a category of real estate assets, rather than just a single project; and
  • A product that allows an investor to choose where in the capital stock he wants to invest (e.g., mezzanine debt or preferred equity), depending on his risk/yield preferences.

Wearing his developer’s hat, Mr. Mascia talked about the two Crowdfunding investment models, the first where investors come directly into the developer’s cap table and the second where the platform creates a special purpose vehicle for the investors. Each has advantages and disadvantages; for example, the SPV is great because the platform takes care of investor relations, but the direct-investment model gives the developer more “ownership” of the investor pool.

The audience was smart but troublesome, typical of New York. For example, someone asked “What happens when a Crowdfunding deal goes sideways?” As if that could ever happen.

To my mind, the most revealing fact is that iFunding – like the other top platforms, I believe – is funding deals within hours after they appear on the platform. Does this mean Crowdfunding investors are speed-readers, able to digest information about complex real estate projects between the main course and dessert? No. It means that Crowdfunding investors are relying on the portals. Legally and otherwise, that’s a really big deal.

By the time we finished the temperature outside had climbed to 3. Thank you to Citrin Cooperman and iFunding for a great morning.

Questions? Contact Mark Roderick.

Crowdfunding A Reit

REIT Blog Post Image

People sometimes ask “Will Crowdfunding replace REITs?” That’s not exactly the right question.

A REIT – an acronym for Real Estate Investment Trust – is not a function of real estate law or corporate law. A REIT is solely a function of tax law. Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code defines a REIT as a corporation, trust, or association that satisfies certain criteria, including these:

  • At least 75% of the entity’s assets must consist of real estate assets or cash.
  • The entity must have at least 100 owners.
  • Interests in the entity must be transferable.
  • No more than 50% percent of the interests in the entity may be held by five or fewer individuals.

There is only one benefit of qualifying as a REIT: as long as he distributes at least 90% of its income to its owners, the entity itself is not subject to tax. Only the owners are subject to tax, when they receive dividend and capital gain distributions. The whole REIT industry is built around this tax benefit.

Because the REIT label is solely a function of tax law, not corporate or securities law, a REIT can be:

  • A publicly-registered company with publicly-traded securities; or
  • A publicly-registered company with privately-traded securities; or
  • A private company with privately-traded securities.

The second category of REIT is probably most common and, frankly, it is the category that has given REITs a bad name. Sold through the traditional broker-dealer channels, it is not unusual for the shares of publicly-registered, privately-traded REITs to carry a load of more than 10%, great for the broker, terrible for the customer. That’s why people say “Private REITS are sold, not bought.”

Compare a publicly-registered, privately-traded REIT to a garden-variety limited liability company owning real estate assets. In both cases, the entity itself pays no tax. And now, through Crowdfunding, the garden-variety LLC can solicit investors using the Internet, leading to transactions cost (load) much lower than the private REIT. Economically it’s a no-brainer: the Crowdfunded real estate LLC is better than the private REIT.

As I said, however, that’s really comparing apples with oranges. The REIT designation is about taxes; Crowdfunding is about how you find investors.

The real question is “Can I find investors for a private REIT using Crowdfunding, rather than through the traditional broker-dealer channels?” And the answer to that question is a resounding “Yes!” When you check the deals available at your favorite real estate Crowdfunding site tomorrow morning, you could well see a REIT.

And why would a sponsor offer a REIT rather than a garden-variety LLC? One reason – maybe the only reason – is tax reporting. An investor in an LLC receives a full-blown K-1 each year, and faces at least the theoretical risk of paying tax on “phantom” income. An investor in a REIT, on the other hand, receives only a simple 1099 and pays tax only on actual distributions.

Be that as it may, nobody should be paying a 10% commission. By connecting sponsors directly with investors, Crowdfunding promises to squeeze this kind of inefficiency out of the capital formation industry. Especially when Regulation A+ comes into effect, opening the market to non-accredited investors, there is every reason to believe that Crowdfunding will replace the traditional broker-dealer as the preferred method for distributing REIT shares.

Questions? Contact Mark Roderick.

CFGE CROWDFUND BANKING AND LENDING SUMMIT IN SAN FRANCISCO

Roderick CFGE

Since Labor Day, I’ve spoken at half a dozen events: for entrepreneurs, for intellectual property lawyers, for finance professionals, for digital marketing groups. This week I’ll be speaking at one of the premier Crowdfunding events in country, the CFGE Crowdfund Banking and Lending Summit on the 16th and 17th in San Francisco.

The conference features some of the leaders in the industry, including:

  • Richard Swart, Director of Research for Innovation in Entrepreneur and Social Finance, Colman Fung Institute for Engineering Leadership at UC Berkeley.
  • Ron Suber, the President of Prosper.
  • Jason Fritton, the Founder and CEO of Patch of Land.
  • Tom Lockard, the Vice President for Real Estate Investment and Institutional Sales of Fundrise.
  • Nikul Patel, the Chief Lending Officer of LendingTree.
  • Jesse Clem, the Co-Founder of LOQUIDITY, LLC.
  • Joy Schoffler, the CEO of Leverage PR.

Whether you’re new to Crowdfunding or an industry veteran, I’d strongly suggest you attend. I’m always amazed how much more there is to learn.

To register, click here. Make sure to use my promo code and receive a 25% discount! Promo code: Roderick

And while you’re there, please stop by and say hello. Crowdfunding and skiing – those are my two favorite topics.

IMPROVING LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN CROWDFUNDING: INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN

Internal rate of return, a financial concept, is not always used correctly in Crowdfunding documents.

The internal rate of return, often referred to as IRR, calculates the total rate of return of an investment, expressed as a percentage. Suppose you invested $100 in a bond that paid $5 at the end of each year for four years and were redeemed at the end of the fifth year for $105. Not surprisingly, that investment has an IRR of 5%.

Suppose you try to calculate IRR at the end of the fourth year? You tell Microsoft Excel that you paid $100 and have received $5 per year for four years and Excel says your IRR is minus 43.25%, i.e., you’ve made a terrible investment. What went wrong?

What went wrong is that you didn’t give Excel all the information it needs. It’s like the George Carlin joke, when he plays a sportscaster and announces “Here’s a partial score: Yankees 3.”

To get the right answer for IRR at the end of the fourth year, you have to tell Excel that the bond is still worth $100. When you do that, Excel calculates that your IRR is 5%.

And so it is in Crowdfunding. Often, the sponsor promises that upon any “capital transaction” – a sale or a refinancing, typically – the investors receive an IRR of X% before the sponsor receives his “promote.” Typical language:

The net proceeds of a Capital Transaction shall be distributed first to Investors, until they have received an internal rate of return of 8%, and then 70% to Investors and 30% to Sponsor.

But that’s like “Yankees 3.” It works if the Capital Transaction was a sale of the entire business, but it doesn’t work if the Capital Transaction was anything else, like a refinancing or a sale of only part of the business. With this language the investors are going to receive a complete return of their investment even if only a portion of the project has been sold, which might not be what the parties intended.

To get the right result you need to say something like this:

The net proceeds of a Capital Transaction shall be distributed first to Investors, until they have received an internal rate of return of 8%, and then 70% to Investors and 30% to Sponsor. If the Capital Transaction does not consist of the sale of all of the Company’s property and the distribution of all of the net proceeds to the Members, then the internal rate of return shall be calculated by (i) assigning to the remaining assets of the Company a value determined in good faith by the Manager, and (ii) assuming a residual value to the Investors equal to the amount they would receive if all such remaining assets were sold for such value and distributed in a Capital Transaction.

As for a definition of internal rate of return:

The term “internal rate of return” means the internal rate of return calculated using the XIRR function in Microsoft Excel.

Questions? Contact Mark Roderick at Flaster/Greenberg PC.

NEW DOMAIN EXTENSIONS BECOME AVAILABLE

Crowdfunding Image - XXXL - iStock_000037694192XXXLargeWe started with .COM. Then .NET, .EDU, .INFO, .ORG, and a handful of others. But we’re about to be flooded with new domain extensions, more than a thousand of them.

In the world of finance, we’re going to have .BANK, .BROKER, .CAPITAL, .FUND, .INVESTMENTS, and .FINANCE. In the world of food we’re about to have .FOOD, .EAT, .GROCERY and .KITCHEN. You get the idea.

The flood of new extensions offers opportunity and challenge. Maybe the .FUND extension would work great for your new Crowdfunding portal. On the other hand, maybe you’re already using portal.com and now you have to worry about a competitor using portal.fund (Hint: a different domain extension doesn’t give a competitor the right to violate your trademark).

Some of the new extensions are already available, while the rest are coming soon. For a complete list and to register, go to a registrar website such as www.Godaddy.com.

Questions? Contact Mark Roderick at Flaster/Greenberg PC.

%d bloggers like this: