Slashdot Mirror
The SEC Is About To Make Crowdfunding More Expensive
PapayaSF writes "Proposed new rules require that funding portals register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Intermediary Regulatory Authority. In addition, investors must have access to a business plan, use of proceeds, a valuation of the company, and financials, so Certified Public Accountants may be needed. The SEC estimates that for amounts under $100,000, the fees will be 12.9% to 39% of the money raised, though it may drop to under 8% for higher amounts. Is this needed regulation, or bureaucratic overreach?"
It's overreach
BIG BUSINESS!!!
There should be an upper limit, perhaps around 10% of revenues.
Table-ized A.I.
So the solution is to just use croudsourcing outside of the US? If you want to start a croudsourced business, move to Canada or elsewhere in the world?
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
They want it
They will get it
And what will we be getting in return for their wise and valuable oversight?
Fuck. If a company can put all of that together, they probably don't need crowdfunding in the first place. That's the ENTIRE POINT of having kickstarter in the first place! For ideas by small groups or single people who have nothing but a good idea. Everyone donating already understands the risk.
It's fascism.
Having not read the actual legislation, the following quote from the article seems quite important: "The legislation requires that the selling of crowdfund securities take place on registered websites."
Notice the phase "selling of crowdfund securities." I think that most crowd funding doesn't involve the sale of securites and in fact most are just clever ways of pre-selling merchandise not yet made without having to give away any equity at all.
Although I could be talking complete nonsense.
No, it's utter fucking horseshit.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
What a way to generate more jobs and businesses.
Fuckers.
I'm not completely sure, but I think the SEC is talking about situations where a company avoids the traditional IPO process and instead "crowdfunds" the sale of securities in their company (either debt or equity). Kickstarter is generally different, because the return on "investment" is in the form of a set non-monetary reward that is more similar to a purchase than an investment.
What is needed, though, is some clarity in the rulemaking process to ensure that Kickstarter and other similar sites can feel comfortable that they are not at risk of being caught up in this net.
instead of going after crowdfunding efforts, how about they go back to preventing Wall Street and banks from causing another global collapse? HFT is much more of threat and far more harmful than any crowdfunding effort.
priorities, motherfuckers, fix them.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Something is broken when the costs of closing a loan impose a 39% fee. That's all startup money usually is, a loan, right? Angels are giving you loans at high rates of interest to justify the risk, but there isn't a huge closing cost like that. Somebody, somewhere is "doing it wrong" by using some kind of funding process with a really high fixed cost.
This is the next step up from the "gimme, gimme" level of Kickstarter. You can still do Kickstarter projects, but now there's a tier above that, for when you need $1M or so.
Interesting. I'd normally be all for this, there are way to many kickstarter campaigns that consist of "I have an idea for something, I need an amount of money determined by pulling a number out of my ass, I won't offer you any return on your investment, I might not even come through with the project, give me your money!"
On the other hand, there's no fraud here, no one on kickstarter is claiming to know what they're doing. Also, the job of the SEC is to prevent financial fraud, not to prevent fools from being parted with their money. If idiots want to throw their money at stupid things on the internet, let them to it without silly extra taxes!
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Paid-for government tool of big money crushing little money.
If the 1% didn't have a government tool to do it en masse, they'd just send lawyers after individuals.
Capitalism, fuck yeah!
The "S" in SEC stands for Securities. It is their job to regulate that kind of thing.
As you say, Kickstarter is different. Not only are you not getting any equity in the company, you aren't getting any financial stake in the project or anything. It is an investment for creative return, not financial, and thus not something that would be covered.
You need to pay income tax on Kickstarter funds, of course, but that's all. They aren't an investment as far as the SEC is concerned.
Necessary Regulation is that which spontaneously develops in the free market; consider, for example, the Underwriters Laboratories (UL).
Can't you just leave us the fsck alone!
I don't know what the track record w.r.t. scams is so far, but it's just a matter of time until the con artists start trying to take the money and run.
Where there's money, there's crooks.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you actually bother to read the Federal Register text, you can see in the second paragraph of the introduction that the JOBS Act, and this subsequent regulatory structure, only applies to crowdfunding where the reward is a security. It specifically explains that this is different from the current model of crowdfunding in the U.S., where the donors receive some "token of value" related to the project, not a share of future financial returns. The SEC isn't trying to regulate the current system, but is trying (as directed by that law) to allow crowdfunding where the donor award is a security; the current regulatory structure, based on the Securities Act, largely makes this sort of model impossible due to the various requirements of public offerings.
So, there's nothing to get up in arms about. This is just a move by the SEC to allow something that isn't currently permissible under U.S. law, not an attempt to "tax Kickstarter" or "regulate Indiegogo" or whatever other nonsense people claim.
The Freelance Wizard
This all about creating an artificial barrier to entry again. Its about eliminating competition and trying to force idea-makers to go back to the big companies to develop their ideas and get ripped off just like in the 'good ol days'.
This will not protect "investors" as this is not traditional investing. There are no shares, no control or interest in the business, only the product.
Its about sucking cash out of startups.
Its about making it cost too much to do yourself.
Its about keeping the peons in their place.
The morons aat the SEC still cannot figure out how to define cryptocurrencies or virtual currencies, valuation of virtual assets, etc. But they think they know how crowdfunding should be regulated?
Crowdfunding exists in the first place because the SEC fucked up the equity markets to the point where it makes no sense at all to issue shares to the public unless you can raise at least $10M.
It's time to invent a bitcoin-based, anonymous way to sell equity.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
By definition... funding through such sites as Kickstarter --- is not an investment. There is no equity. There is a small reward.
True investments involve equity.
Nobody in their right mind would go to crowdfunding, if the person has to front want amounts to 39% of the funds they might raise (if successful). Even 5% is unduly burdensome.
The SEC's proposed regulation amounts TO A CONSTRUCTIVE BAN on crowdfunding.
The proposed regulation incurs costs that are so UNDULY CRIPPLING upon entrepreneurial activity; that the bulk of it would be SUPPRESSED completely, and NOT ON MERIT.
This is NOT about Kickstarter and other crowdfunding project sources. This is about INVESTMENT CROWDFUNDING, which is very different and yes is regulated.
Kickstarter etc typs Crowdfunding: You give money and get a product in return, or whatever was offered at your level of funding you gave.
Investment Crowdfunding: offering an actual return on investment in exchange for funding, such as shares in the company, a portion of the profits, etc. which are things that do fall under the normal purview of the SEC.
Way to not do your homework submitter. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Submitter is a doofus.
thanks again DICE for inflammatory comment-bait articles.
What the subject says.
Seriously... this is like a very mobile activity... if the US doesn't want these services, we'll take 'em...
No, it's not bureaucratic overreach.
Think about what kickstarter allows a normal person to do. If you have a great idea, or even a not so great, but highly marketable idea, it allows you to go outside of the established funding and control models which have been the norm for decades.
Ultimately, the current model ensures that the establishment is in control of your idea and your future. Unless you already had money of course, in which case you can avoid investors.
For the regulators, and the monetary elite who control them, this challenge cannot go unmet.
So no, it is not about overreach, it is about the same thing most laws towards the little man are, it's about maintaining and extending control.
It's time to wake up America. I dare say it is almost too late to change things.
This a result of the increasing size of the asks from crowdsourcing. I hope the outcome is that crowdsourcing regulations define a reasonable 'small venture' definition, and put the focus back on funding individual ideas rather than whole start-ups. In my opinion, Kickstarter is not the right place to raise millions of dollars. Managing a multi-million dollar venture does require overhead and proper accounting, which these proposed regulations acknowledge. Most of us just don't have to deal with it, so we trivialize its importance.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
Sure, you have to protect big companies from those pesky garage developers threatening their income by developing innovative, affordable new stuff ...
your 'hope and change' - LOL!
For all of the crimes the SEC has been oblivious to for the last two decades, and they are numerous, and they want to regular crowdfunding? Tsk, Tsk Might be an interestin endeavor when they're not surfing porn on the job. But are they that bored? Or justing waiting out their 3 year stints when they grab a hot job on wall street..... tsk tsk
'Anti-Propaganda' Ban Repealed, Freeing State Dept. To Direct Its Broadcasting Arm At American Citizens
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-propaganda-ban-repealed-freeing-state-dept-to-direct-its-broadcasting-arm-american-citizens.shtml
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.
This is about selling shares: Crowd-sourced investing.
However, this sort of thing may come to other types of crowd funding.
I'm not sure what the answer will be if they require you to already have a business setup to do a Kickstarter. Business registration, incorporation, trademark registry, etc. is whole reason I'd even do a Kickstarter in the first place.
Perhaps we'll start to see 501(c)3 businesses that you can donate towards, who divide the money amongst projects? It would then be basically the same as kickstarter, except you don't get your pledge back if the project doesn't meet its goal -- You'd have a credit to apply it to another project instead.
What we really need is to put starving artists on the endangered species list, or maybe start a fake Fascist Hate Group that wears plaid Hoods and hates art. Then we can get some anti-discrimination laws for artists, as well as artist-shelters just for the down and out and artistically gifted. Anyone who says their art stinks can be accused as being an art-hater. There could even be 12 step self help programs for victims of artistic abuse. We could get even get funds to research cures for the artistically impaired. Those Kickstarter people are thinking small, if the government is getting involved, we need to play the government's game: Scaremongering to protect women and children's art from the evil plaid philistines.
The problem is that the SEC is truly powerless against the big bank wall street criminals, who they don't want to prosecute anyway to protect their jobs. So in order to justify their existence and feel special they have to clamp down on the small fry.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
not about crowdfunding as we know it AT ALL.
it's about different kind of crowd funding where you're participating in shares.
the means of production, then you get the money
No mutual funds, retirement funds, or anything similar should have anything to do with crowdfunding. The SEC has no place here. Crowdfunding is similar to buying raffle tickets at a Church bazaar and the SEC has no business messing with those, either.
Sorry, nope. Prizes for a raffle should be obtained before tickets are sold, so that everyone knows what they're buying. I may not be guaranteed to win anything, but I know somebody will, and that the winning is determined by random chance. In crowdfunding, I may personally be taking a gamble, but if I "win", so does everybody else, and that winning is not regulated by chance, but by the ability of the project team to deliver.
These abilities vary from project to project, unlike the rules of statistics, which are universal. It is therefore vital that someone assesses the credentials of crowdfunding projects, rather than leaving uninformed members of the public confused and convinced by pseudo-scientific technobabble.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
There is one good thing that can come of this, which is that crowd funding can accept actual investors if regulated under the SEC. That means you get more than just a copy of the product or some silly vanity gig with the producer -- you have the opportunity to share in the profits, which is something that the likes of Kickstarter and IndieGoGo aren't legally allowed to offer at the moment.
However, subjecting *all* pitches to oversight, including dinky $500 projects and anything without the "investor tier", is asinine, overreaching and ruinous.
Really, there should be two obvious exceptions: the SEC should only be regulating crowdfunding if a project goal and per-sale cost exceeds a very high floor; or if it offers an "investor tier" for a share in the profits. Everything else is basically just buying and selling products on spec and none of the SEC's business.
Is anyone able to come up with evidence that this type of regulation is the result of big business lobbying politicians and civil servants... ?
Are they running scared of the crowdfunding model and wish to put burdens on it too keep it from being competitive ?
How can regulating this heavily be in the favor of any smaller players - The big boys don't use crowdfunding normally and the amount anyone throws into a crowdfunding venture is not likely to be of a size that warrants any form of warranty.
I realize this is likely to be about people investing in getting returns on their crowdfunding, but it sounds to me like a dangerous venue and one that may begin affecting regular crowdfunding as well because really where does it stop once it begins...
That's all this is. We can't have the Jews' monopolies being put in danger, can we? This is all about making sure that the CORPORATIONS continue to stay in power, and preventing the little man from even starting up a company.
Thanks for destroying our countries, Jews, I'm sure we'll all forgive you!
http://antizionistleague.com/
http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/188772/diy-bris/
"Sherman set up what was needed, gave the baby some sugar water, put a clamp in place and offered Zaidenweber some direction. Making the cut, Zaidenweber said, was a powerful bonding experience.
“I’m glad I did,” he said. “I’m glad I have that connection with my son. Your love is equal for both [twins], but it’s special that we have that bond.”
For Raab, too, the experience was a positive one. Sherman had told the gathering that a baby’s cry during a bris is like the sound of the shofar opening the gates of heaven.
“I closed my eyes, heard Jay’s cry and actually was able to experience it as deeply spiritual and beautiful,” Raab said, noting her pride that her husband took on the role."
These sick baby torturers are in CHARGE of your country. Does that bother you?
This is all about small time investors and the attitude that somebody with a spare hundred dollars is incapable of being able to make an informed decision about a potential investment opportunity.
If the investor does not have "access to a business plan [...], and financials", their investment decision is certainly NOT an informed one.
Nothing ever changes.
Which is why we need alternatives to the banking system.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I'd say that _some_ regulation is necessary, but certainly NOT registration with SEC and FINRA and a mountain of bureaucratic paperwork.
You can have open access requirements without the red tape, and allow the community to police itself.
"5. Nothing about the device should be proprietary, neither hardware or software."
Yet you call it an "MP3" player.
I love the crowdfunding thing. It's about bringing crazy ideas to life. Every hurdle you stick in the way, means a smaller chance that idea will make it. Big business has stifled creativity, especially in the area of video games and other media. We need to encourage the creative people, not make it harder for them.
So, instead of an SEC fee, our government should be subsidizing these people and companies.
How else will the banks collect millions of dollars acting as a shim between those who need money and those who have it? This sort of "IPO" is their bread and butter and a lot of people benefit from the current methods. Joe public rarely gets in at the IPO prices, but others (pension friends, etc) certainly do.
Next, take a look at the SEC and some of their previous "successes" and ask yourself why they would do better this time around?
You can't create and run a viable company with only 100K.
That may be so, but what this amounts to is closing a door we just managed to open for small operations. Here we go again, only ops with access to big business resources will typically be able to meet these proposed criteria. If you had doubt that big business interests drive our legislation, this should help resolve those doubts. Small operations can pose a huge threat because they are, at times, considerably quicker off the mark than your average corporation with its bean counters, lawyers, middle management, reviews, and HR making sure you only get the most mediocre employees possible.
This is mommy government at its typical get-in-the-way pursuits. The problem is, aside from complaining in fora like this one, there isn't much we can do about it unless some interested party's got deeper pockets than the corporations. Not too likely, seems to me.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Our corporations hate the idea of actual competition, so they buy up all the politicians they can (which is most of them) and use this weapon against any upstarts that might bring some new technology into the "market." I put "market" in quotes because there haven't been any major competitive markets in the US since big business took over agriculture.
Fascism: n A philosophy or system of government that advocates or expresses a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
New College Edition of the American Herritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1969, Houghton Mifflen
The SEC is about to make equity crowdfunding possible. It is not possible at all at present, and business plan, etc., seems entirely appropriate for equity investors. Current crowdfunding is not equity investment at all, it is either pre-order (by my understanding typical on Kickstarter) or a gift (by my understanding typical on IndieGoGo). My understanding is that the SEC rules will not affect those two modes of crowdfunding at all.
So this is a good thing. The Slashdot summary... not so much.
Is an understatement. The feds are out of control.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That would be the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
Unless the SEC sets global regulations?
These regulations are only for crowd funding that want to sell equity as part of the deal. This is a new law Obama signed (and one of the few that are good) and does not affect traditional crowd funding where you get a product or serive in return. I repeat again, these regulations are only for those seeking to include equity in the company as part of the deal.
It's not more taxes, it's creating a regulatory framework for something that did not exist previously. The requirements DO NOT APPLY to the type of crowdfunding that has happened in the past, this is for companies that issue stock. This is a good thing.
The "S" in SEC stands for Securities. It is their job to regulate that kind of thing.
As you say, Kickstarter is different. Not only are you not getting any equity in the company, you aren't getting any financial stake in the project or anything. It is an investment for creative return, not financial, and thus not something that would be covered.
You need to pay income tax on Kickstarter funds, of course, but that's all. They aren't an investment as far as the SEC is concerned.
My understanding (and IANAL and this isn't legal advice) is that Kickstarter income counts as sales, and thus ordinary income, while Indiegogo counts as a gift. Either way, it is taxable.
None of the US based crowdfunding sites are providing equity investments, and so this is an entirely new way of raising funds, and thus a positive thing.
Unlike most here might think, this might actually be needed regulation (projects/companies need to have the people's money traced, or else failed project become easy robberies or even forms of money laundering), but not the added taxation. Reasons are varied but the best example: I don't think nice text and a youtube video are safe enough for proving a company will keep their word, and the money will actually be used for what they state. Most people on the web will trust blindly and pour money, so regulation is essential for funding credibility, just like quality control/warranty are essential for consumer protection.
Unfortunately such bureaucratic measures are usually associated with the thievery of the money pie that needs be passed around, because that's the democratic government way of telling you: "yes, we promote capitalism, but you only deserve to level up in society if you profit so much you can actually get past our taxes, since we also need to be a bit communist" (which is usually the fair thing to do).
BUT this "give and don't take" funding, where public interest is primordial for the project's launch (unlike, say, investments that seek return of some form or have indirect interests from large companies) must fall under full exemption categories, much like academic research, or, since the start-ups actually make money from their funded innovations, a new category where public interest and FAIR taxation meet halfway.
There were too many nimble startups threatening the glacial old school companies and their established businesses. So these global leeches are going to have their bought and paid for politicians crush competition. They do it all the time from safety, to labor, to environmental laws; a hopeless web that cannot be navigated except by those who set it up in the first place.
This is crony capitalism at its worst. The FREE market would not have these problems. People really need to learn (but won't) that the abomination we are living under is not capitalism. It is the bastard child of fascism and socialism known as Statism. It is really hard to remember but our government is NOT broken! It is working exactly the way its owners desire it to work.
I'm planning a Crowd fund to fund some more development on a side project of mine, and if I hit $100k I'd be hiring a CPA anyway, if only to see how much of the money I can keep tax free.
As for a cost/benefit analysis is just a more formal review of the risks involved.
Besides, these rules don't kick in until $100k. My buddy's upcoming kickstarter to print a tiny run of a 15 page comic he's drawing isn't going to be affected. OTOH there's been a few high profile failures and it's be nice to get some of the artistic types to spend some time thinking about how much money they'll really need.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I can hire a small accouting firm for less than a grand. If I've got $100k kicking around I was probably going to do that anyway.
OTOH, some of the projects that got funded and failed did so because the creators didn't really plan ahead and didn't think about how much stuff really costs. This might put the breaks on that. You know, after the kickstarter is done the people don't sign a suicide pack and drink kool-aid in jonestown. Most of them take the work they've produced and try to get it on Steam. That's how I got Valdis Story (one of the best Metroidvania games in years).
Sometimes it helps to have a little guidance. The gov't isn't always there to rain on your parade you know.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
On what basis do you equate all business activity with "commerce"? Technically, investment isn't commerce. It's just frequently conducted by the same sorts of organizations. Besides, the SCOTUS has clearly ruled (from time to time) that intent of written law and constitutional statue are important, and not just the literal words used.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
You're local EPA can measure it's success in PPM of various pollutants. But we sorta forget that (which is odd, what with all the news of China's cities, or with the "Smog Days" in major American Cities).
Police measure crime rates. The Fed Reserve can measure economic growth. And the SEC can measure how much money was lost by investors on shoddy investments.
A bit more regulation before the housing bust woulda been nice. Anyone remember Glass-Seagal? As Liz Warren pointed out we had 50 years w/o a major bust until we repealed that...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Crowdfunding is no different than any other form of investment; it promises to deliver something in return for money. That's business and just because the business is done on the internet, mostly by people with little or no understanding of what's involved in legally soliciting capital investment, doesn't make it exempt from normal business regulation.
In the U.S. communist system, banks demand the government make it illegal for the poor to raise capital any way other than paying 23% on their credit card.
It is done to keep the poor (or middle class) poor. And to make more difficult for them escalating to riches.
I have participated in 10 crowd funded development efforts so far at Kickstarter and 1 at Indigogo. I am completely comfortable with the risks involved and the rewards I have experienced so far. I want government to stay out of the crowd funding process to prevent the costs always associated with government involvement. If you want to make a difference make your opinion heard to the SEC and your government representatives.
See the full text of the SEC's proposed rule making here:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/33-9470.pdf
If you are opposed to this insane over-reach as I am make your opinion known to the SEC through the following methods:
DATES: Comments should be received on or before February 3, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments:
Use the Commission’s Internet comment form: http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml;
Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number S7-09-13 on the
subject line; or
Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
This information is also in the above document.
Kickstarter and IndieGoGo aren't really affected by this for the reasons outlined by AC above.
Rockethub, on the other hand, will probably try and give a positive spin to it. Rockethub has been courting the idea of actual investment type projects and has been present in many leading talks on the subject, such as congress's hearing on the JOBS Act.
( There are also some purely investment-oriented 'crowdfunding' sites, but they're mostly little more than putting a Kickstarter-face on existing investment mechanisms. )
If you see a Kickstarter and you don't like what they're saying, just don't give them any money.
Problem solved.
You want regulation and I'd rather see personal responsibility. If a crowd-source project fails and it is discovered that the person who ran it was a fraud then there are already laws that cover fraud.
The same and more for their failure to do the job they are supposed to do,.
The SEC is a failure!
At least it will help to stop criminals from using KickStarter as a money-laundering service.
The exception for "small batch manufacturers" bemuses me. A small manufacturer, by nature of their size, is much less likely to be able to control their materials, have staff that understands science behind various risks and how to test for them, and have the facilities for proper testing of their raw materials and finished product. The large manufacturers are also more able to compensate for damages their products may cause.
Why should some kids not be protected just because their parents decide to buy toys from "boutique" manufacturers?
If there were 100,000 small manufacturers who provided toys to ½ of the kids and 1 large manufacturer who provided toys to the other ½ of the kids, it seems that the manufacturers to watch more closely are the 100,000 small ones. The large one has the resources to watch themselves and a strong motivation to not sully their brand name (billions of dollars is at stake for them, vs. just declaring corporate bankruptcy at the first hint of a lawsuit and starting a new business with a different name the next week).
It makes one wonder if some safety regulations are motivated more by the desire to "level the playing field" by putting hurdles in front of large businesses.
(Same logic applies to all farming, ranching, and food production rules which require lower level of compliance/checking for small vendors).
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The article is lying out its ass, and the lie is incredibly transparent. To see that this is a lie, here is the actual SEC filing. It is gigantic, but the relevant bits are pages 358 and 359 of the PDF. There are three big things that become immediately obvious from a cursory analysis of the table and associated description:
As others have already mentioned, this is also only applicable to crowdfunding where securities are given to the funders. For that situation, the new regulations are actually a tremendous cost savings, as usually this would require an IPO, which typically cost millions of dollars. So somehow the moron that wrote this article changed a dramatic cost savings (from millions of dollars down to tens of thousands, possibly less for small amounts of funding with a cheap lawyer), and turned it into a story of "bureaucratic overreach". Come on. This article should be retracted for gross inaccuracy.
Evidence?
Table-ized A.I.
The SEC is missing the point of their existence. Okay, so I know the point really is that big business wants to prevent competition and they are the SEC's puppet master, but in theory...
The point of the SEC is to prevent corruption by making sure investors know exactly what they're getting into. In crowdfunding, "investors" know exactly what they're getting into (I'll use typical kickstarter as examples). The investors don't expect to make a profit. They are presented with some information, if they think it's cool then they'll donate (it's called a pledge, not an investment for cryin' out loud!). They know there's a good chance the company won't succeed, but if it does, cool, they get some sort of reward.
There's a big difference between saying, "here, pledge a few bucks, if we succeed you get something cool." And, "here, invest your money with us, we promise we'll succeed and make you even more money." So if there's no promise of a return on investment, why should a company be required to back up a non-existent promise on a non-existent investment?
All this illustrates is that Corporations/Government (one in the same) don't want any competition from those already not playing their rigged games.
This is about the total control of everything, eliminating perceived competition, not just crowd-funding.
Pay attention to the larger picture folks this is merely a small part of worse things to come.
exhibit A.
That's it SEC, try to crush everyone who tries to organize toward a mutual goal. We simply mustn't let that happen.
Twinstiq, game news
What exactly is liberal about putting a massive new bureaucracy in place that will be controlled by lobbyists and other well-connected people in Washington? Real liberalness in this case would be about making sure there's a basic fair playing ground to make sure that crowdfunding has the possibility of functioning well, not controlling it. Controlling it is totalitarian, not liberal.
Write your congress critter right now to stop this in its tracks. The only way to keep crowdfunding alive is to let them know we do not want this to be tampered with.
Commoditizing investment channels, eliminating the middleman, would be a nightmare scenario for Wall Street.
Yep, legalise the sale of securities via crowdfunding!!
Right now; it is illegal. The recent law and SEC rules make it legal.
(This isn't about kickstarter, it is about making it easier to sell stocks and shares via crowdfunding).
But I guess you didn't read the article. (I know I didn't!)
Or the comments pointing this out. (This, I did read)
I think the SEC is making this decision with good intentions and there is merit to what they want to do. However, some parts of their plan are misguided. With a crowd funding model, we can promote new businesses and even economic growth. We all know that investing yor money is a risk and risks don't always pay off. I also believe there needs to be a level of accountability. People who enter the crowd funding arena should not be charged a government fee for the capital they raise. It's counter productive and hinders the development of a new product, and stunt the growth of a new business who may one day provide jobs. The SEC is clearly over-reaching their bounds here. On the flip side, some projects turn out to be a fiasco and the money either goes to waste or is pocketed. I think there is a need for the recipients of the funds to set a plan with mile stones for the funds, and have something to show at each milestone.
Someone has to protect us from U.S. Morons (*tftfy*) - tell each government employee that there is a pocket of enriched air at the bottom of this well, that when breathed, will grant immortality instantly.
Hand out the weight belts to assist with their diving efforts, and watch each and every U.S. Moron (tm pending) immortalize themselves.
Why do the editors allow such salacious but unwarranted headings to be used? If the title were: The SEC Is About to Make Crowdfunding of Securities More Expensive, then this more accurate but less sensationalist wording would suffice. Do the editors never read the referenced article to make sure the title reflects the content?
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Rest in Peace Kickstarter and Indiegogo (et al)
The LIberatarians at Slashdot living in their freedom loving parents's basements hate when the gov't rules their lives! (yes son you're going to have meatloaf with the rest of us, your mother isn't cooking some tofu organic latest fad diet just for one person)
I used to be
1. Crowdsourcing does not give a valid "share certificate' or 'vote' in a company/organisation. SEC etc only relevant to 'saleable/buyable transferable' certificate of value/vote. /UK that sale of a share in a 'public company'/'public incorporation' are subject to regulation. In UK at least Private Companies are not subject to share regulation but only to tax law and companies tax and companies law, and must keep a register of shareholders which is public knowledge via application to register by any interested party.
2. Crowdsource funders are 'adventurers in trade'. All can be lost (idea fails) or they may get a tangeable reward ( a magazine or T-shirt or software) which is not a 'security' or even remotely fall near ' 'security' meaning.
3. Seems to try to get at "IPO equivalent without securites on a registered exchnage", but even voting shares in a club, say a chess club, are irrelevant to SEC; I think.
4. Key lies in both USA and EU
Regards Eion MacDonald
can't have competition for the VC funded offers
oooooooo