Blog - Crowdfund Capital Advisors

Top Regulation Crowdfunding Industries by City & State

June 30, 2017 ended the first full Fiscal Year of Regulation Crowdfunding. The first year saw a healthy start with over $51.3M being committed to almost 400 campaigns. Companies seeking Regulation Crowdfunding can raise up to $1,070,000 from retail investors provided that they do so on platforms that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and provide certain disclosures to investors.

Crowdfund Capital Advisors built a database to aggregate all the data about companies issuing Regulation Crowdfunding securities. This database has the most industry-wide data out there. For each company over 80 data points are collected. This information is analyzed and reported during quarterly webinars as well as to industry stakeholders in private events.

The following is a report from CAFDAB (The CCA Crowdfunding Database) that shows the Top Industries by City and State. For more information/analysis, email us.

Source: Crowdfund Capital Advisors

Revenue Share in Regulation Crowdfunding – A Profitable Investment Alternative?

As of June 30^th, of the 134 companies that successfully closed and funded Regulation Crowdfunding campaigns, a small but significant group – 13% (18 companies) – have chosen to issue investor securities in the form of Revenue Share. This group of companies raised $5.4M (~$298.5k average) from an engaged an audience base of over 3,300 investors, many of which are now customers with a vested interest in the success of that business. Since these investors can benefit from an immediate ROI (as the companies repay their investors from the company’s revenues), there is incentive for investors to be marketing ambassadors for the business. Since the yield on these securities, appears to be greater than traditional investments (and the instruments have shorter terms), there is benefit for investors. Yet these potential returns do not come without risk. Not all the companies that are offering Revenue Share are producing income at the time of the sale of the securities, so it is best to do your research and give more consideration to those that are producing current revenues, which may increase the chance of repayment.

Revenue Share means that a company will pay back its investors a percent of gross revenues each month until the stated return is made. This return could be within a specific time window or until the stated return is met. Revenue Share is like debt in the sense that investors are investing money in companies, but rather than receiving interest and principal payments, investors receive their pro-rata share of the percent of gross revenue repayment.

Revenue Share is particularly beneficial for companies that experience seasonality in their cash flows. During months with higher revenues, they can repay more of their debt. On the flip side, when sales are slower, their repayment would be less. This eases a business’s cash burn concern.

When looking at the industries of the 18 companies, most them were restaurants or craft breweries/distilleries. All of which have current (or future) customers and hence cash flow. These 18 companies had over 3,300 investors who now have a vested interest in the success of these businesses and will most likely be bringing their friends, family and community to their “investment.” Outside of capital, this becomes another benefit to crowdfunding – engaging a community.

Drilling down into the data, we find 2 key variables:

Return on Investment: On average, companies offered a 1.56 multiple; meaning an issuer pledges to give a $56 return for every $100 dollars initially invested.
Investment Period: Specified maturity periods are averaging about 46 months (about 3 years and 3 quarters).

In breakdown terms, these companies with specified maturity periods average a 56% return over 3.83 years – equal to a projected 14.6% return a year. This provides a possibly attractive investment alternative for investors, given annual compound interest returns on bonds average 2% and stocks about 6% (Blanchett, WSJ).

These companies raised on average $298,494. It would seem this would be enough capital to achieve their anticipated outcomes as they are not high-tech, high-cash burn entities. However, only 4 of the 18 companies were showing revenue in their Annual Report, meaning only these select few could start repayments. A notable risk for investors.

56% of these companies stipulate maturity periods – meaning a defined period within which they will repay the investor capital. The others have chosen “until,” which means that they will continue to repay the investor capital until the multiple is achieved. The longer the repayment period, the lower the yield becomes for investors. Understandably, companies are hesitant to issue a definitive timeline for investors’ return on investment out of financial concern that if projected revenues do not come into fruition, then the company is still obligated to pay out.

Although too soon to tell actual revenue trends, what can be observed is the small pool companies participating in Revenue Shares show a promised return on investors’ investment well above the normal rate of return for traditional investing. In addition, over 50% prove to be confident enough to hold themselves accountable to their own measures of success as well as their investors by committing a ROI deadline for their investors. If you are an investor your take away should be, Revenue Share could be an attractive diversification strategy for your portfolio; however, it is important to consider if the company is generating revenue to minimize your risk of not getting paid back and maximize your expected return.

——

Find the information above useful? You can see all the data summarized in our recent paid Webinar: The First Full Fiscal Year of Regulation Crowdfunding.

Data Proves Regulation Crowdfunding is a Revenue, Net Income Generator AND a Jobs Engine – What else is our Government & Media Waiting For?

Regulation Crowdfunding is a little over a year old and the data indicates that it is a revenue and income generator for companies and a jobs engine for the economy. The law requires companies that complete successful campaigns to file an Annual Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and also make it available to investors. 53 companies that were successful with their offerings by December 31, 2016 filed this form (C-AR) with the SEC. When comparing financial data from companies before vs. after crowdfunding campaigns, it is very clear that companies experienced increases in revenue, net income, and jobs, following a funding campaign.

Here are 3 very important findings:

Companies that used Regulation Crowdfunding doubled their revenue growth compared with the year before their crowdfunding campaign
Net income grew by 157% over the same period
On average, companies added 2.7 employees after crowdfunding. Not everyone created jobs. 13 companies reduced workforce, while another 13-increased workforce. If you remove the 13 that reduced their workforce the average increases from 2.7 to 5.7

As Congress looks for ways to stimulate the economy, considering ways to expand utilization of Regulation Crowdfunding may be worth exploring.

When Regulation Crowdfunding kicked off on May 16, 2016 we launched the Crowdfunding Transparency Database. This database collects information about every company that files an offering document with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). For each offering we collect over 80 individual data points that range from information about the financial condition of a company, to the composition of the founding team, to the size of a company’s social network among many other important data elements. We analyze campaigns based on those that both hit their funding targets and those that fail. We look at valuations across geography and industry and we analyze the impact that the crowd’s money has on a company’s performance. We track this information and report it both on our Daily Index page and via quarterly webinars and presentations at the SEC.

Regulation Crowdfunding allows any American startup or small business to raise up to $1,070,000 million from potential investors on debt and equity crowdfunding platforms registered with the SEC. Similar to donation or rewards sites, Regulation Crowdfunding issuers launch campaigns and use their social network to invite people to review their business plans, market opportunity, financial statements and video pitch. However, instead of getting a token of appreciation or a widget, backers get shares in a business or interest repaid on a loan.

From the launch of Regulation Crowdfunding on May 16, 2016 to June 30, 2017, 399 companies filed with the SEC. Of those companies, 52% were successful in hitting their minimum funding target and $37M was funded to those companies. With the average campaign lasting only 103 days, compared to the many lengthy and cumbersome alternatives like applying for an SBA loan or seeking VC money, Regulation Crowdfunding seems to be a viable alternative given its high success rate over a shorter period of time.

Access to capital is the number one evergreen issue for startups and small businesses. If the data from Regulation Crowdfunding now proves that it helps grow enterprises and create jobs, both of which lead to taxable revenue for our government, shouldn’t more emphasis be placed on it by the government, our small business associations, local chambers of commerce, educators and the media? It seems like a solution is right under our noses yet no one seems to know it yet.

Data shows social following isn’t crucial to successful crowdfunding

(The following is a reprint of a story we wrote for VentureBeat. The original can be found here)

Crowdfunding is the hot new topic in the startup world. Since the passage of regulations allowing companies to source funding from Main Street American investors, startups have been flocking to crowdfunding platforms to secure capital. But what makes a crowdfunding campaign successful? The most obvious answer is a large social following — a crowd of loyal fans that would invest their hard-earned cash in a seemingly great idea. We expected this to be the case, and we analyzed the social media followings of 233 campaigns to find evidence. But while our hypothesis holds some truth, social media may not be as important to crowdfunding success as we initially believed.

The data

According to the crowdfunding law, a company must have a deadline date for reaching its minimum funding target (MFT). The offering is considered closed and not open for further investments after the deadline date is reached. If a company hits its MFT on or before the deadline, it is considered funded. We analyzed all closed campaigns, whether they were funded or not. Of the 233 campaigns, 120 reached their MFT, while 113 were not funded. Our analysis looked at the Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram networks of both groups separately then together. We also considered the LinkedIn accounts of the CEOs to see if a correlation exists between the number of professional connections and the company’s ability to secure funding. A surprisingly anticlimactic trend emerged: Overall, while social media appears to play a positive role in a campaign’s funding, this is only true to a minor extent. The chart below shows the trend line between the funds a company raised and its social following. The trend line shows that while there is a positive correlation between size of social following and raised funds, it holds little significance.

Results vary by industry

This doesn’t mean social media is a waste of time. In fact, the importance of a social following appears to vary by industry, as shown in chart below with trendlines for different industries. For industries where a social following plays a pivotal role, such as wine and spirits or apparel, the trend is more dramatic than for other industries. The wine and spirits industry appears to maximize the power of a smaller social network. This may be because wine and spirits tends to have a following of loyal fans, particularly when looking at local brands that have a storefront presence. However, for industries that have a technical background and lower social reach, such as transportation and consumer goods, the trend is almost flat or even reversed. The key here is to understand whether your industry is one that attracts followers; if so, you may be able to leverage them for crowdfunding success. If your industry is one that doesn’t attract a crowd, don’t rely on your social following to fund your campaign.

The state you’re based in makes a difference

To date, California and Texas have had the most crowdfunded campaigns. With that in mind, we assessed the importance of a social media following in both states. Our data suggests that a large social network is much more important in California than Texas, as shown below. This may be due to Silicon Valley’s influence in the region. Since there is more competition for venture capital, perhaps companies are leveraging crowdfunding and their social networks to signal popularity and a reason to invest. In Texas, a social following is not a determinant of campaign success. This could be due to a more direct financial approach to crowdfunding in Texas, where investors are searching for proven financial strength instead of social exposure. The implication for startups is that you should understand who you are targeting with your campaign and focus your social media outreach on that. A deeper analysis of other states is in order, but there simply is not enough activity in other states to make a judgement.

We came across one of the most telling findings when we compared the top 20 campaigns, all of which raised above $500,000, to those that raised precisely zero. The top 20 campaigns had a clear advantage in social media following. On every platform, the top 20 campaigns far exceeded the non-starters in number of followers. It seems almost as if the campaigns that raised no money were intentionally avoiding social media. The chart below displays the total social following for the top 20 and the nonfunded campaigns and suggests that social media plays an essential role on each side of the spectrum. If you want to raise $1,070,000, the most that is permitted by law, you should focus some resources on building a fan base. Beyond these three networks is the LinkedIn following for the CEOs of each startup. As expected the LinkedIn following for the top 20 far exceeded that of the bottom campaigns. On average, the nonfunded campaign CEOs had 32 connections on LinkedIn, while the top 20 CEO’s had 414 connections. This discrepancy suggests that a CEO’s professional network plays a vital role in the start-ups success on crowdfunding platforms.

Facebook takes priority

Our data included information for four major social media platforms: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn, in order of importance. Each social platform has its own benefits, but the one that stands out in crowdfunding is Facebook. It is almost as if Facebook is the center of a successful campaign. So at a minimum, make sure you have a Facebook presence.

All things considered, the data suggests that the more money a company hopes to raise, the more it should focus on developing a social platform. But results vary by type of industry as well as the type of investor a company hopes to attract. However, companies hoping to raise less than $100,000 may not need to invest as much time on social media and could just use crowdfunding as a tool to speed up funding from pre-existing relationships. Nonetheless, some sort of following is essential, as the campaigns that raised no money demonstrate.

Sherwood Neiss is a partner at Crowdfund Capital Advisors. He helped lead the U.S. fight to legalize debt and equity based crowdfunding and coauthored the book Crowdfund Investing for Dummies.

Tyler Monaccio is an analyst at Crowdfund Capital Advisors and is currently working on an MBA with a focus on finance and global affairs.

Your crowdfunding video could be hurting your campaign

(The following is a reprint of the story we wrote for Venture Beat. It can be found here).

Let’s be honest. After jumping through hoops to get your crowdfunding campaign live, your video is many times an afterthought. We recently analyzed over 200 campaigns to gauge how important videos are in crowdfunding.

A quick bit of background: Crowdfunding campaigns are open on average 93 days. Issuers must meet their funding target to receive invested capital; otherwise, it goes back to the investors, and the campaign is considered closed and failed.

We analyzed 243 closed campaigns. Of those, 51 percent (123) got funded. These campaigns are raising more capital than their failed counterparts — a lot more. On average, they raise 16.5 times more per campaign than a failed one, capture an impressive $277,000, and monumentally overshadow the average $16,000 a failed campaign raises. Given the SEC does not allow failed campaigns to keep their funds, it is imperative for issuers to ensure all their campaign efforts are fine tuned.

Our analysis focused on the campaign video as a highly visible, yet commonly misunderstood fundraising driver. We dissecting each video’s essential components through a weighted quality-rating system based on a 10-point scale. A perfect 10 video exceptionally demonstrated the following elements:

Ability to engage the audience’s attention
An idea that compels an investor to invest
Strong emotional pull
Solid product or service testimonials
Meaningful and professional speaker engagement
Video production quality, including the music
Solution effectiveness to a market problem
Investment opportunity and market potential
Team introductions and confidence in their execution ability
Funding needs and plans

Campaign videos scoring in the range of 0 to 3 points are considered poor, 4 to 6 points average, 7 to 8 points good, and 9 to 10 points excellent.

Videos rated poor typically do not engage the audience or compel an investor to invest because of missing key information about the product or because the product or service present more questions than answers. These videos also lack professional production quality.

Average videos have most the essential components listed in our weighted rating system but are somewhat lacking in professional production quality, audience engagement, business opportunity details, and funding needs.

Good videos are professionally done and provide solid audience engagement with a compelling business opportunity. They address most components in our weighted-rating system but leave out one or two key details — most commonly an explanation of a business’s funding needs and plans.

Excellent videos are professionally done, emotionally engaging, and provide a compelling business opportunity. They tick all the boxes in our weighted-rating system, leaving the investor informed, confident, and excited about the investment opportunity.

In addition to categorizing videos by quality, we also tagged campaigns by the type of audience they target: 1) “Explainers” are essentially commercials tailored for the consumer audience, leaving out key investor information (i.e. the investment opportunity, market potential, team introductions, experience, and funding needs), and 2) “Pitches” are videos with a message tailored for the investor, including everything an explainer does plus what they typically leave out.

For a video categorized as an explainer to score well, it needed to strongly engage the audience through its production quality, emotional pull, testimonials, and creative business solution, since it lacks more concrete business information.

Our findings led us to four recommendations:

1. Investing in quality reaps maximum returns.

The majority of campaigns funded (82 percent) have a video of average quality or better. Having at least an average quality video is becoming more of a prerequisite for an increased chance of meeting the funding target, but this doesn’t ensure above average funding. In fact, successful campaigns raised an average of $277,000. If you look at the chart below, you will see that those with an average quality video only raised $222,000 — 20 percent below average, while those with good quality videos raise 16.5 percent more than the average. Not surprisingly, campaigns with excellent video quality do even better, raising 32 percent above average.

Intero Ristorante is an example of an excellent campaign video that helped the company raise double its funding target. The founders engage investors with a compelling story, background, and business mission through a professional quality video.

A word of caution: Even though campaigns with no video have a smaller success rate, when they do succeed, they raise more money than campaigns with average quality videos. If you are looking to just make your minimal funding target, then your campaign has a good chance of falling into that 82 percent of average quality videos that are funded, but investing in quality clearly yields maximum returns.

2. Pitch videos get funded more and raise more funds.

Our data shows it pays to inform your investor audience. We divided campaigns into those with no video, those that used an explainer, and those that used a pitch. Those using pitch videos show a much higher funding success rate (75 percent) than those with explainer videos, which were funded 18 percent less. And those with no video at all were funded 67 percent less than pitch campaigns. Campaigns with pitch videos are also raised more money — $294,000 on average — which is 6 percent more than the average funded campaign, 7 percent more than those with explainer videos, and 25 percent more than funded campaigns with no video at all. So, at a minimum, when putting your video script together it’s a good idea to answer some of the questions an investor might have about your company, team, or market rather than just explain how your product works.

3. Length doesn’t guarantee funding success.

Does video length matter? Well, yes and no. We analyzed video lengths by categorizing them into short (0 to 1.5 minute), medium (1.5-3 minute), lengthy (3-5 minute), and very lengthy (over 5 minutes). We found that short, medium, and lengthy videos all have a funding success rate above the average 51 average ( 69 percent, 71 percent, and 62 percent, respectively), which further signals that having a video is better than no video, regardless of its length.

Medium to lengthy videos, ranging anywhere from 1.5 min to 5 min long, raise the most capital in total and raise more than the average campaign by 4 percent and 16 percent respectively. Interestingly, the majority of pitch videos fall into these two categories, thus honing in the point that it’s worth taking the time to appropriately inform potential investors.

Campaigns with very lengthy videos appear to be an anomaly. They raise more than 2 times the average funded campaign ($601,000 on average) but are only funded half the time (they make up less than 5 percent of all funded campaigns). They also vary wildly in the amount of capital raised — anywhere from $64,000 to $1 million. Since a very lengthy video doesn’t guarantee six-figure funding, and it’s possible to have funding success with any reasonable length of video, length should be viewed in terms of how well you have informed and engaged your investor audience with the critical video quality components.

4. Positioning your campaign amongst quality brings greater returns.

Only 43 percent (104) of the campaigns we looked at had videos. Of this group, we rated 54 percent as being of good or excellent quality. We found the quality unevenly dispersed throughout the various equity crowdfunding portals. Of the 56 total campaigns rated as having good or excellent quality video, 45 percent ran on Wefunder, with Microventure and Start Engine coming a far second, hosting 16 percent of campaigns with top quality videos. Since we know that higher quality videos bring higher returns, it makes sense for issuers to position themselves within a portal that curates a higher level of quality campaigns. Looking at the chart below, you will also notice that Microventures and StartEngine have a higher percent of excellent videos. (And Microventures’ average funded campaign is $295,547 vs. Wefunder’s $284,631, although Seedinvest wins that race with the average funded campaign of $413,698).

Is a campaign video worth the investment?

Investing in a video specifically tailored for your equity crowdfunding campaign shows dedication and commitment to your potential investors. It also visually displays for them what you can accomplish and, subconsciously, what you can execute with capital. What the data shows is that if you are looking to raise a minimum of $50,000, investing in a decent video will most likely ensure your funding target is met. But if you are looking to raise at least $277,000, investing in an excellent quality video will maximize your returns.

A final point of consideration is your actual return on investment. Given that competition is strong among videographers and that a professionally executed video can be done for as little as $5,000, the potential returns on a good campaign video versus a poor one are significantly greater — almost 6x more.

Be sure to take a look at our story from yesterday on how your social media following is likely to affect the success of your crowdfunding campaign, too.

Sherwood Neiss is a partner at Crowdfund Capital Advisors. He helped lead the U.S. fight to legalize debt and equity based crowdfunding and coauthored the book Crowdfund Investing for Dummies.

Stephanie Willard is an analyst at Crowdfund Capital Advisors and is currently working on an MBA with a focus on finance and global affairs. She is passionate about finance as a vehicle for equitable economic development.

One year into Regulation Crowdfunding and it is off to the Portal races

Can Wefunder Maintain its Lead in Deals and Dollars?

(Reprint of Venture Beat Article)

With one year of Regulation Crowdfunding complete the data is beginning to tell a story about portal activity and what issuers need to know. Since Regulation Crowdfunding began on May 16^th last year, 335 companies have filed offering documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to raise up to $1M on securities-based Crowdfunding platforms. Of those companies, 43% were funded, 30% failed and the remainder are still open and trying to get funding. Total capital committed was in excess of $40M, the average successful crowdfunding campaign raised around $282,000 and it did so from about 312 investors. According to Figure 1, the most recent quarter ending saw the greatest number of companies file with the SEC. This signals that issuers might finally be catching on to the opportunity that Regulation Crowdfunding holds.

26 portals registered with FINRA to help companies sell Regulation Crowdfunding securities. 9 of those companies have already closed, gone out of business or been shut down. Of those remaining (Figure 2), Wefunder (San Francisco/Massachusetts-based) is leading the pack in deals and dollars. They have been in business since Regulation Crowdfunding went into effect and have funded 63 companies with almost $18M in capital. Start Engine (Los Angeles) with 27 campaigns funded is in second while Microventures (Austin), NextSeed (Houston), SeedInvest (New York) and Republic (New York) hold close in third thru sixth places. Interestingly enough, the location of the platforms also matches the states that have raised the most capital. Several platforms (both old and new) have only funded a handful of campaigns and dollars. This may signal that brand awareness and marketing by the larger incumbents may be driving both companies seeking capital and investors looking for deal flow.

Figure 2

However, If you dig a little deeper (Figure 3) and look at the capital raised during the last 3 Quarters you will see in that while Wefunder is leading in overall dollars, both Microventures and Start Engine were not far behind in terms of Quarterly commitments (see Orange bar to compare Q1, 17 results). Microventures, the offshoot of Rewards-based crowdfunding platform Indiegogo only launched at the end of last year and is already showing strong results with 100% campaign success. While they haven’t run many campaigns, the campaigns that they have run have raised slightly more than Wefunder (Figure 4). Going forward we expect that Indiegogo will put time and energy into converting its most successful rewards campaigns into equity campaigns on Microventures. This will make them a strong contender in the marketplace. Start Engine with its strong performance in the Transportation, Software and Entertainment/Media sector will also be a strong contender as will Republic, the offshoot of Angelist and SeedInvest.

Figure 3

If you are an issuer you might be most interested in success rates. While Wefunder has the most deals and raised the most money in aggregate it holds second place in terms of the average raise per successful campaign. Microventures took the prize with $286,334. For the moment this is a competitive advantage as Microventures moves from its go-to-market strategy to its market expansion one. Nonetheless, Start Engine and SeedInvest aren’t far off and will most likely be appealing to issuers as well. Net-net, now that the industry is a year old, has seen steady growth with relatively little mishaps we expect the next year to be even more competitive. Wefunder got out of the gate strong, but can they hold up to the portals with deep pocket VCs behind them?

Women and Minorities in Regulation Crowdfunding

High Success Rate Despite Low Representation and Lower Funding Levels

(Also published in Crowdfund Insider)

Regulation Crowdfunding finished its fourth Calendar Quarter this past March and the data shows that women and minorities have a higher percent chance at hitting their minimum funding target but represent fewer campaigns and receive less capital. While the overall market is beginning to show signs of traction with over 265 companies trying their hand at Regulation Crowdfunding, the clear majority of them are founded by teams of white men. Given the opportunity for Regulation Crowdfunding to provide on average $300k to funded campaigns, this represents a missed opportunity for women and minorities who often find themselves alienated from the capital markets.

Regulation Crowdfunding allows any American startup or small business to raise up to $1,070,000 million from friends, family and followers on debt and equity crowdfunding platforms registered with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). Just like on donation or rewards sites, issuers launch Campaigns and use their social network to invite people to review their business plans, market opportunity, financial statements and video pitch. However, instead of getting a token of appreciation or a widget, backers get shares in a business or interest repaid on a loan.

Since the launch of Regulation Crowdfunding on May 16, 2016, 265 companies have filed with the SEC. Of those companies, 50% were successful in hitting their minimum funding target and $25.4M was funded to those companies. With the average campaign lasting only 93 days, compared to the many lengthy and cumbersome alternatives like applying for an SBA loan or seeking VC money, Regulation Crowdfunding seems to be a viable alternative. However, this seems to be true if you are a white male and have more than one founder.

Digging into all the offerings, 165 campaigns (62%) were started by White male founders, 43 where there was at least one woman founder, 26 where there was at least one minority, 8 that were run by women-only founders, 14 by minority-only founders and 10 by founders that were both women and minorities. Adding it up, women and minority led companies only represented 37% of all offerings.

When filtered for only successful campaigns, 82 companies hit their minimum funding target, closed their offerings and received their funds. Of those 82 only 7 companies were founded by ‘women only’ teams, 6 by ‘minority only’ teams and 1 by a team of ‘one woman and one minority.’ The other 68 were by founders that were white men. When looking at success percentages, campaigns run by women-only founders had an 87.5% success rate compared to 41% for men-only founders. Minority-only founders also had a higher success rate (46%) than men-only founders. Given the high success rate (particularly compared to VC funding), it is surprising that more women and minorities don’t give Regulation Crowdfunding a chance.

When digging into the data we find that 79% of the successful companies were founded by teams of 2 or more. Larger teams tended to raise more money than companies with one founder. Teams of 5 founders had the highest average raise at $408k while individual founders raised $353k. White men raised the most on average ($342k). Companies where at least one woman was a founder raised almost $100k less on average ($245k) than companies founded solely by men. And it was worse ($178k) where founders could count one minority among their team. The most unfortunate part was that companies with at least one African-American as a founder raised the least on average ($130k), followed by Asians ($173) and then Indians (227k). So while success percentages might be higher, their funding amounts are lower. Another unfortunate reality that will hopefully change over time.

If you are looking for diversity your best chances of finding it are in New York, Texas or California. Not surprising, as they also match the states with the most offerings and the most successful Regulation Crowdfunding campaigns. However, this doesn’t and shouldn’t preclude women and minorities from trying their hands at Regulation Crowdfunding elsewhere in the country, the reality is, this might be the only source of capital available to them.

If women and minorities want to succeed, our interviews with companies where there was at least one woman or minority on a founding board showed that the team spent a considerable amount of time preparing for the offering. They educated themselves about the process prior to launching the campaign and they relied heavily on their networks when seeking funds. We also uncovered that women liked to back other women and minorities liked to back other minorities which might explain their higher success percentages. So women and minorities should leverage these relationships to raise money rather than expect the crowd just to come in with the capital without having a pre-existing relationship.

Diagnostic

CCA is pleased to announce the Regulation Crowdfunding Diagnostic Tool. This tool is meant to help entrepreneurs understand how ready they are for debt or equity crowdfunding and how much they can expect to raise. To get started email lisa@theccagroup.com with your name and email address and our team will reach out to you!

CCA Recognized

CCA Recognized & Tomorrow’s Webinar

CCA 2nd PRIVATE MODERN CAPITAL MARKETS WEBINAR

What a tremendous honor to be recognized as the 2017 Crowdfunding Persons of the Year by CrowdfundBeat!

We cannot thank them enough for this honor and sincerely appreciate all the kind words in response to this award!

Needless to say, Regulation Crowdfunding has been a passion of ours since we first started working on the framework in 2010. To see it go from idea, to law and now to an emerging part of the Private Capital Markets is amazing.

While we are honored to receive this recognition, we know we wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the hard work of many of you as well. So, thank you and we share this honor with you!

This brings us to the second part of this newsletter.

Tomorrow at 2pm ET is the 2016 Year End Regulation Crowdfunding Webinar!

Many of you have already registered. For those of you who haven’t, TODAY is the last day to get the 20% discount.

Our database has grown and we will share all of the key findings and trends among Campaigns, Portals, Average Raises, Average Valuations, Average # of Investors, Capital Flows by State & Industry and much more!

The data analysis signals many positive things for Regulation Crowdfunding and the Industry. Below are some of the 50 slides we will be presenting that digs into the data.

We hope to see you there and THANK YOU again to CrowdfundBeat!

The CCA Team!

CHART: The Difference Between Title II, III and IV of the JOBS Act

The following chart depicts high level differences between what was historically allowed in the private capital markets and what is allowed today under the 2012 JOBS Act.

2016 Year End Regulation Crowdfunding Analysis

The 4th Quarter and first Fiscal Year has ended for Regulation Crowdfunding. It was a solid start to a new industry and is evolving just as we had expected. During 2016 the industry saw:

21 Regulation Crowdfunding portals emerge
186 companies in 36 states launch campaigns
By the year end 105 of them had closed. Of those
- 52 (49.52%) hit their minimum funding targets and raised $13,115,477 in capital
- 53 (50.48%) didn’t hit their funding targets and had $955,150 in capital returned to investors
Altogether $14,070,627 was committed to the 105 campaigns that closed signaling a slow and steady progress to the launch of Regulation Crowdfunding

Join us for the Second Quarterly and First Fiscal Year End Analysis of the Modern Private Capital Markets where we will be digging deep into the data and shedding light on:

Success rate by issuers and total capital raised
Rate of investor capital commitments over time
States/Regions where capital is flowing vs those that are underperforming
Average amount raised by successful campaigns
Average valuation of companies that were successfully funded
Average investment and number of investors in a successfully funded campaign
Portal Performance:
- Who is leading the issuer race?
- Who has the most successful campaigns?
- Who has raised the most money for campaigns?
- Who has the most backers?
Issuer Performance
- What trends are we seeing in campaign launches?
- What kind of fees are issuers paying portals?
- How long does it take the average successful campaign to hit its funding target?
- What impact does a video have on capital formation?
- How does an issuer’s social network drive capital commitments?
- How mature are these issuers and does this have any impact?
- How does issuer communication affect their ability to raise funds?

For those that register now you will be able to schedule a free 30 minute call with us to answer any questions you have about the data!

All you need to do is register here!

3 Different Types of Equity Crowdfunding with George Georgiades, Jason Best & Lisa Canning

Are you an attorney? Do the businesses you serve need to raise capital? Are you a small business looking to raise equity?

In this episode, learn about 3 different types of equity crowdfunding from experienced New York securities attorney George Georgiades and Co-Founder of the JOBS Act from Crowdfunding Capital Advisors, Jason Best.