Image
  • Launching the Dream
  • Education Initiatives
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
    • Public Policy Development and Exchange of Ideas
    • Mentoring & Education
    • Championing Legislation for Public Policy Initiatives
  • Education and Business Initiatives

Archive for Featured

Sep
30

How to Talk to a Tech Advisor

by nick
Another great post by Tony Karrer at SoCal CTO –

Are you a non-technical startup founder who’s about to go have a conversation with a Chief Technical Officer (CTO) or Technical advisory type person?   Maybe you are going for a reality check on your current situation – wondering if you have a Weak Development Team or a Startup Founder Developer Gap.  Maybe you are trying to determine what technologies might apply that you should be evaluating.  Maybe you have questions about the types of developers you need and even whether you need a Startup CTO or Developer or both.  Or you want to know about whether you have the right Web Development Company.  Or what else you might need in Document Your MVP for a Developer.

You definitely should be having these conversations in order to find out what things you might not be considering (Questions Developers Should Ask a Startup Founder) that are going to be important to your startup that as a non-technical founder you just don’t know to ask.  And this last one is why I tell every startup founder: Every Web/Mobile Startup Must Have a Technical Advisor.

Of course, when you go to have this conversation be prepared.  I recently had a phone call with an early stage entrepreneur that was incredibly frustrating.  I’d prefer that you don’t make the same mistakes.

Let me lay out at a high level the normal conversation you will have with a strategic technical person:

  • 1 min – small talk
  • 0.25 min (that’s 15 seconds) – why you are meeting
  • 10 minutes – overview of the business and key challenges
  • 30 minutes – questions and thoughts from the technical person

Let me run through these items.

The classic first mistake is to extend the small talk period.  If you’ve not already read How to Hunt Programmers for Your Startup – A Field Guide, go read what motivates and turns off a developer – CTOs and Technical Advisors are quite similar.  Small talk is not a motivator.  It’s not warming us up.  Don’t worry about going straight from “Hi, thanks for meeting with me” to “Well I want to respect your time, so let me dive in.”  Most technical people will appreciate you getting into things quickly.  Small talk is tough work for techies – so much so that people post to help techies with small talk.  Helping you with your challenges is fun.  Oh, and if you read that post, then you know that you will have earned bonus points by buying coffee, beer, whatever for the person as thanks for meeting/helping.  Yes, sadly, that still works on us techies.

image

The second item is important to make sure we are on the same page on why we are getting together.  “I have some immediate questions.  I’m hoping to get input on X, Y and Z, but I also want thoughts on what I might not know to ask about.  Depending on where the conversation goes, we may want to talk about how you might be involved in an on-going way.”

The third item is REALLY important.  You need to be prepared to take the technical person through the standard stuff about the business that you would present up to an investor.  Actually, here are two posts with a pretty good list of background items you should plan to cover: Startup Software Development Homework and Free Startup CTO Consulting Sessions.  I personally like when founders have provided me this information prior to meeting for the first time.  It makes sure I know what the business really is, what’s the current state, and gives my analytic brain some time to process things.

A common, but really frustrating, situation is when a startup founder wants to hold back details about the business and product to protect themselves.  As a technical person, I’m sitting there trying to solve a problem.  But the founder is trying to hide the problem.  Argh!  I’m frustrated just thinking about it.  I personally believe the best answer is to provide what you would to an investor.  You don’t ask for an NDA from an investor before presenting.  Don’t ask it from a technical person.  If there’s some really secret sauce, let’s say a special Matching Algorithm, you maybe can hide some of the details of it.

Finally, we get to the fun part.  The technical person will begin to pelt you with questions about the business, product and technical challenges.

We are not trying to be annoying with our questions.  What’s happening is that we’ve translated what you said into initial thoughts around:

  • Business and technical risks  and mitigation strategies
  • Technical challenges and possible solutions
  • Possible third-party technologies that could be used
  • What needs to get researched, architected, built

You know how women complain that men just want to jump right to problem solving.  At the risk of offending lots of people …

0 Categories : Entrepreneurs, Featured
Jun
17

Three Cheers for Family and Friends

by nick
Funding America’s Small Businesses and Our College Grads – Nick Bassill: Huffington Post
Looking for a job? Create one!

For many college graduates, and many men and women across America, it has been challenging to find employment that utilizes their expertise and training. Many graduates, burdened by major college debt, are questioning what they should do next. Some are now thinking about creating their own business.

Recently, I met a young woman who created a new line of high-fashion women’s accessories. She received rave reviews from fashion magazines and orders from many of the most sought after boutiques at the major trade shows. The large chains love the product line and said that after she proves herself, they will happily place orders.

So, the challenge is, how does she, or any of you with an idea and a dream, get the training and funding needed to start your business and prove yourselves?

Form a team and make a plan

Before risking your time and money, create a team, talk to potential customers and develop a business plan. A team can assist you to develop your product, marketing plans and a sound financial forecast. The financial forecast will provide you with an estimate of the amount of money you will need to carry you through to where your business is generating a profit from your sales. In life and in business it usually takes more time and more money than expected so prepare for this and have a reserve in your budget.

The team can consist of advisors, consultants, mentors and friends. Take advantage of the free counseling and classes offered through groups such as SCORE, the Small Business Development Center (SBDC), the Small Business Association (SBA) and many local colleges. These resources are available to help you succeed and are good sources for advisors.

Getting the combined experience of a team helps the founders make good decisions and provides a broader base of contacts when needed for advice or funding. When you start talking to banks and investors for funding, having a team makes your company much stronger and more attractive.

After arming yourself with a good business plan and customer references, where do you go to get the necessary funds your business will need?

Sources to fund your new business

Let’s take a look at the climate in this country for getting funds for a new business. Due to the financial crisis, banks are ultra conservative. To make a loan banks want to see a proven track record, profitability, and assets to use for collateral. Entrepreneurs usually have little or no track record or collateral and may have used up their savings and credit cards to get to where they currently are. The banks are most likely going to say no.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) guaranteed loan programs, minority loans or loans for women owned businesses are not much different. The loans still come from banks and unless you have the collateral to cover the loan or can get another person to co-sign or guarantee the loan, the answer will generally be no. In these difficult times asking family and friends to pledge their home to the bank for your business is going to be challenging.

Now, how about the angel investors? Angel investors, like their bigger brothers the venture capitalists, are looking for that billion-dollar home run that they can achieve in the next three to five years through an exit strategy of selling the business or taking the business public. That leaves out most of our small business entrepreneurs and 99 percent of all other startups and small businesses across America. Yet, many of these businesses will grow, thrive and create many new jobs.

Now let’s look at the private investors. Who is going to invest in a startup or a small business and why would they do it? It is usually family, friends and what some writers in the press like to characterize as “fools”, acknowledging the very risky nature of small businesses. In 2010, however, family and friends funded nearly three times as much money into startups and small business as did angel investors. It is a group that needs to receive much more recognition and support. Let’s call them family, friends and the faithful!

To increase your chances of success in getting the support of family and friends, be prepared with a compelling concept and business plan, just like you would do if you were approaching a bank. You need to show that you have researched your market, talked to potential customers, received positive testimonials, and have prepared a plan to accomplish your objectives. Remember, create a team and get the help you need.

New options

To help college grads and many others across this country get the funding needed for their new businesses, new programs need to be created. One option is the new JOBS Act that includes a provision for Crowd Funding. This new type of funding will allow businesses to go online and raise small amounts of money from a large number of people. Until the Securities and Exchange Commission works out the final details of implementing the new law, the rules and costs for a new business to take advantage of this program and potential legal issues are still unclear.

Another option is to offer tax credit incentives to those investors who fund new businesses. Twenty-two states now have various laws offering tax credits to startups and small businesses. Most of these however, focus on promoting high-growth and high-tech startups. One solution is to help promote one of the grass roots Initiatives championing legislation for a national tax incentive plan for the investors that fund all types of startups and small businesses. Startups and small businesses create the new jobs and provide opportunities for many Americans to live a better life.

Your best solution?

For now, your best option may be to create a well-prepared plan and present it with enthusiasm to your family, friends and the faithful. Let them know how much money you need, what you will do with it, what sales you expect and how you will repay their loan or how they will get a return on their investment.

Your family may be there for you because they love you and want to see you succeed, but they and other investors will feel much more confident when they see that you have worked through the details of your business. They will also appreciate that you recognize the value of their money and have a plan to get it back to them.

For all the Family, Friends and the Faithful who support these startups and small businesses, often our college grads, I say Cheers! And thanks for helping revive the American Dream.

0 Categories : Featured
May
31

Britain Provides Startup Funding For Young People

by nick

The world is learning the value of new business startups from the U.S. and making funding available to help startups. It is time for the American Congress to create programs that help all types of startups, the young and the old, not just the high-growth startups promoted by most initiatives. Read about Britain’s new funding for young people.

Tuesday 29th May 2012 in Business News  By Andy Richardson

During the next three years, ministers will put £82m into the StartUp programme, which will offer loans worth on average £2,500 to people aged 18 to 24 who can show that they have a robust business plan.

The launch coincides with the publication of a report from Lord Young, the Prime Minister’s enterprise advisor, saying that there would be 900,000 more businesses in Britain if it had the same culture of entrepreneurship as the US. He said small businesses are “the engines of any healthy economy”.

As well as the loan, which can last up to five years, with an interest rate of Retail Prices Index plus three per cent, participants will also receive help in developing a business plan and training.

0 Categories : Featured
May
18

Innovators Create the New Jobs

by nick

Innovation starts with an individual and an idea. Entrepreneurs are innovators.  The startups and small businesses they create, and their innovations, have kept America ahead of the world, provided new jobs and a great standard of living for millions of people.

For economic growth, innovation, consumer confidence and new jobs are needed. There are millions of college grads and men and women across America with expertise and experience that is not being fully used.  The Launch America Initiative is promoting legislation for a major tax credit incentive for all investors, including family and friends, that fund all types of startups and small businesses. Funding more startups and small businesses creates new innovations, new jobs and a growing economy.

There are currently 22 states with tax credits promoting startups. It is time for a Federal program to be put in place. Visit LaunchAmerica.com, an online social network and incubator for entrepreneurs, to get the assistance you need and to let your voice be heard.

0 Categories : Featured
May
17

How to Launch a Billion Dollar Startup on a Shoestring

by nick

 


By George Anders, on EFactor.com

Christian Gheorghe hates spending money if he can avoid it. As a teenager in Romania in the 1980s he replaced vacuum tubes to keep his television running and subsisted on a used laptop computer with a busted keyboard. Even after immigrating to the U.S. his frugal habits persisted.

In 2005 Gheorghe seethed at the expenses involved in building OutlookSoft, a business performance company where he was chief technology officer. It cost more than $600,000 to get rolling, buying dozens of servers, ­hiring support staffers to run the ­machines and acquiring costly licenses from the likes of Microsoft and Oracle. “You linger over every single penny,” Gheorghe recalled. “I kept needing to pay for another license. It never stopped.”

Gheorghe isn’t grumbling anymore. He now runs Tidemark Systems, a maker of business-analytics applications that is a penny-pincher’s delight. His corporate e-mail is free, via Google. Other open-source programs take care of databases and word processing. As for computing power, that’s not his headache anymore. He rents access to a constantly changing array of offsite servers, paying as little as 12 cents an hour for such cloud computing.

Silicon Valley is abuzz with ­excitement about low-cost startups. Building a company on open-source software and cloud computing is being hailed as a brilliant fusion of the Valley’s three great virtues—cheaper, faster and better. Take extra whacks at costs via social media marketing, crowdsourced design and offshore engineering, and the perceived gains get even bigger. ­Estimates are that today’s most ­ambitious startups can take shape for $100,000 or less, a mere one-tenth of the cost a decade ago.

“It’s a great time for entrepreneurs,” says Raman Khanna, a venture capitalist at Onset Ventures. Open-source software alternatives keep improving. Cloud computing prices keep dropping every ten weeks or so. Funding an ambitious startup’s first few months ­requires only a ­personal Visa card.

When everyone’s costs plummet simultaneously, though, chaos can ensue. Banks keep proving this point, embarking on ill-advised lending sprees whenever they become awash with cheap funds. Similarly, so many telecom carriers in the 1990s rushed to install money-saving fiber-optic cable that the sector became vastly overbuilt, eventually leading to a slew of bankruptcies.

Hundreds of software companies have formed in the past year, according to TechCrunch’s CrunchBase registry. Many target identical markets. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers is talking about forming a $100 million fund to invest solely in cloud computing startups. Kleiner, you’ll remember, placed a big bet on green tech a few years ago, just as those opportunities were ­peaking.

Cheap startups transform the venture capital game, and not necessarily in a soothing way. Early-stage venture investors like to gain control of tiny companies when they’re in their youngest days, at dirt-cheap prices. But cloud-based startups tend to start looking for venture money only after their businesses have taken off. In such situations venture capitalists end up paying a premium for a smaller stake. Some ultrasuccessful startups such as Facebook or Dropbox can be lucrative for venture capitalists who arrive late, but many more startups get funded at high valuations that eventually prove unwarranted.

Exciting as each business niche seems, it may be difficult for any aspiring entrepreneur to build a “defensible moat” around his or her approach, says Trevor Oelschig, a venture capitalist at Bessemer Venture Partners. If too many hard-to-distinguish rivals are all vying for the same customers, a shakeout is guaranteed.

Still, it’s tough for venture capitalists to walk away. Andreessen Horo­witz (which is backing Tidemark) has invested in cloud computing ideas that range from database management to creating architects’ blueprints. The firm so far has done well enough that its founders, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, appear high on the FORBES Midas List of top tech investors. “I don’t mind too much if the idea isn’t fully proven,” says Peter Levine, an AH partner. “We’re willing to try some experiments.” (See story on Andreessen Horowitz on page 72.)

Egging on the entrepreneurs is The Lean Startup, a 2011 manifesto portraying agility as the greatest virtue. Author Eric Ries urges companies to build, test and learn as quickly as possible, making lots of mistakes but constantly learning from them. His book has become both battle cry and phrase book for entrepreneurs throughout Silicon Valley. Devotees mimic the book’s gung ho, restless tone, including its advice to change course, or “pivot,” whenever market feedback tells them their original product ideas aren’t working.

At Tidemark the lean-startup ethos is best seen in an abandoned server closet at the company’s headquarters in Redwood City, Calif. There’s nothing inside except some metal casing and lots of cartons of Crystal Springs bottled water. The computer power that used to be in the closet now comes from Amazon Web Services, and Gheorghe, the Tidemark CEO, is glad to say why.

Young companies traditionally have struggled to run their own computer departments, he explains. It’s too hard to staff a round-the-clock information technology department with only three or four people, he says. It’s even tougher to buy the right number of servers. Own too few and the site slows down or crashes. Own too many and expensive computers sit idle. Many startups end up using servers at barely 15% of capacity, fearful of traffic spikes that might crash an insufficiently built-out site.

Cloud computing has offered startups a way out. Vendors such as Amazon, Rackspace and Verizon’s Terremark process data like Cargill handles wheat. These cloud computing specialists ­operate vast squadrons of servers in suburban office parks, allowing customers anywhere to rent as much or as little computer capacity as they need.

Running such data centers can be a pretty good business, even with startup customers enjoying huge discounts over the cost of running servers themselves. The big guys can dial up operating rates substantially higher than a startup’s 15%, safe in the knowledge that one customer’s traffic spikes will overlap with another’s lulls. Add in the rewards of buying servers by the railcar and hiring IT specialists by the hundred, and cloud computing becomes a low-cost utility much like gas or electricity.

Want to store 100 gigabytes of data, equivalent to all the books in a good-size bookstore? That will cost you about $10 a month in the cloud. Would you rather crunch through an extra-large database for hours on end? Be prepared to spend 97 cents an hour for the privilege. Entrepreneurs find those prices laughably

appealing, and the terms keep getting better. In the past four years, says Amazon Web Services’ chief, Andy Jassy, his company has cut prices 17 times.

Typical among the thrifty startups is San Francisco’s Reppify. The 12-person firm is building software to help analyze job candidates’ profiles on social sites such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Sometimes Reppify needs to crunch through a torrent of résumés in a hurry; other times the flow abates.

Such zigzags are fine with Maneesh Raswan, Reppify’s chief technologist. He’s hardly a key account for Amazon, spending only $1,000 a month. Even so, Raswan can get extra computer capacity within minutes and then shut it down when demand abates. “If we owned our own servers, it would take me a week or two to get a new one provisioned,” Raswan says. “And then I’d be stuck with it forever.”

The rise of open-source development and productivity tools has also lowered startups’ costs tremendously. At Tidemark Gheorghe hunts for low-cost tools with the intensity of a coupon-clipper at a supermarket. Tide­mark’s internal letters and spreadsheets are created with Google Docs rather than the costlier Microsoft alternatives. Phones are hooked up via voice-over-Internet technology rather than the telephone company wiring. “I rarely think about licenses now,” ­Gheorghe says. “Being able to pay as you go lets you focus on what matters most: solving customers’ problems.”

Another zone of vanishing costs: market intelligence. Old-time focus groups or clipboard-toting experts have given way to dirt-cheap online research. When Anne Kallus last autumn wanted to build an online wedding-dress store, it took her just $300 of ­online-ad experiments to gain key ­insights into shoppers’ tastes. All she needed to do was show a variety of sales pitches to 50,000 newly engaged women on Facebook—and then tally up which ad pitches generated the most clicks for her site, FairyGownMother.com.

Such quick surveys aren’t the ultimate in scientific precision, startup CEOs acknowledge. But so what? Small companies would rather try lots of these cheap experiments—known as A/B tests—until they find some insight that’s explosively powerful, rather than burn through cash by seeking deeper insights via old-school approaches.

“Fundamentally, social networks are changing the ways we all discover things,” observes Ryan Sweeney, a venture capitalist at Accel Partners. The payoff for startups includes cheaper and faster publicity, brand building and sales strategies.

Young companies that might have hired p.r. advisors for $10,000 a month in the 1990s now find that they can attract attention just as well, if not better, by putting the energy into social media. The most ambitious newcomers may still throw big launch parties, woo journalists and advertise on radio, television or Silicon Valley’s most traveled highways. For others, Twitter or chat boards can generate similar buzz at hardly any cost at all.

Access to low-budget expertise around the world is also more readily available than ever. Give credit to chat boards, online ratings systems and word of mouth among startup executives. Companies that might have seen only two options a decade ago—hiring U.S. engineers or shipping the job to India for a fraction of the cost—can now align their needs with the global talent pool more ingeniously.

Catchy logos needn’t come from artists within nearby Zip codes, for ­example. Instead, sites such as ­99designs.com provide quick online access to thousands of potential ­designers around the world. Projects typically ­attract six to ten designers competing for a $300 job, with each entrant typically submitting a handful of designs. Recent winners have included designers from New Zealand, Italy, Indonesia and ­Slovakia. Customers pay only for the winning design.

Gordon Tucker, who ran eGreetings.com in the late 1990s, watches the rise of such services with admiration. Back then he hired swarms of greeting-card designers in San Francisco at $60,000 a year each. “If I were doing that now,” Tucker says, “I’d crowd-source some of it instead.” By seeking bids from all over the world, he says, he probably could have cut his design costs by two-thirds.

Eve Blossom, another veteran of early Internet companies, is applying that lesson to her latest startup, ­wevebuilt.com, which will, when it goes live later this year, sell artisanal goods from Cambodia, Mexico and other emerging markets. To build the new website, she put a technologist in the U.S. in charge of the project but gave him free rein to hire coders from Argentina and Romania, sending their work to testers in the Philippines for quality checks.

Thanks to Google’s Picasa photo-sharing service and Skype’s free phone service, Blossom says, she could run meetings smoothly from California with partners more than 5,000 miles away.

At Tidemark, founder Christian Gheorghe has installed the first versions of its business analytics software with pilot customers. Now he must ensure those creations work as promised. After that it will be time to hire a sizable sales force and seek enterprise customers worldwide. Software sales specialists aren’t cheap; full compensation packages can run at an annual rate of $200,000 or more per person.

Tidemark has raised more than $35 million of venture capital, with most of that money coming in January. Even on the sales side, Gheorghe thinks he can stretch a dollar further than most. He explains that traditional software systems can get caught up in a 6- to 12-month purchasing cycle because ­customers must test them extensively before installing them on in-house servers. Because Tidemark software operates in the cloud, he contends, it can become operational with clients much more quickly.

Tidemark has three main corporate customers right now, led by U.S. Sugar. If Gheorghe’s company can attract wider interest, venture capitalists will likely end up with an investment winner. If not, at least Tidemark won’t have to sell its servers and other equipment at fire-sale prices.

0 Categories : Featured
Apr
11

Crowdfunding Law Passes with the JOBS Act

by nick

The JOBS Act, including the crowdfunding provision, was signed into law by President Obama. While the bill has some flaws, and many critics, it is a significant step forward for startups and small businesses to raise the capital they need. Jenny Kasson of Cutting Edge Capital was at the White House to cover this event and the following details are provided from the Cutting Edge Capital Blog.

Two Cheers for the JOBS Act

 Michael H. Shuman
For nearly a century local investing has been essentially illegal, and Wall Street has controlled all the investment options for the average investor.  Thanks to the JOBS Act that President Obama signed in the Rose Garden last week, local investing is now legal.  Like all legislation, this bill is not perfect, but for local economy advocates, it’s a great game-changer, and one we should not only be enthusiastic about but also play an active role in implementing effectively.

There has been a tremendous amount of misinformation spread about this Act, much of it by liberals I usually admire.  Jim Hightower, for example, condemns the bill for “deregulating Wall Street.”  In fact, the bill spells the end of Wall Street as we know it.  It allows the 99% of us who are not wealthy (“unaccredited investors”) to put our money in the local businesses we love, by removing what were once impossibly difficult and expensive legal barriers.  Those barriers had been so high, so poorly designed, so targeted against small business and small investors,  that they have resulted in almost none of our long-term savings – now totaling $30 trillion – going into the local half of our economy.  The JOBS Act ends this monopoly for good.

To me it’s ironic, and disappointing, that folks like Hightower, Robert Kuttner, and Eliot Spitzer were committed to the status quo and to maintaining Wall Street’s monopoly on capital.  How could such great thinkers get this issue so wrong?  Here are my top five reasons:

First, the critics misunderstood who was pushing this bill.  Kuttner, for example, blames Obama for being “always eager to curry favor with Wall Street donors…”  In point of fact, Wall Street lobbyists played at most a peripheral role.  Small business owners and “makers,” like Woody Neiss and Paul Spinrad, led the charge.  Innovative thinkers in the White House, like Doug Rand at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, played a pivotal role in shaping the President’s views about entrepreneurship.  Non-Wall Street insiders like IndieGogo, a crowdfunding web site, and the nonprofit Sustainable Economies Law Center, pushed hard as well.

Second, the critics, justifiably skeptical of wholesale deregulation, don’t like to concede that any regulation has been a failure.  But any honest assessment of  the history of securities law would observe that we basically regulated local finance out of existence while permitting Bernie Madoffs to operate freely.  For decades, the SEC has held annual meetings where small businesses have urged reforms – modest deregulations that could open up capital to small companies – and none of the suggestions have been implemented.

Here’s an example of the SEC’s intransigence: Three years ago, I recommended in a journal published by the Federal Reserve a $100 exemption from securities filings, on the argument that $100 “risked” on a small business was no more dangerous to an investor than a dinner for two at a Chinese restaurant.  A year later, Jenny Kassan, co-founder of the Sustainable Economies Law Center, and Paul Spinrad of Make Magazine,  sent a petition to the SEC to request the $100 exemption, and 150 people wrote letters of support.  Last May, at a House hearing, the head of the SEC, Mary Schapiro, was asked if she supported this exemption, and she stonewalled, saying that the SEC was convening an internal group in the autumn to “study” the issue.   It was clear that the entire securities law establishment needed to be shaken up, and to their credit, that’s what Congress and the President did in enacting the JOBS Act—Republicans and Democrats alike.

Third, the critics have tremendously exagerrated the dangers of fraud.  The casual reader of the liberal critiques might conclude that the sale of fraudulent securities is now legal, and that “boiler room” operations can bilk grandma of her life savings.  Yet state and federal laws against securities fraud are still in effect.  In fact, the JOBS Act adds a number of new provisions for preventing fraud (through registered intermediaries). Why, moreover, should anyone be banned from spending, investing, or donating a couple of hundred dollars any damn way they please?  The JOBS act exempts grandma from investing $2,000 (higher amounts, if grandma is wealthier).  I was not thrilled with the $10,000 number in the original House bill – again, I originally advocated $100 – but I think $2,000 is fine.  The law does not permit any business to take more than 10% of an unaccredited person’s income or wealth.

Fourth, the critics do not appreciate that there are other approaches to preventing fraud.  E-Bay has all but eliminated fraud through consumer and business evaluations of one another.  So have other crowdfunding sites in the United Kingdom.  In other words, the SEC’s premise – that the only way to prevent fraud is by banning unaccredited investors from making their own judgments – is flat out wrong.

Perhaps their most appalling misunderstanding is how fraudulent the status quo is.  Every day the SEC allows the Ric Edelman’s of the world to sell people on the stock market, promising 10-20% annual returns, when in fact the returns – once inflation and compounding are taken out – are closer to 3%.  These misrepresentations have convinced Americans that putting 100% of their savings into Fortune 500 companies is safer and provides a better return than investing in local business.  In reality, the stock market is becoming an increasingly dangerous and unregulated casino where trades are done by computers that cause flash crashes when they malfunction.  The JOBS Act will allow local businesses to begin to compete for a fair market share of investment dollars.

I said at the outset that the bill is imperfect.  For example, the bill legalizes all kinds of crowdfunding, local and nonlocal.  I believe that local economy advocates now must start educating the public about the importance of favoring local investment.  Our argument should be that knowing the business in which one invests – knowing the products, the entrepreneur, the workforce, etc. – is the best way to prevent fraud.

It’s worth adding that after the bill was signed yesterday, 25 of the people who were most instrumental in passing the bill – none from Wall Street, by the way – got together to discuss ways we could create internal checks and balances on the marketplace, to improve quality control and help identify hucksters.   I hope that similar groups form in every community to create an honor roll of local businesses they know and trust – perhaps businesses that embrace open-book accounting – and that they then encourage residents to prioritize for their crowdfunding.

Like it or not, Wall Street’s stranglehold on investment is over.  We now have a new legal landscape that we can play a pivotal role in shaping.  Local economy advocates everywhere need to step up, not out.

 

The JOBS Act – huge changes to the laws governing capital raising!

Our own Jenny Kassan is there at the White House today for the signing of the JOBS bill. Jenny wrote an article that was published in the Huffington Post today.

The President will be signing the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act on Thursday.  The CROWDFUND Act is part of the JOBS Act.  Here is a brief summary of the seven parts of the JOBS Act.

TITLE I—REOPENING AMERICAN CAPITAL MARKETS TO EMERGING GROWTH COMPANIES

Exempts something called “Emerging Growth Companies” from many of the disclosure, governance, and other regulations on public companies; an emerging growth company is defined as a business with total annual gross revenues of less than $1,000,000,000

TITLE II—ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR JOB CREATORS

Eliminates the prohibition on public solicitation and advertising for securities offerings made by private companies as long as all purchasers are accredited investors

Exempts platforms that sell securities under this rule from the requirement to register as a broker as long as they receive no compensation in connection with the sale of the securities

TITLE III—CROWDFUNDING

See separate post

TITLE IV—SMALL COMPANY CAPITAL FORMATION

Increases from $5 million to $50 million the limit on the dollar amount that can be raised in an offering under Regulation A

TITLE V—PRIVATE COMPANY FLEXIBILITY AND GROWTH

Under current law, a company that has 500 investors in any class of equity securities and $10 million in assets must register as a public company – this title increases the number of shareholders needed to trigger this requirement to 2,000 as long as fewer than 500 are unaccredited

Excludes employees that received securities as part of a compensation plan from the total investor count

TITLE VI—CAPITAL EXPANSION

Similar to Title V but applies to banks and bank holding companies

TITLE VII—OUTREACH ON CHANGES TO THE LAW

Requires the SEC to provide online information and conduct outreach to inform small and medium sized businesses, women owned businesses, veteran owned businesses, and minority owned businesses of the changes made by this Act

What does the new crowdfunding law say?

President Obama will be signing the legislation on Thursday!

The name of the law is “Capital Raising Online While Deterring Fraud and Unethical Non-Disclosure Act of 2012″ or the CROWDFUND Act.

Here are the basic provisions:

Maximum aggregate amount that can be raised under the exemption: $1 million

Maximum amount per investor:

  • For investors with less than $100,000 in annual income or net worth: the greater of $2,000 or 5 percent of the annual income or net worth of such investor
  • For investors with $100,000 or more in annual income or net worth: 10 percent of the annual income or net worth of such investor

Intermediary required: The transaction must be conducted through a broker or funding portal (aka intermediary) that complies with the requirements of the Act

Requirements for intermediaries:

  • register with the SEC
  • register with any applicable self-regulatory organization (as defined in section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
  • provide such disclosures, including disclosures related to risks and other investor education materials, as the SEC shall, by rule, determine appropriate
  • ensure that each investor—
    • reviews investor-education information, in accordance with standards established by the SEC, by rule;
    • positively affirms that the investor understands that the investor is risking the loss of the entire investment, and that the investor could bear such a loss; and
    • answers questions demonstrating an understanding of the level of risk generally applicable to investments in startups, emerging businesses, and small issuers; an understanding of the risk of illiquidity; and an understanding of such other matters as the SEC determines appropriate, by rule
  • take such measures to reduce the risk of fraud with respect to such transactions, as established by the SEC, by rule, including obtaining a background and securities enforcement regulatory history check on each officer, director, and person holding more than 20 percent of the outstanding equity of every issuer whose securities are offered by such person
  • not later than 21 days prior to the first day on which securities are sold to any investor (or such other period as the SEC may establish), make available to the SEC and to potential investors any information provided by the issuer
  • ensure that all offering proceeds are only provided to the issuer when the aggregate capital raised from all investors is equal to or greater than a target offering amount, and allow all investors to cancel their commitments to invest, as the SEC shall, by rule, determine appropriate
  • make such efforts as the SEC determines appropriate, by rule, to ensure that no investor in a 12-month period has purchased securities offered pursuant to the crowdfunding exemption that, in the aggregate, from all issuers, exceed the investment limits of the exemption
  • take such steps to protect the privacy of information collected from investors as the SEC shall, by rule, determine appropriate
  • not compensate promoters, finders, or lead generators for providing the broker or funding portal with the personal identifying information of any potential investor
  • prohibit its directors, officers, or partners (or any person occupying a similar status or performing a similar function) from having any financial interest in an issuer using its services
  • meet such other requirements as the SEC may, by rule, prescribe, for the protection of investors and in the public interest.

The SEC will exempt funding portals, conditionally or unconditionally, from the requirement to be licensed brokers, as long as they become members of a national securities association and do not

  • offer investment advice or recommendations;
  • solicit purchases, sales, or offers to buy the securities offered or displayed on its website or portal;
  • compensate employees, agents, or other persons for such solicitation or based on the sale of securities displayed or referenced on its website or portal;
  • hold, manage, possess, or otherwise handle investor funds or securities; or
  • engage in such other activities as the SEC, by rule, determines appropriate

Requirements for issuers:

  • file with the SEC and provide to potential and existing investors and the intermediary—
    • the name, legal status, physical address, and website address of the issuer;
    • the names of the directors and officers (and any persons occupying a similar status or performing a similar function), and each person holding more than 20 percent of the shares of the issuer;
    • a description of the business of the issuer and the anticipated business plan of the issuer;
    • a description of the financial condition of the issuer, including, for offerings that, together with all other offerings of the issuer under the crowdfunding exemption within the preceding 12-month period, have, in the aggregate, target offering amounts of—
      • $100,000 or less—(I) the income tax returns filed by the issuer for the most recently completed year (if any); and (II) financial statements of the issuer, which shall be certified by the principal executive officer of the issuer to be true and complete in all material respects;
      • more than $100,000, but not more than $500,000, financial statements reviewed by a public accountant who is independent of the issuer, using professional standards and procedures for such review or standards and procedures established by the SEC, by rule, for such purpose; and
      • more than $500,000 (or such other amount as the SEC may establish, by rule), audited financial statements;
    • a description of the stated purpose and intended use of the proceeds;
    • the target offering amount, the deadline to reach the target offering amount, and regular updates regarding the progress of the issuer in meeting the target offering amount;
    • the price to the public of the securities or the method for determining the price, provided that, prior to sale, each investor shall be provided in writing the final price and all required disclosures, with a reasonable opportunity to rescind the commitment to purchase the securities;
    • a description of the ownership and capital structure of the issuer, including—
      • terms of the securities of the issuer being offered and each other class of security of the issuer, including how such terms may be modified, and a summary of the differences between such securities, including how the rights of the securities being offered may be materially limited, diluted, or qualified by the rights of any other class of security of the issuer;
      • a description of how the exercise of the rights held by the principal shareholders of the issuer could negatively impact the purchasers of the securities being offered;
      • the name and ownership level of each existing shareholder who owns more than 20 percent of any class of the securities of the issuer;
      • how the securities being offered are being valued, and examples of methods for how such securities may be valued by the issuer in the future, including during subsequent corporate actions; and
      • the risks to purchasers of the securities relating to minority ownership in the issuer, the risks associated with corporate actions, including additional issuances of shares, a sale of the issuer or of assets of the issuer, or transactions with related parties; and
    • such other information as the SEC may, by rule, prescribe, for the protection of investors and in the public interest;
  • not advertise the terms of the offering, except for notices which direct investors to the intermediary’s web site
  • not compensate or commit to compensate, directly or indirectly, any person to promote the offerings without taking such steps as the SEC shall, by rule, require to ensure that such person clearly discloses the receipt, past or prospective, of such compensation, upon each instance of such promotional communication
  • not less than annually, file with the SEC and provide to investors reports of the results of operations and financial statements of the issuer, as the SEC shall, by rule, determine appropriate, subject to such exceptions and termination dates as the SEC may establish, by rule
  • comply with such other requirements as the SEC may, by rule, prescribe, for the protection of investors and in the public interest.

Transferability: Securities issued pursuant to the crowdfunding exemption may not be transferred for one year after purchase except back to the issuer, to an accredited investor; as part of a registered offering; or to a family member

Automatically becoming a public reporting company when a certain number of shareholders and asset amount is reached: securities acquired under the crowdfunding exemption will be exempted, conditionally or unconditionally depending on what the SEC does in its rulemaking, from this cap (which was increased from 500 investors to 2,000 by the JOBS Act – see future blog post on this subject!)

State preemption: the states are not allowed to require registration of offerings that are exempt under the crowdfunding exemption; however the can require notice filings and fees in the state that is the issuer’s principal place of business and in any state in which purchasers of 50 percent or greater of the aggregate amount of the issue are residents

Adjustment for inflation: Dollar amounts under the exemption will be adjusted not less frequently than once every 5 years to reflect any change in the Consumer Price Index

How long until the SEC finishes its rulemaking?  You’ll notice numerous places in the law that mention rulemaking by the SEC; until the SEC completes the rulemaking process, the law cannot go into effect; the statute gives the SEC nine months to complete the rulemaking process but there are no penalties if they do not complete the rulemaking within this time, so it is difficult to say how long it will take.

 

0 Categories : Featured
Feb
14

New Crowdfunding Legislation Proposed To Help Startups

by nick

Lance Iversen / The Chronicle

Ian Schuster (rear) and Mike Johannsen work on a craft beer for their startup, Schubros Brewery, in their San Ramon test kitchen. Crowd funding would help it expand faster, Schuster says.


Images

Ian Schuster (rear) and Mike Johannsen work on a craft be...Cases of bottles wait to be filled at the Schubros Brewer...Schubros Brewery President Ian Schuster and Brew Master M...  
Ian Schuster and his business partners have raised almost a quarter of a million dollars to launch their craft beer brewery company, but if they had more money, they could grow the business much faster.

Bryan Brumfield has poured most of his life savings into the artisanal wine business he plans to start after he retires as an Oakland firefighter in March and needs additional capital to bring in outside expertise.

Daniel Hsu has networked up a storm on social media for his e-commerce clothing site and now needs $10,000 in startup capital.

All three entrepreneurs would love to tap the power of social media to find additional investors online who would each put up small amounts of money in exchange for equity stakes in their companies, a concept called “crowd funding.”

But they can’t do so under current law. Companies can sell shares to what the SEC calls “accredited investors” – seasoned, high-net-worth people who understand the risks. But financial stakes for small-time investors are limited to 35 people (fewer in some states), just enough to enable some friends-and-family funding, but not enough to harness the Internet’s reach to attract a larger number of equity investors.

Popular websites like Kickstarter and IndieGoGo show the power of crowd funding by letting people request funds online from strangers to back specific projects – a theatre performance, for instance. But the people who pledge money can only receive perks like T-shirts, not equity shares, in exchange.

Lending sites

Then there are lending websites like Prosper.com that facilitate person-to-person loans. People ask to borrow money for anything from plastic surgery to starting a company and offer a fixed interest rate in return. But again, equity stakes are not allowed.

Now, legislation pending in Congress that enjoys strong bipartisan support and Obama administration backing may make crowd funding possible for entrepreneurs.

Crowd funding “has the potential to be a powerful new venture capital model for the Facebook and Twitter age and its potential to create jobs is enormous,” said Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in congressional testimony last month. “But crowd funding is currently illegal because of obsolete regulations, some dating back to the 1930s. Imagine that – the next Steve Jobs is being held back by rules written during the age of the typewriter.”

Brown is sponsoring the Democratization of Capital Bill, which would let small companies sell up to $1 million in equity online in chunks of $1,000 or less. It is under review by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

A similar bill, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, passed the House in November by a wide margin. It would allow up to $2 million in crowd funded investments in $10,000 increments.

But some industry experts worry that crowd funding would entice online hucksters to set up shop.

“A lot of people believe everything they see on the Internet, so we are concerned about fraud,” said Jack Herstein, president of the North American Securities Administrators Association. “Scam artists follow the hottest trends. They could make up fraudulent websites (pretending to be legitimate businesses seeking crowd funding). The mom-and-pop retail investors won’t know who’s on the other side of those websites. Once you push the button and send your credit card number, your money is gone.”

Still, he said, he is not opposed to crowd funding – he just wants to make sure there are built-in safeguards to protect investors. “Everybody should be behind anything that helps the economy,” he said.

That’s exactly the argument made by proponents of crowd funding. The role of small business in job creation is well documented. At a time when banks are reluctant to make loans, allowing small enterprises to solicit funds online so they can start up and grow makes sense, supporters say.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/14/BURS1MO311.DTL#ixzz1mNOVJDfj
0 Categories : Featured
Jan
21

Angel Investing Jumps with Tax Credits

by nick
By MARA LEE maralee@courant.comThe Hartford Courant5:57 p.m. EST, January 12, 2012
It’s not clear yet whether Connecticut’s 18-month-old angel investor tax credit will be the job creator its authors envisioned, but loosening the eligibility two months ago has surely been popular.

The Connecticut legislature’s jobs package bill passed in May 2010 allowed angel investors who put at least $100,000 into a young, small Connecticut company in certain technology and science fields to deduct a quarter of that investment from their state income taxes. If their income tax liability isn’t large enough to use up $25,000 — you’d need to earn nearly $400,000 a year to owe that much — they can carry the balance forward for several years.

Connecticut Innovations, a quasi-public agency that helps administer the investment program, has certified 37 companies that may receive the investments, from software firms to drug companies to companies that have designed consumer products, such as a hospital bed that can transfer its occupant to a chair, or an automatic shutoff for a boat if its driver goes overboard.

Thirty companies have gotten investments since the law first took effect, with about one-third of the companies only closing a round of investments once the threshold for the tax credit was lowered to $25,000. That change took effect two months ago.

“There is an explosion in entrepreneurship and people want to get in on it,” said Matthew Nemerson, president of the Connecticut Technology Council, which started lobbying for a tax credit for angel investors more than five years ago. “The legislation came at the right time to throw fuel on the fire. Because of the $100,000 limit, the fuel [was] a little bit watered down.”

In the two months since the credit was expanded, 21 Connecticut taxpayers have applied for the program, and together invested $2.1 million in nine companies, a much faster pace than during the first 16 months. Some doubt that pace will continue, however.

In all, 66 angel investors have qualified for the credit since it began. Investors must have at least $200,000 in income and $1 million in net worth to qualify for the credit.

Anthony Viggiano, who founded Autotether in 2007 and began contracting with Connecticut manufacturers to build the automatic boat-engine shutoff device two years ago, said he had been traveling around the East Coast pitching his company as a good investment to angels for more than a year with only three bites.

“You get like $50,000, $25,000 there, it’s a tough road, it’s a lot of work,” Viggiano said.

But once the threshold for the tax credit dropped, he found another seven investors in the state. Between the two groups, they invested $550,000 in Autotether, with a round that closed just before Christmas.

Viggiano will use the money for marketing. He and four others work for Autotether. “Within three or four months we’re hoping to have enough cash flow to pay ourselves a reasonable salary,” he said. Autotether hopes to break even by the end of the year.

When six Connecticut angel investors put $600,000 into Farmington‘s Innovatient Solutions, immediately after the tax credit began, that money and a match of $500,000 from Connecticut Innovations allowed CEO Jolinda Lambert to hire two people, for a total of six. Innovatient’s software sends information to hospital patients about their treatment through the TVs in their rooms.

The company expects to sell more than $1 million in software this year, making it too large to qualify for tax credits in its next $2 million round of angel and venture capital.

“It made all the difference; without the funding and the contribution of individuals like CI and the angel investors, we would not be in existence,” Lambert said. “We wouldn’t have had the runway necessary to build the company.”

Advocates for startups say that creating an incentive for more angel investing is important because venture capital firms have become less likely to nurture brand-new, unproven firms. Angel investors in Connecticut, by contrast, have put money into companies that are less than 6 months old — Lambert’s company was 5 months old when it was funded, and didn’t have a product yet.

“Venture capital keeps moving up and doing bigger deals and later deals,” Nemerson said.

Peter Longo, president of Connecticut Innovations, said his organization has been moving toward new companies for four years. It started a pre-seed fund for micro investments in brand new companies in 2010. Of 37 CI investments in the fiscal year that ended in 2011, 15 were pre-seed.

Spurring more angel investing helps CI, because the state is sending it $25 million more a year for the next five years. Not all of that will be poured directly into companies, but given that CI only invested $9 million last fiscal year, it needs to find more companies deserving of its capital. “We think this [fiscal] year we’ll close on $20 million,” Longo said.

But, Longo said, the pace of investing by smaller angel investors is unlikely to continue in 2012. “A lot of it was pent-up demand,” he said.

Mary Anne Rooke, president and managing director of Connecticut’s Angel Investor Forum, said the legislation is too new to say what its effect will be. Even before the limit was lowered, some $25,000 and $50,000 investors got the credit by setting up corporate structures that combined their investments with others; and even now, some who don’t want to put in $25,000 do the same.

But the credit does convince others to put in more, she said, including one man in December who was planning to invest $10,000 or $15,000, “and this pushed him up to $25,000,” she said.

But will those decisions make up for those who might have put in $100,000 when the floor was higher, and now will put in $75,000 or $50,000?

David Cohen, co-owner of Standard Oil of Connecticut, stumbled into angel investing by accident with the son of a friend of a friend who was a founder of Higher One, Connecticut’s poster-child for dorm-room startups. Cohen invested $25,000 at first, and kept putting money in each time the company asked again. When Higher One went public, he cashed out half his stake, and made roughly 60 times what he put in.

That’s not typical, he’s quick to say, but he’s used the proceeds to keep investing — he’s now put money in seven Connecticut startups and five outside the state.

Angel Investor Forum puts about 70 percent of its money into companies outside the state, mostly in the Boston to New Jersey corridor. In seven years, only one company has provided an investment exit for the group, at a six-fold return.

Cohen always puts in at least $100,000, so the lower floor doesn’t matter for him, but he said being able to save on his state income taxes does put a thumb on the scale for Connecticut firms.

Viggiano, the Autotether founder, says the credit makes him think that Connecticut’s business climate is changing. In decades as a manufacturing executive, he thought it was a difficult state to do business in.

“I think that lower amount is going to open up a huge opportunity for a lot of people,” he said. “It’ll make a big difference for my company, and it will make a big difference for a lot of companies. No matter how good your idea is, you can’t do it without capital.”

Launch America Editor’s Note:

With a lower investment threshold and a broader spectrum of companies that could be invested in, as proposed by the Launch America Initiative, a big wave of investments could go into startups and small businesses creating new jobs and an economic resurgence.

0 Categories : Featured
Aug
2

Sponsor’s Pledge to Launch America

by nick

The National Sponsor’s Pledge to Launch America is to help Americans help themselves through forming startups and pursuing their American Dream.  This is a way for people and businesses throughout America to give back and contribute to creating opportunities for the men and women of America. Through the donations and special services offered by the Pledging Members, Launch America is able to offer education, grants and prizes for the innovative entrepreneurs across America as they work to form and fund their startups. We will offer regular updates of the new sponsors and pledges received.

1 Categories : Featured, Uncategorized
Apr
7

Launch America: Form your teams… Write your plan… Get your funding!

by nick
0 Categories : Featured, Start Up Team Up
Next Page »

Tag Cloud

Daily Inspiration Entrepreneurs Featured Launch America Book Mission Start Up Team Up Uncategorized Video of the Week

Recent Posts

  • How to Talk to a Tech Advisor
  • Step-By-Step – Build Your Dream
  • Crazy enough to change the world
  • Is the American Dream Dead? Not if we have something to say about it!
  • Three Cheers for Family and Friends