Douglas Cumming, Lars Hornuf (Eds.) - The Economics of Crowdfunding - Startups, Portals and Investor Behavior-Palgrave Macmillan (2018)
Douglas Cumming, Lars Hornuf (Eds.) - The Economics of Crowdfunding - Startups, Portals and Investor Behavior-Palgrave Macmillan (2018)
Edited by
Douglas Cumming
and Lars Hornuf
The Economics of Crowdfunding
This is an excellent book, a must-read, for anyone interested in the broad phe-
nomenon of crowdfunding.
Mingfeng Lin,
Associate Professor of Management Information Systems, University of Arizona
The Economics of
Crowdfunding
Startups, Portals and Investor
Behavior
Editors
Douglas Cumming Lars Hornuf
Schulich School of Business Faculty of Business Studies and Economics
York University, Toronto, Canada University of Bremen
Bremen, Germany
CESifo
Munich, Germany
The book tackles four broad topics. The first three are economic in
nature and investigate what we have learned so far about start-ups, por-
tals, as well as backers and investors in the crowdfunding realm. These
topics are covered by 19 outstanding management, finance, and econom-
ics scholars. Thereafter, based on the economic evidence, four outstand-
ing legal scholars have investigated how crowdfunding is currently
regulated and potentially ought to be regulated in the future. Their focus
is on the USA, the European Union, as well as individual member states
such as the UK and Germany.
Moreover, to make the book more readable and consistent, we decided
on the following simple terminologies. Crowdfunding encompasses four
major business models. The donation-based crowdfunding model involves,
for example, the funding of philanthropic and research projects. Under
this model, backers donate money to support a project without expecting
compensation. This differs under the reward-based crowdfunding model
in which backers are promised tangible or intangible perks, such as a sup-
porter T-shirt or having their name posted on the campaign website. At
times, the reward-based model of crowdfunding may resemble a pre-
purchase, such as when backers fund a product or service they wish to
consume and which is still to be developed by the entrepreneur. Under
these models, the crowd is referred to as backers, because they do not
invest but donate their funds or pre-purchase a product or service.
Popular examples are video games (e.g., Star Citizen) or the Pebble smart-
watch. Portals include, for example, Crowdfunder.co.uk, Indiegogo,
Kickstarter, and Startnext.
Crowdinvesting—which is also referred to as investment-based crowd-
funding, securities crowdfunding, or equity crowdfunding—is a subcat-
egory of crowdfunding and refers to an alternative form of external
finance for firms in countries that permit the solicitation of the general
public. The solicitation often takes place without or with a “light” version
of a securities prospectus (e.g., JOBS Act Title III in the USA or the
Small Investor Protection Act in Germany). The crowd participates in the
uncertain future cash flows of a firm via equity, mezzanine, or debt
finance. The crowd is referred to as investors, as they make a financial
decision and do not consume a product. Portals include, for example,
Companisto, Crowdcube, Republic, Seedrs, Seedmatch, and WiSeed.
Preface
xi
xiii
Contents
1 Introduction 1
Douglas Cumming and Lars Hornuf
Index 279
List of Figures
xvii
List of Tables
xix
xx List of Tables
Table 8.2 Panel estimation results for the dynamics of backer support
(cluster-robust standard errors; t-statistics in parentheses) 161
Table 11.1 US and UK crowdinvesting regulations—summary 270
1
Introduction
Douglas Cumming and Lars Hornuf
D. Cumming
Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada
L. Hornuf (*)
Business Studies & Economics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany
Center of Finance, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
CESifo, Munich, Germany
30
25.10
25
20
15
10
Fig. 1.1 Global crowdfunding market by segment volume, USD billions in 2015
References
Agrawal, Ajay, Christian Catalini, and Avi Goldfarb. 2015. Crowdfunding,
Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Decision. Journal of
Economics and Management Strategy 24: 253–274.
Ahlers, Gerrit K., Douglas Cumming, Christina Günther, and Denis Schweizer.
2015. Signaling in Equity Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 39: 955–980.
Andreoni, James. 1989. Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity
and Ricardian Equivalence. Journal of Political Economy 97: 1447–1458.
Cumming, Douglas J., Lars Hornuf, Moein Karami, and Denis Schweizer. 2016.
Disentangling Crowdfunding from Fraudfunding. Social Science Research
Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2828919. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Cumming, Douglas J., Gaël Lefoeuf, and Armin Schweinbacher. 2015.
Crowdfunding Models: Keep-It-All vs. All-or-Nothing. Social Science Research
Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2447567. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Dorfleitner, Gregor, Lars Hornuf, Matthias Schmitt, and Martina Weber. 2017.
FinTech in Germany. Heidelberg: Springer.
Introduction 7
2.1 Introduction
The lack of access to finance is well recognized as being one of the main
difficulties for many start-ups, especially risky and innovative ones
(Carpenter and Petersen 2002). While much of this difficulty stems from
the severe information asymmetries and agency costs that many start-ups
face, others may be due to the lack of fit with the investors’ investment
objectives. When external finance is required, selecting the right form of
finance is crucial for successfully developing an entrepreneurial activity,
and this choice involves different trade-offs, owing to different pros and
cons for each type of financing source (Cosh et al. 2009). For example, in
general, start-ups with an intermediate level of growth prospects are not
eligible for venture capital finance, as managers seek investments in risky
G. Leboeuf
Univ Lyon, Université Lumière Lyon2, Coactis EA4161, Lyon, France
A. Schwienbacher (*)
Department of Finance and Accounting, SKEMA Business School,
Euralille, France
hand, more crowdfunders may make it more attractive for other indi-
viduals to join the platform because projects are more likely to be funded
and, thus, successful; on the other hand, more crowdfunders can mean
more competition for a limited number of rewards or securities. This
negative impact is most likely to be severe in crowdinvesting, in which a
limited number of securities are sold. Whether network effects have a
positive or negative impact on group participation depends on the type
of platform and its structure.
Next, it is possible to distinguish profiles of investors/backers accord-
ing to their behavior in and active contribution to the project. Lin et al.
(2014) classify crowdfunders into four groups: active backers, trend fol-
lowers, altruistic backers, and the crowd. Active backers are those who
invest early during the campaign in many projects and are less sensitive to
the number of backers who have already invested in a project. Trend fol-
lowers invest later in projects and are more sensitive to the number of
backers who have already committed; they wait to see how funding
dynamics evolve. Altruistic backers invest for reasons other than invest-
ment success; thus, they are the typical backers in donation-based crowd-
funding. Finally, the broader crowd encompasses backers with no typical
behavior of the three former groups.
It is also worth noting the presence of another class of backers: peers.
Indeed, many entrepreneurs in crowdfunding campaigns are also backers
in other projects (Zvilichovsky et al. 2015). When supporting projects of
others before starting their own campaign, entrepreneurs increase their
chances to succeed. Through reciprocity, entrepreneurs are likely to
receive pledges for their own project from other entrepreneurs they
helped before starting.
2.3.2 R
isk/Return Balance and Assessment
of Investment Opportunities
the level of the funding goal and the funding model used. By funding
model, the authors are referring to the two important models “all-or-
nothing” and “keep-it-all.” They investigate the context of Indiegogo, an
international crowdfunding website on which entrepreneurs can choose
between the two models. If a project requires a higher goal, the crowd
could view the project as having larger fixed costs and thus having a lower
chance to gather the amount required. In the same way, if an entrepre-
neur chooses the keep-it-all funding model, the project can be under-
funded (as the entrepreneur receives the money even if the funding goal
is not achieved), and the risk borne by backers is higher from the increased
risk of never receiving the reward or any return on their investment.
Moreover, the crowd has other mechanisms to assess the quality (and
the likelihood of success) of a crowdfunded project. As with any tradi-
tional investment, crowdfunders have access to the basic information
provided directly by the entrepreneur on the crowdfunding platform
(e.g., business plan, legal information). Depending on the platform, the
information may be closely audited and formatted or, in contrast, exhibit
great heterogeneity among projects. Still, Mollick (2013) finds that the
crowd evaluates the quality of a project by using the same signals as ven-
ture capitalists. In addition, despite the persistence of traditional biases in
investment decisions such as the home bias (Hornuf and Schmitt 2016;
Lin and Viswanathan 2015), crowdfunding allows a significant reduction
in gender and geographic bias (Agrawal et al. 2011; Mollick and Robb
2016). Compared with traditional venture capital financing, the geo-
graphic distribution is larger in crowdfunding (less limited to some spe-
cific areas such as the Silicon Valley), and recent studies show more
women leading crowdfunding campaigns. Moreover, the crowd is able to
evaluate the project quality at least as accurately as experts, with the
advantage of providing good evaluation of the target market because,
most of the time, members of the crowd are not only investors but also
the final users (Mollick 2013).
As participation of others is often visible in real time during the crowd-
funding campaign, a backer considering participating can estimate the
willingness of others to support the same project. Alternatively, for
crowdfunding platforms trying to reduce herding behavior by hiding pre-
vious participations, comments and/or testimonials are a good indicator
20 G. Leboeuf and A. Schwienbacher
may play an important role in a second campaign success. For these rea-
sons, entrepreneurs who experience a first success are more likely to
launch second campaigns. These findings are also in line with theories on
entrepreneurial self-confidence (Bandura 1982; Hayward et al. 2010).
After a first success, the self-confidence of the entrepreneur will increase,
and he or she will more likely reenter with a new project. However, an
entrepreneur who undergoes a first failure will lose self-confidence and be
less likely to undertake a second crowdfunding campaign. Nevertheless,
recent studies show that the campaigns launched by entrepreneurs with a
first success tend to underperform the first campaign by attracting fewer
backers and collecting less money (Leboeuf 2016; Yang and Hahn 2015).
These studies argue that when the first campaign is successful, people
assume that many of the interested backers have already participated in
the new venture. However, when an entrepreneur launches a second cam-
paign shortly after the first, new participants (i.e., other than those who
participated in the first campaign already) may represent a smaller frac-
tion of the backers. Thus, the surprise effect becomes less pronounced,
making any “hype” related to the second campaign less likely.
For the entrepreneur with a first failed crowdfunding experience, the
stigma of failure (Landier 2006) plays a central role in how the nonpro-
fessional crowd will assess the opportunity to invest in a crowdfunding
campaign. Even if the number of backers and the amount pledged are
higher than those during the first attempt, and even if the entrepreneurs
try to mimic successful campaigns in terms of characteristics (e.g., size,
funding model, campaign duration) and disclosure (e.g., length of text,
number of pictures provided), the probability of success of the second
campaign will be lower than any first campaign (Leboeuf 2016). Most of
the time, these efforts are insufficient to overcome the negative reputa-
tion gained from the first failure.
A vibrant stream of research on the entrepreneurial perspective of
crowdfunding investigates the extent to which entrepreneurs rely on their
relatives, close friends, and social networks, often labeled as “social capi-
tal” and proxied by the number of LinkedIn and Facebook connections
of the entrepreneur. These studies show that the success of a crowdfund-
ing campaign strongly relies on the entrepreneur’s capability of mobiliz-
ing his or her social capital (Agrawal et al. 2011, 2015; Colombo et al.
Crowdfunding as a New Financing Tool 23
References
Agrawal, Ajay K., Christian Catalini, and Avi Goldfarb. 2011. The Geography
of Crowdfunding. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.
org/papers/w16820.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2017.
———. 2015. Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of
Investment Decisions. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 24:
253–274.
Ahlers, Gerrit K.C., Douglas J. Cumming, Christina Gunther, and Denis
Schweizer. 2015. Signaling in Equity Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 39: 955–980.
Bandura, Albert. 1982. Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American
Psychologist 37: 122–147.
Belleflamme, Paul, Thomas Lambert, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2014.
Crowdfunding: Tapping the Right Crowd. Journal of Business Venturing 29:
585–609.
Crowdfunding as a New Financing Tool 25
Belleflamme, Paul, Nessrine Omrani, and Martin Peitz. 2015. The Economics
of Crowdfunding Platforms. Information Economics and Policy 33: 11–28.
Berger, Allen N., and Gregory F. Udell. 1998. The Economics of Small Business
Finance: The Roles of Private Equity and Debt Markets in the Financial
Growth Cycle. Journal of Banking and Finance 22: 613–673.
Block, Jörn, Lars Hornuf, and Alexandra Moritz. 2017. Which Updates During
an Equity Crowdfunding Campaign Increase Crowd Participation? Small
Business Economics. Forthcoming.
Bretschneider, Ulrich, Katharina Knaub, and Enrico Wieck. 2014. Motivations
for Crowdfunding: What Drives the Crowd to Invest in Start-ups? Paper
presented at European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Tel Aviv,
Israel, June 9–11.
Carpenter, Robert E., and Bruce C. Petersen. 2002. Is the Growth of Small
Firms Constrained by Internal Finance? Review of Economics and Statistics 84:
298–309.
Chemla, Gilles, and Katrin Tinn. 2016. Learning Through Crowdfunding.
Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2804541.
Accessed 17 Mar 2017.
Cholakova, Magdalena, and Bart Clarysse. 2015. Does the Possibility to Make
Equity Investments in Crowdfunding Projects Crowd Out Reward-Based
Investments? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39: 145–172.
Colombo, Massimo G., Chiara Franzoni, and Cristina Rossi-Lamastra. 2015.
Internal Social Capital and the Attraction of Early Contributions in
Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39: 75–100.
Cosh, Andy, Douglas J. Cumming, and Alan Hughes. 2009. Outside
Entrepreneurial Capital. Economic Journal 119: 1494–1533.
Cressy, Robert. 2002. Funding Gaps: A Symposium. Economic Journal 112:
F1–F16.
Cumming, Douglas J., and Sofia A. Johan. 2013. Demand Driven Securities
Regulation: Evidence from Crowdfunding. Venture Capital: An International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance 15: 361–379.
Cumming, Douglas, Gaël Leboeuf, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2016.
Crowdfunding Models: Keep-It-All versus All-Or-Nothing. Social Science
Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2447567. Accessed 28
Feb 2017.
Gerber, Elizabeth, Julie Hui, and Pei-Yi Kuo. 2012. Crowdfunding: Why People
are Motivated to Post and Fund Projects on Crowdfunding Platforms. Paper
26 G. Leboeuf and A. Schwienbacher
Leboeuf, Gaël. 2016. Does the Crowd Forgive? Social Science Research Network.
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2788483. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
Lin, Mingfeng, and Siva Viswanathan. 2015. Home Bias in Online Investments:
An Empirical Study of an Online Crowdfunding Market. Management
Science 62: 1393–1414.
Lin, Yan, Wai F. Boh, and Kim H. Goh. 2014. How Different are Crowdfunders?
Examining Archetypes of Crowdfunders and Their Choice of Projects.
Academy of Management Proceedings: 1–13309.
Mollick, Ethan R. 2013. Swept Away by the Crowd? Crowdfunding, Venture
Capital, and the Selection of Entrepreneurs. Social Science Research Network.
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2239204. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
———. 2014. The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study. Journal
of Business Venturing 29: 1–16.
Mollick, Ethan R., and Ramana Nanda. 2015. Wisdom or Madness? Comparing
Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts. Management Science 62:
1533–1553.
Mollick, Ethan R., and Alicia Robb. 2016. Democratizing Innovation and
Capital Access: The Role of Crowdfunding. California Management Review
58: 72–87.
Parker, Simon C. 2014. Crowdfunding, Cascades and Informed Investors.
Economics Letters 125: 432–435.
Ralcheva, Aleksandrina, and Peter Roosenboom. 2016. On the Road to Success
in Equity Crowdfunding. Social Science Research Network. https://papers.
ssrn.com/abstract=2727742. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
Robb, Alicia M., and David T. Robinson. 2014. The Capital Structure Decisions
of New Firms. Review of Financial Studies 27: 153–179.
Schwienbacher, Armin. 2013. Financing the Business. In The Routledge
Companion to Entrepreneurship, ed. Ted Baker and Friederieke Welter,
193–206. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
———. 2014. Entrepreneurial Risk-Taking in Crowdfunding Campaigns.
Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2506355.
Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
Shafi, Kourosh, and Massimo G. Colombo. 2016. Does Reward-Based
Crowdfunding Help Firms Obtain Venture Capital and Angel Finance?
Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2785538.
Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
Vismara, Silvio. 2016. Equity Retention and Social Network Theory in Equity
Crowdfunding. Small Business Economics 46: 579–590.
28 G. Leboeuf and A. Schwienbacher
Yang, Lusi, and Jungpil Hahn. 2015. Learning from Prior Experience: An
Empirical Study of Serial Entrepreneurs in IT-enabled Crowdfunding. Paper
presented at International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Fort
Worth, TX. Conference paper available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2015/
proceedings/HumanBehaviorIS/21/
Zvilichovsky, David, Yael Inbar, and Ohad Barzilay. 2015. Playing Both Sides of
the Market: Success and Reciprocity on Crowdfunding Platforms. Social
Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2304101.
Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
3.1 Introduction
George Akerlof, Michael Spence, and Joseph Stiglitz received the 2001
Nobel Prize in Economics for their work in information economics
(Akerlof 1970). Previously, most economic studies simply ignored infor-
mation asymmetries and assumed that markets would behave substan-
tively the same as markets with perfect information (Stiglitz 2000, 2002).
The signaling theory (Spence 1973, 2002) is perhaps the most widely
used approach to study markets with incomplete and asymmetrically dis-
tributed information in finance, entrepreneurship, and management
(Bergh et al. 2014; Connelly et al. 2011). Essentially, proponents send
signals, or observable actions that provide information about unobserv-
able attributes and likely outcomes, to reduce the gap between stakehold-
ers’ knowledge of them and their enterprise.
S. Vismara (*)
Department of Economics and Technology Management, University of
Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy
limit the opportunities to perform ex ante due diligence and ex post moni-
toring. Signals play a crucial role in such a context.
Signals are an economic actor’s activities—not passive characteris-
tics—that positively relate to an unobserved attribute that an exchange
partner values, and whose cost inversely relates to the quality of the sender
(i.e., some signalers are in better positions than others to absorb associ-
ated costs).1 Differential costs provide the basis for a selection process
whereby receivers can use the signal to select a sender from among a
larger set of signalers. Effective signals are those that create a separating
equilibrium, in which low-quality firms find it more costly or risky to
signal than high-quality firms. A costly signal, but one that is not differ-
entially so for imitative signalers, does not create a separating equilib-
rium. When signaling costs are the same for different quality groups, this
generates a pooling equilibrium, by which receivers are left unsure as to
which signals to believe; one cannot prevent low-quality providers from
imitating the signals of high-quality providers under such conditions. To
be effective, dishonest signals should not pay off.
The same rationale applies to risk, which is the danger of being caught
for false signaling. To be effective, the risk must be stronger for lower-
quality senders. Penalty costs are a form of negative feedback that could
serve as a substitute for signal costs. Signal costs differ in that they occur
by implementing the signal, whereas penalty costs occur only from false
signaling. Ownership stakes offer a conventional example. Retained
equity is typically interpreted as a signal of entrepreneurial intentions,
and strongly correlates with the probability of success in an initial or
follow-on offer in stock markets (Leland and Pyle 1977). Consistent with
corporate finance literature, if growth is the primary goal of crowd-
funders committed to long-term goals, then they should be expected to
retain control of a firm after an offering. As confirmation of this informa-
tion’s importance, the percentage of equity offered is clearly reported on
the home page of projects posted on crowdfunding platforms. Ahlers
et al. (2015) and Vismara (2016) demonstrate that previous results from
different financial settings hold in equity crowdfunding, in that a larger
percentage of equity offered by founders reduces the probability of equity
crowdfunding campaigns’ success.
34 S. Vismara
markets. Bergh et al. (2014) propose that sense-making (Weick 1995)
and the information-processing theory (Thomas and McDaniel 1990)
have the advantage of using a behavioral perspective that could overcome
the signaling theory’s rational-actor assumption. These two concepts
could help decipher why a signal assumes different meanings among
receivers, or how different signals interact.
Table 3.2 (continued)
Signal/type of Crowdfunding Crowdfunding
crowdfunding (donations) (rewards) Crowd-investing
Table 3.2 (continued)
Signal/type of Crowdfunding Crowdfunding
crowdfunding (donations) (rewards) Crowd-investing
Table 3.2 (continued)
Table 3.2 (continued)
Table 3.2 (continued)
Table 3.2 (continued)
Ahlers et al. (2015) used a sample of 104 projects from the Australian
Small Scale Offerings Board (ASSOB), a business-matching platform, to
identify which characteristics of the business (e.g., risk factors or pre-
planned exit intentions) and of its top management team (e.g., its size or
level of education) affect the probability of a proposal’s success. The use
of insider equity is a widely explored version of this signaling type in
strategy literature. Insiders affirm their strategies’ potential in the stock
market via their own investments; financial commitment reflects their
private knowledge, and their willingness to assume risk serves as a bond
to suffer personal loss if the firm does not perform well. Thus, managerial
44 S. Vismara
(i.e., the provision of goods), they are less likely to help in the actual or
perceived presence of other supporters. Theory predicts that pure altru-
ism leads to crowding out, with each new contribution decreasing the
appeal of subsequent contributions. Hence, the likelihood of bidding
would negatively relate to the number of previous backers. Depending on
the perspective and empirical setting, some non-crowd-investing studies
discover a positive linear effect of other community members’ funding
decisions on individual contributions (e.g., Colombo et al. 2015), while
others discover a negative effect (e.g., Burtch et al. 2013, 2015) or a non-
linear relationship (e.g., Kuppuswamy and Bayus 2014). In their work,
Kuppuswamy and Bayus (2014) use a sample of Kickstarter projects to
reveal that a project’s additional backer support negatively relates to its
past backer support, but this effect subsides as the project-funding cycle
approaches its closing date.
Hornuf and Schwienbacher (2016) derive an additional key difference
between reward-based crowdfunding and crowd-investing. While propo-
nents in the former raise as much as possible, crowd-investing involves a
maximum number of shares that entrepreneurs are willing to sell. They
also note that the funding goal itself might be a signal sent by the founder.
3.4 S
ignal Confirmation and Post-Signal
Performance
Most crowdfunding studies have investigated signals as determinants of
campaigns’ success. The next step involves demonstrating why it is
optimal for high-quality firms to signal, and why low-quality firms
would not. A confirmation mechanism enables a determination of
whether the beliefs in the signal are indeed realized for both the signal
sender and receiver. Further, a signal’s value is confirmed if the senders
subsequently outperform their peers who did not send the signal.
Beliefs, in other words, must be confirmed by subsequent experience
(Spence 2002). A test for separating equilibrium consecutively requires
moving beyond the receiver’s reaction to a signal, as well as studying
whether the expectation associated with a signal’s presence is confirmed,
with post-signal findings (Colombo et al. 2016). These arguments
Signaling to Overcome Inefficiencies in Crowdfunding Markets 47
incentives are associated with seasoned offerings, while none of the com-
panies initially backed by professional investors have subsequently failed.
One way to identify whether equity crowdfunding closes an important
funding gap is to look at insolvency rates; if these are comparatively high,
this might provide evidence that these firms should not have initially
received funding. Hornuf and Schmitt (2016) discover that, on average,
firms started crowd-investing campaigns three years after their establish-
ment. The authors further note that equity crowd-funded campaigns
have somewhat higher survival rates in the United Kingdom than in
Germany. Nevertheless, 70% of the German campaigns funded between
September 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, were still operating as
active businesses four years after the campaign ended.
I conclude this review on post-campaign outcomes with a few sug-
gested research directions. Can we differentiate whether signals refer to
campaign success (i.e., successful funding) and venture success (i.e., a
successful exit with no insolvency)? What is crowdfunding’s impact on
different performance indicators, such as exits, employment, patents,
angel or VC finance, or sales growth, among others?
3.5 Conclusions
The cornerstone of entrepreneurial finance is that properly functioning
financial systems can reduce the information and transaction costs in a
world in which writing, issuing, and enforcing contracts consumes
resources; information is asymmetric; and its acquisition is costly. Recent
financial innovations, such as crowdfunding markets, promise to be a
step in this direction, and signaling theory provides a privileged angle by
which to investigate these markets. The present manuscript has proposed
a taxonomy of signals in crowdfunding that will hopefully guide future
research on this topic. Specifically, I again stress that among the future
directions identified in this study, an analysis of post-signal performance
is central not only to the correct use of signaling theory, but to the future
of crowdfunding markets. As crowdfunding’s ultimate goal is to build an
enduring business, a successful campaign is therefore a beginning, and
not an end.
50 S. Vismara
Notes
1. In this section, I adopt a strict definition of “signal” coherent with Spence’s
original economic model. Literature has used less strict definitions, and
has also included an actor’s inherent characteristics. When I review the
current literature on signaling in crowdfunding in the next section, I will
specifically identify how individual papers address signals.
2. I discuss the window-dressing theory later, in the section on signal confir-
mation and post-signal performance, in which I draw conclusions on the
parallelism between crowdfunding offerings and initial public offerings by
discussing the evidence and theories on IPOs’ long-term performance. I
provide a definition and examples of cheap talk in this section that con-
form to Stiglitz’s original economic model; literature has used less strict
definitions. When I review the current literature on signaling in crowd-
funding in the following sections, I will specifically identify how individ-
ual papers address signals.
3. Additionally, some papers take a comparative perspective across platforms
(Cumming and Zhang 2016; Cumming et al. 2017), or focus on specific
topics, such as gender issues (Mohammadi and Shafi 2017; Vismara et al.
2017).
4. A survey of 158 successfully funded Kickstarter projects reveals that
approximately 18% of the respondents raised outside risk capital in the
forms of venture capital (VC) or business angel (BA) investing, while 8%
through additional reward-based crowdfunding campaigns. The propo-
nents’ specific industry experience and the presence of “a substantially
complete business plan before fundraising” are the main predictors of out-
side funding (Mollick and Kuppuswamy 2014, 12).
References
Agrawal, Ajay K., Christian Catalini, and Avi Goldfarb. 2011. The Geography
of Crowdfunding. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.
org/papers/w16820. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Ahlers, Gerrit K., Douglas Cumming, Christina Günther, and Denis Schweizer.
2015. Signaling in Equity Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice 39: 955–980.
Akerlof, George A. 1970. The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the
Market Mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 84: 488–500.
Signaling to Overcome Inefficiencies in Crowdfunding Markets 51
Carter, Richard B., Frederick H. Dark, and Ajai K. Singh. 1998. Underwriter
Reputation, Initial Returns, and the Long-Run Performance of IPO Stocks.
Journal of Finance 53: 285–311.
Carter, Richard, and Steven Manaster. 1990. Initial Public Offerings and
Underwriter Reputation. Journal of Finance 45: 1045–1067.
Cassia, Lucio, and Silvio Vismara. 2009. Suppliers as Fund Suppliers: Firms’
Trade Credit and the Local Level of Development of the Banking System in
Europe. Investment Management and Financial Innovations 6: 46–58.
Cholakova, Magdalena, and Bart Clarysse. 2015. Does the Possibility to Make
Equity Investments in Crowdfunding Projects Crowd Out Reward-Based
Investments? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39: 145–172.
Colombo, Massimo G., Chiara Franzoni, and Cristina Rossi-Lamastra. 2015.
Internal Social Capital and the Attraction of Early Contributions in
Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39: 75–102.
Colombo, Massimo G., Michele Meoli, and Silvio Vismara. 2016. Signalling in
Science-Based IPOs: The Combined Effect of Affiliation with Prestigious
Universities, Underwriters, and Venture Capitalists. Social Science Research
Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2801556. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Collier, Benjamin C., and Robert Hampshire. 2010. Sending Mixed Signals:
Multilevel Reputation Effects in Peer-To-Peer Lending Markets. Paper presented
at Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work (197–206), Savannah, USA.
Connelly, Brian L., S. Trevis Certo, R. Duane Ireland, and Christopher
R. Reutzel. 2011. Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. Journal of
Management 37: 39–51.
Cumming, Douglas J., Lars Hornuf, Moein Karami, and Denis Schweizer.
2016a. Disentangling Crowdfunding from Fraudfunding. Max Planck
Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 16-09. https://
ssrn.com/abstract=2828919. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
Cumming, Douglas J., Michelle Meoli, and Silvio Vismara. 2016b. Investors’
Choice Between Cash and Voting Rights: Evidence from Dual-Class Equity
Crowdfunding. Working Paper, University of Bergamo.
Cumming, Douglas J., Alice Rossi, and Silvio Vismara. 2017. What Do
Crowdfunding Platforms Do? A Comparison Between Investment-Based
Platforms in Europe. Working Paper, University of Bergamo.
Cumming, Douglas J., and Silvio Vismara. 2016. A Research Journey Into
Entrepreneurial Finance. In The Routledge Companion to makers of modern
entrepreneurship, ed. D.B. Audretsch and E.E. Lehmann, 64–73. London,
UK: Routledge.
Signaling to Overcome Inefficiencies in Crowdfunding Markets 53
Cumming, Douglas J., and Yelin Zhang. 2016. Are Crowdfunding Platforms
Active and Effective Intermediaries? Social Science Research Network. https://
ssrn.com/abstract=2882026. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Fama, Eugene F. 1998. Market Efficiency, Long-Term Returns, and Behavioral
Finance. Journal of Financial Economics 49: 283–306.
Farrell, Joseph, and Matthew Rabin. 1996. Cheap Talk. Journal of Economic
Perspectives 10: 103–118.
Hanssens, Jürgen, Marc Deloof, and Tom Vanacker. 2015. Underexplored Issues
in Entrepreneurial Finance. In The Concise Guide to Entrepreneurship,
Technology and Innovation, ed. D.B. Audretsch, C.S. Hayter, and A.N. Link,
219–222. New York, NY: Edward Elgar.
———. 2016. The Evolution of Debt Policies: New Evidence from Business
Startups. Journal of Banking and Finance 65: 120–133.
Hildebrand, Thomas, Manju Puri, and Jörg Rocholl. 2016. Adverse Incentives
in Crowdfunding. Management Science 63 (3): 587–608.
Hornuf, Lars, and Matthias Neuenkirch. 2017. Pricing Shares in Equity
Crowdfunding. Small Business Economics 48: 795–811.
Hornuf, Lars, and Matthias Schmitt. 2016. Success and Failure in Equity
Crowdfunding. CESifo DICE Report 14: 16–22.
Hornuf, Lars, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2016. Crowdinvesting—Angel
Investing for the Masses? In Handbook of Research on Venture Capital: Volume
3. Business Angels, ed. H. Landström and C. Mason, 381–397. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Hubbard, R. Glenn. 1998. Capital Market Imperfections and Investment.
Journal of Economic Literature 36: 193–225.
Jain, Bharat A., and Omesh Kini. 1994. The Post-Issue Operating Performance
of IPO Firms. Journal of Finance 49: 1699–1726.
Jensen, Michael C., and William H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the Firm.
Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structures. Journal of
Financial Economics 3: 305–360.
Khurshed, Arif, Stefano Paleari, Alok Pandè, and Silvio Vismara. 2014.
Transparent Bookbuilding, Certification and Initial Public Offerings. Journal
of Financial Markets 19: 154–159.
Khurshed, Arif, Stefano Paleari, and Silvio Vismara. 2003. The Operating
Performance of Initial Public Offerings: The UK Experience. Social Science
Research Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=439240. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Kuppuswamy, Venkat, and Barry L. Bayus. 2014. Crowdfunding Creative Ideas:
The Dynamics of Project Backers in Kickstarter. Social Science Research
Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2234765. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
54 S. Vismara
Leland, Hayne E., and David H. Pyle. 1977. Informational Asymmetries,
Financial Structure, and Financial Intermediation. Journal of Finance 32:
371–387.
Lin, Mingfeng, Nagpurnanand R. Prabhala, and Siva Viswanathan. 2013.
Judging Borrowers by the Company They Keep: Friendship Networks and
Information Asymmetry in Online Peer-to-Peer Lending. Management
Science 59: 17–35.
Loughran, Tim, and Jay R. Ritter. 1995. The New Issues Puzzle. Journal of
Finance 50: 23–51.
Megginson, William L., and Kathleen A. Weiss. 1991. Venture Capitalist
Certification in IPOs. Journal of Finance 46: 879–903.
Migliorati, Katrin, and Silvio Vismara. 2014. Ranking Underwriters of European
IPOs. European Financial Management 20: 891–925.
Mohammadi, Ali, and Kourosh Shafi. 2017. Gender Differences in the
Contribution Patterns of Equity-Crowdfunding Investors. Small Business
Economics. Forthcoming.
Mollick, Ethan. 2014. The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study.
Journal of Business Venturing 29: 1–16.
Mollick, Ethan, and Venkat Kuppuswamy. 2014. After the Campaign: Outcomes
of Crowdfunding. Social Science Research Network. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2376997. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Moritz, Alexandra, Jörn Block, and Eva Lutz. 2015. Investor Communication
in Equity-Based Crowdfunding: A Qualitative-Empirical Study. Qualitative
Research in Financial Markets 7: 309–342.
Ordanini, Andrea, Lucia Miceli, Marta Pizzetti, and Anantharanthan
Parasuraman. 2011. Crowd-Funding: Transforming Customers Into Investors
Through Innovative Service Platforms. Journal of Service Management 22:
443–470.
Paleari, Stefano, Enrico Pellizzoni, and Silvio Vismara. 2008. The Going Public
Decision: Evidence from the IPOs in Italy and in the UK. International
Journal of Applied Decision Sciences 1: 131–152.
Podolny, Joel M. 1993. A Status-Based Model of Market Competition. American
Journal of Sociology 98: 829–872.
Ralcheva, Aleksandrina, and Peter Roosenboom. 2016. On the Road to Success
in Equity Crowdfunding. Social Science Research Network. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2727742. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Ritter, Jay R. 1991. The Long-Run Performance of Initial Public Offerings.
Journal of Finance 46: 3–27.
Signaling to Overcome Inefficiencies in Crowdfunding Markets 55
Robb, Alicia M., and David T. Robinson. 2014. The Capital Structure Decisions
of New Firms. Review of Financial Studies 27: 153–179.
Signori, Andrea, and Silvio Vismara. 2016. Returns on Investments in Equity
Crowdfunding. Social Science Research Network. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2765488. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Spence, Michael. 1973. Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics
87: 355–379.
———. 2002. Signaling in Retrospect and the Informational Structure of
Markets. American Economic Review 92: 434–459.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2000. The Contributions of the Economics of Information to
Twentieth Century Economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115:
1441–1478.
———. 2002. Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics.
American Economic Review 92: 460–501.
Stiglitz, Joseph E., and Andrew Weiss. 1981. Credit Rationing in Markets with
Imperfect Information. American Economic Review 71: 393–410.
Thomas, James B., and Reuben R. McDaniel. 1990. Interpreting Strategic
Issues: Effects of Strategy and the Information Processing Structure of Top
Management Teams. Academy of Management Journal 33: 286–306.
Vismara, Silvio. 2016. Equity Retention and Social Network Theory in Equity
Crowdfunding. Small Business Economics 46: 579–590.
———. 2017. Information Cascades Among Investors in Equity Crowdfunding.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Forthcoming.
Vismara, Silvio, Davide Benaroio, and Federica Carne. 2017. Gender in
Entrepreneurial Finance: Matching Investors and Entrepreneurs in Equity
Crowdfunding. In Gender and Entrepreneurial Activity, ed. Albert Link.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Vismara, Silvio, Stefano Paleari, and Jay R. Ritter. 2012. Europe’s Second
Markets for Small Companies. European Financial Management 18: 352–388.
Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Welch, Ivo. 1992. Sequential Sales, Learning, and Cascades. Journal of Finance
47: 695–732.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free
Press.
Yum, Haewon, Byungtae Lee, and Myungsin Chae. 2012. From the Wisdom of
Crowds to My Own Judgment in Microfinance Through Online Peer-to-Peer
Lending Platforms. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 11:
469–483.
56 S. Vismara
4.1 Introduction
After raising USD 2.4 million from a crowdfunding campaign on
Kickstarter in 2012, Oculus VR, LLC, a California-based manufacturer
of a virtual reality headset, generated large media attention when only
two years later it got taken over by Facebook for USD 2 billion in cash
and stock.1 Many of the original backers were not only surprised but also
disappointed by this outcome. The Oculus Rift enthusiasts, who backed
the project on Kickstarter, expected “something else” from their partici-
pation in the crowdfunding campaign, as testified by this backer: “Maybe
I was naive [about Oculus]. I thought it was more just like someone
doing it for a hobby and just wanted to do something fun for the com-
munity. I didn’t know it was going to turn into a USD 2 billion deal.”2
On Kickstarter, one of the biggest pre-ordering/reward-based
crowdfunding portals, backers are not entitled to the company’s revenues
the crowd often lacks the necessary information to assess the true ability
of the entrepreneur or the intrinsic quality of the start-up or product,
which could lead to an adverse selection problem. In other words, portals
only manage to attract low-quality entrepreneurs because high-quality
entrepreneurs anticipate that they will not be identified as such by the
crowd. Second, after financing takes place, the crowd may also find it dif-
ficult to induce ex post effort on the side of the entrepreneur: delays in
product delivery are commonplace, and outright frauds are the most
extreme cases though much less frequent (Mollick 2014). These are forms
of moral hazard. Both adverse selection and moral hazard may stifle
welfare-enhancing transactions between the crowd and the entrepreneur.
Belleflamme et al. (2014) further show that the choice of the “right” busi-
ness model (crowdfunding vs. crowdinvesting) is one important decision
entrepreneurs need to make in order to overcome these potential market
failures. In particular, they demonstrate that when quality uncertainty
and information asymmetry are prevalent, entrepreneurs are induced to
opt for crowdinvesting.
In the second part of this chapter we continue our discussion on how
these two typical asymmetric information problems affect the crowd–
entrepreneur relationship in the crowdinvesting context. We focus on
crowdinvesting because it represents the business model for which infor-
mation problems are inherently the most significant. We argue that
entrepreneurs in crowdinvesting may want to supplement their crowd of
contributors with other types of contributors to mitigate information
asymmetry concerns. In particular, the decision to take on board a sophis-
ticated investor (business angel or venture capitalist) or to make use of a
syndicate of investors is an important strategy to reduce them. First,
sophisticated investors with their expertise, knowledge and skills provide
quality signals that contribute to mitigating the adverse selection prob-
lem entrepreneurs resorting to crowdinvesting face. Second, once invest-
ment has taken place, sophisticated investors are in a better position to
bear the cost of monitoring entrepreneurs and to write investment con-
tracts setting special decision-making rights (e.g. veto power on firm
decisions, appointment of directors), reducing in turn moral hazard
problems. Third, because these sophisticated investors co-contract with
the crowd on the same terms without being compensated for their efforts,
60 T. Lambert et al.
they may find it less attractive to engage in ex ante expertise and ex post
monitoring. This would in turn limit the benefits for the crowd. We close
the second part with a discussion on how syndication, in which a lead
investor has face-to-face interaction with the entrepreneur and is com-
pensated using carried interest, further mitigates information problems
of early stage investments.
establish with the crowd. The key argument developed in their article is
that this relationship differs across business models. That is, when choosing
one or the other business model, the entrepreneur also chooses what she
can learn about the crowd and what she can extract from them through the
pricing of her product.
Indeed, the crowdfunding model that the authors develop is based on
pre-ordering: the backers are consumers who have a strong taste for the
announced product and who therefore decide to pre-order it, that is, they
pay for it before it is actually produced.5 The entrepreneur can reward the
crowd in various ways, but what matters is that these rewards (called
community benefits) increase the backers’ willingness to pay for the
product. It is assumed that this increase in willingness to pay is propor-
tional to the backers’ taste for the product, which means those consumers
who like the product the most are also those who value the rewards the
most. As a result, this business model allows the entrepreneur to segment
her product consumers into two groups: the backers who signal them-
selves as high-paying consumers (and whose willingness to pay is further
enhanced by the value that they attach to the rewards), and the other
(regular) consumers who wait for the product to be put on the market
before considering to buy it. The entrepreneur is, thus, able to price-
discriminate between both consumer groups, which gives her the oppor-
tunity to raise her profits, as she is assumed to be in a monopoly position
for her product.6 However, the optimal price discrimination scheme may
not be feasible if the initial capital requirement is too high. The obliga-
tion to finance the capital through pre-sales puts a constraint on the price
that can be charged to those consumers who choose to pre-order the
product. Therefore, the profitability of this crowdfunding model decreases
with the size of the capital requirement.
The alternative business model (crowdinvesting) that the authors con-
sider is based on profit sharing.7 Crowdinvesting (here profit sharing) dif-
fers from crowdfunding based on two dimensions. First, the nature of
contributions and compensations is different: instead of pre-ordering the
product, the crowd is invited to directly provide a fixed sum of money to
the entrepreneur and is promised a share of the future profits in exchange.
Second, contributors also enjoy community benefits but it is assumed here
that these benefits are independent of the contributor’s taste for the prod-
uct. This assumption makes sense as the crowd is seen here as investors,
62 T. Lambert et al.
who may well decide to finance the start-up without purchasing the prod-
uct. The implications of these differences are the following. On the minus
side, the entrepreneur is no longer able to segment the crowd and to single
out the high-paying consumers. On the plus side, all individuals value
community benefits in the same way, which makes it easier for the entre-
preneur to capture this extra value. Moreover, this ability to capture the
value that the crowd attaches to community benefits is not impaired by
the size of the capital requirement.
The comparison of the profits that the entrepreneur can achieve under
the two business models yields the main result of the analysis: the entre-
preneur prefers the pre-ordering model when the capital requirement is
relatively small and the profit-sharing model otherwise. The intuition
behind this result has been outlined earlier: pre-ordering allows the entre-
preneur to practice price discrimination, which should give her a higher
profit than in the profit-sharing scheme (in which she is bound to set a
uniform price for her product). However, price discrimination is con-
strained, and hence less profitable, when the initial capital requirement
grows larger than some threshold. Above this threshold, the profit-sharing
model, which allows the entrepreneur to turn all individuals into inves-
tors, becomes the best option.8
Belleflamme et al. (2014) report consistent results when they intro-
duce some uncertainty about the true quality of the product, which may
only be known after production has taken place. In this case, both the
entrepreneur and the crowd face the same (lack of ) information. In
another extension, the authors introduce information asymmetry
between the entrepreneur and the crowd about product quality and find
that information asymmetry tends to favor profit-sharing schemes. Since
the uncertainty about product quality directly influences the decision
(utility) of consumers to pre-order the product or not, the entrepreneur
is constrained when she tries to screen backers and to induce them to pre-
order. However, the inability of the crowd to ascertain the quality of the
product constrains the entrepreneur less when she tries to attract inves-
tors. Indeed, under profit sharing, investors (who eventually may not
consume) care about product quality only insofar as it affects the expected
profitability of their investment.
These theoretical underpinnings have implications for both entrepre-
neurs and portal managers. First, they highlight the importance of self-
The Crowd–Entrepreneur Relationship in Start-Up Financing 63
your own money in it. […The] dream is that at least one of them [proj-
ects] would turn out to be a big success.”
Third, Belleflamme et al. (2014) highlight that choosing the “right”
business model crucially depends on the ability of the entrepreneur to cor-
rectly estimate her capital needs. The authors predict that pre-ordering
(profit sharing) is preferred when the capital needs of the entrepreneurs are
low (high). This is consistent with empirical observations: From data pro-
vided by Crowdcube and Kickstarter, two market leaders in crowdinvesting
and crowdfunding respectively, one easily understands that entrepreneurs
resorting to crowdinvesting collect on average more capital than those rely-
ing on crowdfunding (including pre-ordering). At the time of writing, suc-
cessful entrepreneurs on Crowdcube raised on average GBP 421,707
(approx. USD 554,123), whereas entrepreneurs on Kickstarter generated
on average USD 8,086.13 A similar insight applies to the target goal.
Fourth, Belleflamme et al. (2014) show that when the uncertainty and
information asymmetry regarding the quality of the product are high,
investors tend to favor profit sharing over pre-ordering schemes. This
implies that profit sharing may be more suitable for early stage ventures,
as they inherently suffer from more information asymmetries and because
pre-ordering typically requires more developed projects/products at the
time of the campaign—namely, the existence of a prototype or even the
existence of the very product. In what follows we address these
information-related concerns in crowdinvesting and discuss potential
remedies; in particular, the need in some circumstances to tap other types
of investors beside the crowd.
4.4 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have examined some key features of the crowd and
how they relate to success in crowdfunding and crowdinvesting. In both
business models, the crowd of backers/investors enjoys some extra utility
(the so-called community benefits) over more traditional investors/cus-
tomers. The nature of these community benefits varies across business
models: community benefits are linked to the consumption experience
under crowdfunding and to the investment experience under crowdin-
vesting. Belleflamme et al. (2014) unveil that this difference in the nature
of community benefits is key in determining the entrepreneurial choice
of business model. They show, consistent with empirical observations,
that when the initial capital requirement is relatively small, entrepreneurs
favor crowdfunding and resort to crowdinvesting otherwise.
Their theoretical framework has several entrepreneurial implications.
One implication, well illustrated by the case of Oculus, is the importance
for the entrepreneur to select the right business model given what she can
learn about/from the crowd and what she can extract from the crowd
through the pricing mechanism. Another key implication is that the
crowd–entrepreneur relationship is not foreign to the typical asymmetric
information problems of start-up financing and that when information
asymmetries are more pressing, entrepreneurs tend to opt for crowdin-
vesting, rather than crowdfunding or even crowdlending, in which the
crowd–entrepreneur relationship is by nature more transactional.
Crowdinvesting may thus necessitate complementing entrepreneurs’
The Crowd–Entrepreneur Relationship in Start-Up Financing 73
Notes
1. See, for example, “Facebook to Buy Virtual Reality Firm Oculus for
USD 2 Billion” by Reed Albergotti and Ian Sherr, Wall Street Journal,
March 25, 2014, “Facebook Plays Platform Catch-Up with USD
2 Billion Oculus Deal” by Hannah Kuchler and Tim Bradshaw, Financial
Times, March 26, 2014, or “Facebook Buys VR Startup Oculus for
USD 2 Billion” by Cade Metz, Wired, March 25, 2014.
2. “When Crowdfunding Goes Corporate: Kickstarter Backers Vent over
Facebook’s Oculus Buy” by Victor Luckerson, Time, March 26, 2014.
3. These numbers of the crowdfunding market are sourced from the
Massolution Crowdfunding Industry Report (2015), available at: http://
reports.crowdsourcing.org/index.php?route=product/product&product_
id=54 (last consulted on July 12, 2016).
4. This section partly draws from Belleflamme and Lambert (2014).
5. Cumming et al. (2015) consider different types of crowdfunding models
(i.e. Keep-It-All vs. All-Or-Nothing) and show that they allow to allo-
cate the risk differently between the crowd and the entrepreneur.
Without loss of generality, the discussion in Belleflamme et al. (2014)
does not account for this variation of crowdfunding models.
6. We have here a form of behavior-based price discrimination as consum-
ers self-select into one group and are then charged a specific price cor-
responding to their choice; see Fudenberg and Miguel Villas-Boas (2006)
for a general analysis of behavior-based price discrimination and
Belleflamme and Peitz (2015) for a textbook treatment.
7. See also Sahm et al. (2014), who slightly correct the analysis on profit
sharing and, thereby, simplify it.
8. Ellman and Hurkens (2015) also examine a crowdfunding model that
allows the crowd to pre-order the product and in which entrepreneurs can
commit to produce only if aggregate funding exceeds a defined threshold.
Yet, in their model, pre-ordering does not confer any additional commu-
74 T. Lambert et al.
References
Agrawal, Ajay, Christian Catalini, and Avi Goldfarb. 2014. Some Simple
Economics of Crowdfunding. Innovation Policy and the Economy 14: 63–97.
———. 2016. Are Syndicates the Killer App of Equity Crowdfunding?
California Management Review 58: 111–124.
Ahlers, Gerrit, Douglas Cumming, Christina Günther, and Denis Schweizer.
2015. Signaling in Equity Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 39: 955–980.
Akerlof, George. 1970. The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the
Market Mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 84: 488–500.
Belleflamme, Paul, and Thomas Lambert. 2014. Crowdfunding: Some Empirical
Findings and Microeconomic Underpinnings. Revue Bancaire et Financière 4:
288–296.
Belleflamme, Paul, Thomas Lambert, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2014.
Crowdfunding: Tapping the Right Crowd. Journal of Business Venturing 29:
585–609.
76 T. Lambert et al.
Belleflamme, Paul, Nessrine Omrani, and Martin Peitz. 2015. The Economics
of Crowdfunding Platforms. Information Economics and Policy 33: 11–28.
Belleflamme, Paul, and Martin Peitz. 2015. Industrial Organization: Markets
and Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Block, Jörn, Lars Hornuf, and Alexandra Moritz. 2017. Which Updates During an
Equity Crowdfunding Campaign Increase Crowd Participation? Small Business
Economics. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-017-9876-4.
Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Chemla, Gilles, and Katrin Tinn. 2016. Learning Through Crowdfunding.
Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2804541.
Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Cumming, Douglas, Gaël Leboeuf, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2015.
Crowdfunding Models: Keep-It-All Versus All-Or-Nothing. Social Science
Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2447567. Accessed 28
Feb 2017.
Cumming, Douglas, and Yelin Zhang. 2016. Are Crowdfunding Platforms
Active and Effective Intermediaries? Social Science Research Network. https://
papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2882026. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Ellman, Matthew, and Sjaak Hurkens. 2015. Optimal Crowdfunding Design.
Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2507457.
Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Fudenberg, Drew, and J. Miguel Villas-Boas. 2006. Behavior-based Price
Discrimination and Customer Recognition. In Handbook on Economics and
Information Systems, ed. T.J. Hendershott, 377–436. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gorman, Michael, and William A. Sahlman. 1989. What Do Venture Capitalists
Do? Journal of Business Venturing 4: 231–248.
Hildebrand, Thomas, Manju Puri, and Jörg Rocholl. 2016. Adverse Incentives
in Crowdfunding. Management Science 63: 587–608.
Hornuf, Lars, and Matthias Schmitt. 2016. Success and Failure in Equity
Crowdfunding. CESifo DICE Report 14: 16–22.
Hornuf, Lars, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2017. Market Mechanisms and
Funding Dynamics in Equity Crowdfunding. Journal of Corporate Finance.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119916302450.
Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Iyer, Rajkamal, Asim Ijaz Khwaja, Erzo F.P. Luttmer, and Kelly Shue. 2016.
Screening Peers Softly: Inferring the Quality of Small Borrowers. Management
Science 62: 1554–1577.
Kerr, William R., Josh Lerner, and Antoinette Schoar. 2014. The Consequences
of Entrepreneurial Finance: Evidence from Angel Financings. The Review of
Financial Studies 27: 20–55.
The Crowd–Entrepreneur Relationship in Start-Up Financing 77
catholique de Louvain and Université Lille 2, for which he has received several
awards, including the Banque de France Foundation Prize for the Best Thesis in
Monetary and Financial Economics.
5.1 Introduction
The crowdfunding market is a child of the digital revolution and, although
still in its infancy, it is growing rapidly. Prosper.com, one of the first
crowdfunding platforms to engage in peer-to-peer lending, was founded
in 2006. Just like new products new markets have to demonstrate that
they satisfy needs that would otherwise be unmet. The need addressed by
crowdfunding platforms is to bring supply and demand of capital
together.1 As funding decisions involve significant risks, the platforms
need to build up the reputation that transactions take place in a fair and
trustworthy manner. Otherwise investors are not willing to invest.
To build up this reputation it is important to limit fraudulent behav-
ior. From other financial markets we know that fraud has severely nega-
tive repercussions on the market. There is evidence from the United
States that households in states that are also home to firms involved in
corporate fraud cases reduce their stock market participation (Giannetti
and Wang 2016). In Germany the so-called Neuer Markt (a stock market
C. Hainz (*)
Ifo Institute for Economic Research, Munich, Germany
At the point in time before the principal and the agent enter into a con-
tractual relationship the principal cannot observe the agent’s type, that is
whether the agent has a high- or low-risk production technology. The
agent’s type will influence the distribution of the returns and ultimately
returns are observable.
An example of adverse selection from crowdfunding is Kobe beef jerky.
In a Kickstarter campaign Magnus Fun Inc. offered Kobe beef jerky
shortly after the import of Kobe beef to the United States was allowed,
but still heavily regulated. The original goal was to raise USD 2,374. In
fact more than 3,000 backers offered over USD 120,000. A team of
filmmakers detected inconsistencies in the figures of Magnus Fun Inc.
and the campaign stopped briefly before it would have been completed
and the money of the principals could have been lost.3
Invest
1− 0
Do not Invest 1 0 +b
Fig. 5.1 Moral hazard model for the crowdlending market: payoff structure
terms are the means of solving the moral hazard problem; they must be
set such that they give the borrower an incentive to behave
non-fraudulently.
The principals offer a contract {R; A} to the borrower, in which R is the
repayment in the successful state and A is the liability in case of default.
Although crowdfunding contracts do not specify collateral, borrowers are
liable with all their assets in case of default and A measures the borrower’s
liability.5 In order to solve the moral hazard problem, the credit contract
must satisfy an incentive compatibility constraint (1), which states that
the net payoff for the borrower must be higher when investing in the
project than when taking the money and spending it on for its own pri-
vate benefit. When investing the money the borrower will be successful
with probability pH, generating a return of X and repaying R to the lender.
If the project fails, the borrower will lose all of his assets totaling the
amount of A. When the borrower spends the money for its own benefit,
he gains a private benefit of b, but will certainly lose its assets A.
pH ( A + X − R ) + (1 − pH ) ( A − A ) ≥ A − A + b (1)
pH ( X − R + A ) ≥ b (2)
rower does not have to bear all the costs of his (non-)investment and
therefore may have an incentive to take the money from the lender and
spend it on its own purposes, getting a private benefit of b. Equation (2)
states the condition a credit contract has to fulfill so that the borrower
will opt for the investment. Comparative statistics provide interesting
insights. The higher the private benefits from diverting the funds, the
higher the incentive to opt for diverting the funds. On the other hand,
the more profitable the investment project, that is the higher the proba-
bility of success pH and the return in case of success X, the lower the
incentive to divert the funds. Most importantly, the terms of the credit
contract influence the borrower’s incentives. The higher the repayment R
and the lower the liability A, the more attractive it is for the borrower to
divert the funds. The lower the liability of the borrower, the more diffi-
cult it will be to write an incentive-compatible contract. Here it is impor-
tant to bear in mind that the lower the difference between (R−A), the
higher the incentive not to divert the funds and invest them as
proposed.
Ultimately there are two ways to address problems of asymmetric
information. The first way is to reduce the information asymmetry. The
second way is to write a contract that gives the borrower an incentive not
to exploit its information advantage. The simple model above has shown
that in the case of moral hazard the difference between the repayment in
the case of success and failure, that is (R−A), should be low.
In the banking context, reducing information asymmetry after the
contract is signed is reached by monitoring the borrower. To this end the
borrower has to document the development of his business regularly by
showing balance sheet and other data to the loan officer. However, moni-
toring imposes a fixed cost on the bank, making it unattractive for small
loan sizes. For microcredit new contractual forms have emerged as a
result. The first microfinance bank, the Grameen bank in Bangladesh,
initially only granted microloans to groups of borrowers with joint liabil-
ity. The idea was to exploit the knowledge that individual borrowers have
about their peers. Thus borrowers would exert pressure on their peers to
repay the loan because otherwise the well-performing borrowers would
have to repay for their defaulting peers.
Fraudulent Behavior by Entrepreneurs and Borrowers 85
5.3.2 Crowdlending
have matured already. Iyer et al. (2015) provide a very rich analysis of
peer-to-peer lending on prosper.com (henceforth Prosper). They use data
for the period February 12, 2007 until October 16, 2008. All loans are
unsecured personal loans, with a duration of three years and a fixed inter-
est rate. During this period 194,033 funding proposals were listed, of
which 17,212 were eventually funded (representing 8.9 percent).
The following Table 5.1 from Iyer et al. (2015) provides data on default
for the loans that received funding (funded listings). Default occurs when
the loan is three or more months late at the end of the three-year loan
term. For the entire loan portfolio the default rate is 30.6 percent. Not
surprisingly, the default rate depends strongly on the credit category of
the borrower. Credit categories are assigned by the platform based on the
borrower’s credit score from Experience ScoreX PLUS; they are observ-
able for the lenders. The (Experian ScoreX Plus) credit score uses numer-
ous hard financial variables in its default prediction model. In the lowest
credit category (HR) over half of the borrowers (51.6 percent) default on
Prosper. But even in credit category AA with the best borrowers the
default rate is 14.7 percent.
Table 5.1 Default rates and Funded
expected repayments on listings
Prosper
Mean SD
Loan outcomes
Annual lender interest rate 0.166 0.068
Default dummy 0.306
Credit category HR 0.516
Credit category E 0.424
Credit category D 0.356
Credit category C 0.318
Credit category B 0.305
Credit category A 0.234
Credit category AA 0.147
Fraction of loan repaid 0.797 0.334
Credit category HR 0.625 0.406
Credit category E 0.708 0.377
Credit category D 0.762 0.352
Credit category C 0.793 0.334
Credit category B 0.798 0.329
Credit category A 0.852 0.292
Credit category AA 0.910 0.235
Source: Iyer et al. (2015, 1559)
Fraudulent Behavior by Entrepreneurs and Borrowers 89
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Jul-07
Jul-12
Jan-10
Jun-10
Jan-15
Jun-15
Dec-07
May-08
Mar-09
Nov-10
Apr-11
Dec-12
May-13
Mar-14
Nov-15
Aug-09
Sep-11
Aug-14
Feb-12
Oct-08
Oct-13
Lending Club 30+ Day Deliquency
Blended 30+ Day Deliquency
Prosper 30+ Day Deliquency
default rate of 14.7 percent of the best borrowers is higher than the aver-
age figure in the market. Thus borrowers at Prosper were less likely to
repay than their credit rating may have suggested. But we do not know
whether the default happened by intent, or whether the borrowers slipped
into difficulties repaying the loan.
When interpreting this finding we have to acknowledge that the
potential lenders only observe the loan category (as reported in the table),
but not the actual credit score. However, the lending rate the borrowers
are willing to accept may be another important measure from which one
can infer the lenders’ risk evaluation of the loan. It is worth noting that
borrowers on Prosper had to announce the interest rate they are willing
to accept until 2009 when interest rates were determined in a (Dutch
style) auction. Iyer et al. (2015) compare different measures for risk and
find that the predictive power of this announced interest rate outper-
forms that of the credit score: the interest rate is 45 percent more accurate
in predicting default than the credit score. This result provides evidence
that the lenders in peer-to-peer lending make informed choices. They not
Fraudulent Behavior by Entrepreneurs and Borrowers 91
only use the hard financial information contained in the credit category
(which is based on the credit score), but they also have soft information
about the borrower that helps them to predict how the loan will perform.
The results also indicate that soft information is particularly helpful for
evaluating the future performance of the borrowers in the lower credit
categories. The most important piece of soft information that influences
the lenders’ evaluation is the maximum interest rate a borrower posts that
s/he is willing to pay.10
Knowing the risk they are taking, lenders should be compensated for
the risk they are bearing. To calculate the expected repayment one needs
to know what the lenders would receive in case of default. If a borrower
does not repay for four months or more, his/her loan is sold to a collec-
tion agency. The proceeds from selling the loan are distributed among the
lenders. As shown in the Table 5.1 in the “fraction of loan repaid” col-
umn, which is calculated from the probability of repayment and the
recovery value Prosper gets from selling defaulting loans to a collecting
agency, the lenders in expected terms get 79.7 percent of the principal.
Thus, in expected terms, the defaults are too high and the recovery rates
too low to be compensated by an interest rate of 16.6 percent. The puz-
zling result of this analysis is that while the lenders seem to be quite good
at rating the risks of loans in relative terms, they do not get enough com-
pensation in absolute terms.
5.3.3 Crowdinvesting
(2016) study 212 initial offerings, the other offerings were left out because
they were too small or were follow-up campaigns. Out of these firms 22
have failed (10.4 percent). Such a failure rate may not seem too surprising
among start-up firms. An investment in the crowdinvesting market
would pay off if the losses could be offset by high returns on successful
firms. The figures available seem to suggest that this is indeed the case.
For the 64 firms (30.2 percent) that are involved in an equity deal after
raising equity by Crowdcube, the average return on the deal is 63.5
percent.
Hornuf and Schmitt (2016) provide similar figures for Germany, but
unlike Signori and Vismara (2016), they calculate actual returns. For
nearly the same period of time, September 2011 until December 2015,
303 campaigns were started on German equity crowdfunding platforms.
210 of these campaigns successfully obtained funding, 54 did not reach
their funding goal and publicly available information is missing for 39
campaigns due to the intransparency of the platform. Among the firms
financed, 85 percent are still operating three years after their incorpora-
tion. This is a higher rate than for the general population of start-ups in
Germany for which the survival rate is 70 percent. This may be due to the
fact that crowdinvesting platforms screen firms and select which firms are
allowed on the platform. Through this process the majority of “appli-
cants” is denied access to the platform (Hornuf and Schwienbacher
2018).
concept maintenance (Gibson et al. 2013; Hornuf and Haas 2014).11
Although the behavioral aspects might change the trade-offs for part of
the population, and thereby the number of fraud cases, the comparative
statistics of the model still provide important insights. The model has
shown that the net payoff received by the agent in cases with success rela-
tive to failure influences the choice. Thus, it depends on the contract, in
the case of crowdlending on the loan contract, what the incentives are.
Ultimately the contract should be such that the agent’s payoff in case of
success is high relative to the case of failure. In the contracts offered by
banks or microfinance organizations, this is achieved through the collat-
eralization of physical assets, through social collateral, group contracts or
reputation effects.
Thus, the challenge for crowdfunding platforms is (1) to reduce infor-
mation asymmetries themselves and (2) to offer contracts that give incen-
tive for non-fraudulent behavior. To reduce asymmetric information,
either the platform itself or the principal (the backer, the lender or the
investor depending on the type of crowdfunding) needs to collect infor-
mation about the agent. There seem to be very different attitudes towards
the involvement of the platforms depending on the type of crowdfunding
in question. In crowdinvesting platforms screen firms ex ante and reject a
large share of the proposed offers (Hornuf and Schwienbacher 2018). For
potential investors too, the widespread availability of information made
possible by the digital revolution provides new possibilities for screening
and monitoring projects (for more details see, Morse (2015) and Vismara
(2017), in Chap. 3 of this book). Agents, for instance, can describe their
projects on the platform and even show videos of their products.12
Ultimately, there is a lot of soft information in their appearance: text
features, for instance, can help to predict default (Gao and Lin 2015).
However, as research shows which features are more often used by failing
or fraudulent projects, the dishonest agents can adjust their behavior
(Morse 2015).
The design of the contracts plays a crucial role for the agent’s incentives.
This is demonstrated for crowdlending on Prosper. Hildebrand et al.
(2017) study the incentives of group leaders in lending. On Prosper every-
body can become a group leader or member. The group leader has the
right to allow new members into the group and to deny access. Moreover,
94 C. Hainz
both individuals and companies that seek financing, and they should
require issuers to provide full legal names and brief biographies of all
principals” (Conrad et al. 2016). This may help to reduce asymmetric
information between different platforms and between other financial ser-
vice providers more generally; and thereby makes collecting information
cheaper. It also allows the agent to build up a reputation as a trustworthy
contracting party that acts as social collateral. Another important aspect
is that platforms need to carefully design the rules that determine how
contracts are formed and the incentives they provide for different groups
of participants. Finally, a potential drawback of transparency must be
mentioned: “The problem with uncovering success cues is of course once
they are disclosed, their predictive power disappears” (Morse 2015, 469).
Notes
1. Note that crowdfunding platforms usually do not offer services tradi-
tional financial intermediaries like banks offer (e.g. screening or moni-
toring in the case of crowdlending).
2. Cumming et al. (2015) provide an overview on the literature on finan-
cial market misconduct in general.
3. See http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/17/technology/kickstarter-scam-kobe-
jerky/ and http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/biggest-kickstarter-
and-indiegogo-scams/.
4. We do not study the third problem of asymmetric information, costly
state verification. It arises after the returns of the project to be financed
are realized. The entrepreneur could claim that the project was not prof-
itable although it was and he diverted the project’s return of this own
purposes.
5. In countries with a well-functioning legal system the claims can be
enforced. The crowdlending platform Prosper, for example, sells its out-
standing debt to a collection agency (see Sect. 5.3.2).
6. Note that there might be a tension between timely delivery and the qual-
ity of the product (Moores 2015).
Fraudulent Behavior by Entrepreneurs and Borrowers 97
7. The literature does not always acknowledge this difference. For example,
Moores (2015, 402) gives the following reference to Mollick (2014):
“Recent figures suggest that less than five percent of crowdfunding proj-
ects result in fraud” (highlight by CH).
8. The mini drone Zano raised EUR 3 million on Kickstarter in the United
Kingdom. When they stopped responding Kickstarter asked a journalist
to investigate the case. He found that the firm was surprised by its large
funding success and the huge demand. At the same time the firm did not
describe the state of development properly initially (Nezik 2016).
9. Note that therefore we cannot directly compare the default rates.
10. Prosper changed the design and now determines the interest rates itself.
11. Other behavioral economic effects are not modeled either. Schwartz
(2015, 566) argues that “Crowdfund investors with negative returns will
not simply have lost their money, but rather they will have spent it (at
least in part) on nonpecuniary benefits, including entertainment, politi-
cal expression, and community building.” While investors may derive
utility from these benefits, they may also suffer from being deceived.
12. This gives rise to another type of fraudulent behavior, namely stealing of
ideas, as the example of a smartphone case selfie-stick shows that was
posted on Kickstarter and copied by a Chinese manufacturer (Horwitz
2016).
References
Burghof, Hans-Peter, and Adrian Hunger. 2004. The Neuer Markt—An
(Overly) Risky Asset of Germany’s Financial System. In The Rise and Fall of
Europe’s New Stock Markets (Advances in Financial Economics Vol. 10), ed.
Giancarlo Giudici and Peter Roosenboom, 295–327. Bingley: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Conrad, Jennifer, Jonathan Karpoff, Craig Lewis, and Jay R. Ritter. 2016.
Statement of the Financial Economists Roundtable: Crowdfunding. Financial
Analysts Journal 72: 14–16.
Cumming, Douglas, Robert Dannhauser, and Sofia Johan. 2015. Financial
Market Misconduct and Agency Conflicts: A Synthesis and Future Directions.
Journal of Corporate Finance 34: 150–168.
Cumming, Douglas, Lars Hornuf, Moein Karami, and Denis Schweizer. 2016.
Disentangling Crowdfunding from Fraudfunding. Max Planck Institute for
98 C. Hainz
Christa Hainz is Senior Researcher and Deputy Head of the Ifo Center for
International Institutional Comparisons and Migration Research. She was assis-
tant professor at the University of Munich and guest professor at the University
of Augsburg and visited the New York University and SITE at the Stockholm
School of Economics. Her research focuses on banking, corporate finance and
institutions. Her work has been published in the Economic Journal, the Journal
of Public Economics and the Journal of Comparative Economics. She recently wrote
an expert report for the Federal Ministry of Finance on the Small Investor
Protection Act.
Part II
Market Structure
6
Fintech and the Financing of SMEs
and Entrepreneurs: From Crowdfunding
to Marketplace Lending
Mark Fenwick, Joseph A. McCahery,
and Erik P.M. Vermeulen
6.1 Introduction
Bank lending to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) has changed
dramatically since the time of the financial crisis of 2008. That shouldn’t
be too surprising. Banks’ lending capacity shrank between 2008 and
2013 due to higher risk aversion in a time when economic growth had
slowed. The higher sensitivity to external market shocks led to changes in
the supply of short- and long-term financing to SME borrowers. In the
Netherlands, for example, we observed a 6–8% year-on-year decline in
M. Fenwick (*)
Kyusha University – Graduate School of Law, Fukuoka, Japan
J.A. McCahery
Faculty of Law and Tilburg Law and Economics Center, Tilburg University,
Tilburg, The Netherlands
E.P.M. Vermeulen
Tilburg Law and Economics Center, Tilburg University,
Tilburg, The Netherlands
bank loans to SMEs and the highest loan rejection rate in Europe (OECD
2013). SMEs continue to face numerous obstacles in borrowing funds
because they are small, less diversified, and have weaker financial struc-
tures. Moreover, ample evidence suggests that smaller companies face
greater perceived and actual constraints than larger firms. Collectively,
they have been considered unfavorable borrowers due to their difficulty
in providing high-quality collateral or their relative opaqueness with
respect to their creditworthiness (Boot et al. 1991; Ayadi and Gadi 2013).
In recent years, policymakers and researchers have increasingly begun
to explore the impact of the recent financial crisis on the rationing of
credit. The effect, in the case of SMEs, was on the reduction income
reflected in their balance sheet and overall collateral levels. Not only did
small businesses look less creditworthy, but they also faced greater per-
ceived and actual constraints than larger firms and that this would play a
critical role in the narrowing of available finance options (European
Central Bank 2015). Also, data on small business credit scores, such as
PAYDEX, indicate that lending to small business is lower than before the
financial crisis (Mills and McCarthy 2014). While bank loans remain of
vital importance for small businesses, changes in lending standards have
placed significant demands on banks focused in the SME, prompting a
significant decline in small business credit. The literature suggests that
regardless of the change in credit conditions in 2014, lending standards
remained comparatively tight and interest rates high for SMEs in coun-
tries hard hit by the financial crisis (OECD 2016).
There are a number of specific, efficient strategies that have been devel-
oped and demonstrated to alleviate credit rationing. In general, these
strategies involve three types of mechanisms. First it is clear that the pres-
ence of information asymmetries and principal/agent problems may
induce sellers of financial service to offer products that, due to monitor-
ing problems, leave potential borrowers without access to credit. Past
studies show that banks’ local network ties and relationships have reduced
the uncertainties and mitigated some of the risks opportunism associated
with bank lending to SMEs. Moreover, this literature has emphasized
how enabling environmental initiatives may have actually reduced infor-
mation asymmetries by establishing effective monitoring techniques.
Second, the use of collateral gives the SME with a serious credit problem
Fintech and the Financing of SMEs and Entrepreneurs... 105
way, financial services are decentralized and made flatter. Most obviously,
there is the growth of mobile banking that allows customers to perform a
wide range of transactions online. Second, networked access to financial
services facilitates quicker access to all manner of transactions from
checking financial status, making payments, and withdrawing and trans-
ferring funds. Third, behind-the-scenes activities of financial institutions
are similarly transformed. In part, this involves the use of Big Data to
deliver a more efficient service, but it also allows firms to use technology
to manage legal risk more effectively. Finally, in the absence of industry-
wide standardization (i.e., no capital requirements) it is clear that peer-
to-peer (‘P2P’) platforms will enjoy lower operating and capital expenses
compared to traditional banks.
To many observers, one of the most disturbing aspects of the 2008
financial crisis was the subsequent introduction of vast swaths of new
banking regulation. The rapid introduction of regtech—which involves
using new technologies to meet regulatory and compliance require-
ments—suggests that using big data analytics allows firms to accelerate
the cumbersome and costly process of implanting new regulation. There
are a number of areas of compliance and reporting where technology can
have significant benefits, such as risk data aggregation, modeling and
real-time transactions monitoring. Machine learning, artificial intelli-
gence, and biometrics have been particularly promising in tackling com-
pliance challenges.
Fintech has also facilitated the emergence of start-ups that offer an
alternative source of financial services. Fintech lenders, including equity
crowdfunding, invoice and supply chain financing, and marketplace
lending, are beginning to challenge traditional business models in a num-
ber of ways—not only by bringing competition to the corporate market,
creating efficiencies and competition that reduces online risk, but also
making SMEs more profitable (WEF 2015). In particular, app-based
companies are emerging everywhere. They challenge and disrupt incum-
bents, such as traditional banks, by supporting a wide range of financial
services, namely marketplace lending platforms; equity crowdfunding
platforms; insurance services; algorithm-driven robo-advisors offering
smarter, more personalized financial advice; and blockchain-based
crypto-currency and payment systems. This trend is borne out by the
Fintech and the Financing of SMEs and Entrepreneurs... 107
investment data. Since around 2010, more and more investment is being
made into fintech. And even though deal activity has slowed over the last
year, there is little evidence that indicates that fintech is likely to perma-
nently stall or collapse (see Fig. 6.1).
Millennials—defined as the demographic cohort that reached matu-
rity around 2000—are thought to be one of the primary drivers of fin-
tech innovation. To begin, millennials are prompting changes in the need
of firms to focus on the consumer. Three aspects of the contemporary
consumer expectations that seem pertinent in this context include state-
of-the-art consumer experience, speed, and convenience (PWC 2016).
The delivery of innovative fintech solutions will require a degree of coop-
eration between multiple partners, including millennials, as stakeholders
and investors, in maintaining a focus on the core task of innovating.
In this chapter, we examine how fintech lenders target the SME seg-
ment, connecting companies and investors that want to lend or provide
some form of equity capital or debt to start-ups. To gain a better under-
standing of the online alternatives to bank financing, we provide an over-
view of the different platforms and external financing providers such as
crowdfunding, peer-to-peer and marketplace lenders. We also discuss the
factors responsible for the expansion of these well-developed credit sys-
108 M. Fenwick et al.
6.2 Crowdfunding
Crowdfunding is a method for raising finance in which start-ups can sell
directly or indirectly shares or equity in a company to a group of investors
through the Internet. Historically, crowdfunding has evolved from a way
Fintech and the Financing of SMEs and Entrepreneurs... 109
to finance creative projects, such as books, films, and games, into a new
type of entrepreneurial finance which has the potential to dramatically
change the venture capital ecosystem. Crowdfunding makes it possible
for early-stage start-up companies to raise ‘venture capital’ from a large
group of individuals, sidestepping the traditional fundraising process that
includes lengthy due diligence periods and tough negotiations over the
pre-money valuation and contractual terms. The ‘crowd’ investors, who
invest relatively small amounts through Internet-based platforms (crowd-
funding websites) and/or through social networks—such as Facebook,
Twitter, and LinkedIn—need less contractual protection (the small
investment amounts do not justify close involvement in the growth pro-
cess of the start-up companies).
As noted above, accessibility and speed are the key drivers behind the
emergence and development of crowdfunding platforms. Another factor
likely to influence the rise of crowdfunding platforms is that they can
generate information about risks that can be interpreted as effective sig-
nals of project quality and thus effect the probability of funding success
(Ahlers et al. 2015). Thus, in addition to providing access to information
about credit scoring of potential borrowers, the platforms allow investors
through real-time notifications of lender bids on projects to diversify
their portfolio of investments (Morse 2015).
In their quest to answer these questions, many academics have exam-
ined crowdfunding from an economics perspective. Within economics,
there have been several approaches to the study of crowdfunding, includ-
ing the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ perspective. Management researchers have
also begun to look at why investors are likely to enter a crowdfunding
platform. Underlying this view, investors on equity crowdfunding plat-
forms tend to be a dispersed group who invest small denominations in a
start-up, and have little incentive to do due diligence research before the
investment and thereafter the investment will monitor managerial effort.
Platforms can attract investors by offering their own due diligence and
process a project before it is offered to the public or is likely to turn to
co-investment with a business angle or VC firm.
While these mechanisms have been influential and helpful, there exists
a wide array of mechanisms, each of which could be more or less signifi-
cant in shaping the dynamics of the business relationship. For example,
110 M. Fenwick et al.
Lending
14%
numbered more than 4.8 investments in the platform whereas the aver-
age made 2.7 investments. He then mapped the public profile investors
to their level of entrepreneurial and project-specific expertise and found
that 88% of the public profile investors had entrepreneurial and start-up
skills and 44% had experience in the funded project’s industry. In com-
bination with augmented data from Crunchbase, the results support the
view that public profile investors are more likely to be sophisticated than
other blind investors.
The importance of signaling to potential small investors in a start-up is
also likely to have implications for the success of proposed campaigns. In
the context of hidden information, start-up firms tend to employ a range
of signals to induce investors to devote resources to the project. Some
evidence from a recent study, Ahlers et al. (2015), reveals that the signals
that investors are more likely to rely on, as a proxy for project quality,
include the number of board members, and board experience, measured
in terms if a board member has an MBA. Yet external certification (pat-
ents and government grants) has no impact on the probability of attract-
ing investors.
Despite its popularity and growth, equity crowdfunding poses sev-
eral challenges. First, it requires some experience in making a pitch to
smaller investors (Lewis 2013). Moreover, there are usually no one-to-
one conversations with interested investors. All the relevant informa-
tion should be made available upfront, which in turn could easily lead
to confidentiality and transparency issues. Second, unlike business
angels and venture capitalists, crowdfunding investors typically do
not intensively monitor and support the business in the post-invest-
ment period. Current research suggests that, in order for the start-up
to succeed, risk investors must be willing to provide the entrepreneur
with ‘value-added’ services. These services include identifying and
evaluating business opportunities, including management, entry, or
growth strategies; negotiating further investments; tracking the port-
folio firm and coaching the firm participants; providing technical and
management assistance; and attracting additional capital. When
assessing the potential of crowdfunding, the absence of real value-
added services could become significant and may have the potential to
retard growth.
114 M. Fenwick et al.
6.3 P
eer-to-Peer or Marketplace Lending
Model
Despite the attention given to crowdfunding over the last decade, we
have seen the rapid development of peer-to-peer lending (‘P2P’). More a
hybrid of crowdfunding and marketplace lending, P2P is best under-
stood as a form of debt-based crowdfunding.
116 M. Fenwick et al.
tors, which may allow them to diversify their portfolios and create
enhanced risk-adjusted returns through the savings achieved by a lower-
cost operating model.
As a result, the P2P model has experienced significant growth rates in
the United States and United Kingdom. Evidence indicates that P2P
lending in the United States reached USD 12 billion at the end of 2014
(Morgan Stanley Research 2015), with similar loan levels for the United
Kingdom. Moreover, the P2P market is expected to be worth between
USD 150 and USD 490 billion globally between 2016 and 2020, from
USD 26.16 billion in 2015. In the United Kingdom, the volume of P2P
consumer lending rose to EUR 366 million in 2015 whereas business
lending rose to EUR 212 million for the same period (Cambridge/
KPMG 2016). Unsurprisingly, commercial banks have not been shy
about jumping into this sector once they witnessed the earlier success of
the fintech business model. In fact, large commercial banks pursuing this
strategy have purchased new fintech start-ups and created competitive
platforms designed not only to improve the efficiency of their traditional
financial products but to look for other market opportunities (Parker
et al. 2016).
Despite its popularity and growth the P2P lending poses several chal-
lenges. First, there are likely to be some agency costs involved with this
new channel of funding. We can expect, based on prior research, that
borrowing history has a significant impact on the success rate of loans
(Iyer et al. 2015). Second, if lenders believe that there are adverse selec-
tion problems, this is likely to lead to high interest rates and low rates of
success (Yum et al. 2012). Third, a major concern for lending platforms
is whether any loan is in arrears and could potentially default. A primary
concern is that investors maintain a close watch on developments in
marketplace lending, such as ensuring that the modeling of the assumed
default rate is accurate, or that there is clear identification of the servic-
ing cost (for the outsourced loans) for platforms. Finally, another factor
likely to influence the efficiency of the online P2P markets is the high
risk from borrowers that are unable to finance their projects to comple-
tion, leading to loans that are illiquid and cannot be withdrawn ahead of
maturity.
118 M. Fenwick et al.
6.4 R
egulatory Determinants of Fintech
Start-Ups
This section considers the regulatory factors that are influencing fintech
start-ups. Several researchers have written about the influence of country-
level factors on fintech. A primary factor that prior researchers have
examined is the relationship between country-level legal and cultural
traits and their impact on platform formation (Dushnitsky et al. 2016).
Second, as highlighted by Cumming and Schwienbacher (2016), the
extent of venture capital deals in the fintech sector can be seen as a func-
tion of the differential enforcement level of financial rules among start-
ups and large financial institutions. In addition to legal and cultural
factors, researchers have also considered the primary economic and tech-
nical factors influencing the number of fintech start-ups, including the
presence of a well-developed capital market, ready availability of the latest
technology, and people more likely to possess telephone subscriptions
(Haddad and Hornuf 2016). The magnitude of the labor market is asso-
ciated with the increase of new fintech start-up formations. While the
degree of soundness of banks has a negative effect on the formation of
start-ups, the variable VC financing has a significant effect on the num-
ber of new fintech start-ups that provide payment services.
To be sure, prior work suggests that fintech innovations will take place
with or without changes in regulation. Thus, one possibility is that poli-
cymakers might wish to create incentives so that fintech will lower the
cost of services to end-users and encourage entry in highly concentrated
markets so that regulators could ensure a level playing field. As noted
above, another possibility is that the recent fintech innovations are stifled
due to the strength of industry groups and labor that might want to curb
incentives to fintech firms and support existing subsidies and barriers to
entry. We thus attempt to shed light on whether lawmakers respond to
the ongoing development of fintech firms or attempt to support the
extant financial system and their own style of regulation.
In this section, we provide some preliminary evidence of 12 country-
level regulators’ responses to fintech. In general, if we look around the
world today we can distinguish between two broad categories of
Fintech and the Financing of SMEs and Entrepreneurs... 119
6.4.1 E
mpirical Study of Regulatory Effects
on Fintech Start-Ups
150
100
Netherlands
M. Fenwick et al.
Ireland
United States
50 United Kingdom
Hong Kong
China
Germany
India
0 Singapore
2014 2015 2016 Russia
Israel
Switzerland
–50
–100
–150
Fig. 6.4 Year-on-year percent growth of first-time venture capital backed fintech companies (country)
% 200
150
Experimental
100
Guidance
50
Priority
0
2014 2015 2016
–50
Fragmented
–100
No Action
–150
Fintech and the Financing of SMEs and Entrepreneurs...
Fig. 6.5 Percentage growth of first-time venture capital backed fintech companies (regulatory approach)
123
124 M. Fenwick et al.
crucial role in making Israel an attractive site for investing. But the evi-
dence does suggest that collaborative regulation that facilitates experi-
mentation is key. For now, policy experimentation seems to be the way to
go for regulators. It is, therefore, crucial that we track the effectiveness of
regulatory sandboxes in 2017. After all, they are relatively new and we
need to build a better understanding of their effectiveness in order to
improve their design. To be sure, such knowledge will show whether
other countries can follow this more proactive and experimental model
and whether it might work also in other industries that have a tradition
of being heavily regulated.
6.5 Conclusion
This chapter considered how alternative sources of business lending can
help to fill the financing gap for SMEs and young firms. By canvassing
the empirical literature on alternative finance, we evaluated the benefits
and costs of the respective alternative lending models.
We initially examined crowdfunding, which is a new funding source
that complements traditional forms of finance. In particular, we reviewed
the efficiency benefits of the respective non-price strategies and consid-
ered whether the differences are likely to attract more investors. AON
fundraising campaigns have larger fundraising targets for their projects
and tend also to be successful in realizing their capital goals. In contrast,
the KIA model is used by firms that can scale their business. In sum, flex-
ible platforms are attractive to a number of firms, creating sustainable user
growth. We also discussed whether an investor has a public profile and
whether it influences the dynamics of investor behavior. An informational
advantage is likely to occur when investors have chosen a public profile.
This will likely lead to more bids as well as interest from other investors.
We then considered the P2P model, which matches borrowers who are
seeking a loan with investors. In short, platforms operate by assisting in
the collection, scoring, and distribution of the credit qualifications of
potential borrowers, reporting the real-time bids on projects and provid-
ing the online servicing and monitoring of the loan. Using this
information, lenders are able to review the loan applications. Generally
Fintech and the Financing of SMEs and Entrepreneurs... 125
References
Abrams, E. 2017. Securities Crowdfunding: More than Family, Friends and Fools?
Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2902217.
Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Agrawal, Ajay, Christian Catalini, and Avi Goldfarb. 2015. Crowdfunding,
Georgraphy, Social Networks, and the Timing of Decision. Journal of
Economics and Management Strategy 24: 253–274.
Ahlers, Gerrit K., Douglas Cumming, Christina Günther, and Denis Schweizer.
2015. Signalling in Equity Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 39: 955–980.
Ayadi, R., and S. Gadi. 2013. Access by MSMEs to Finance in the Southern and
Eastern Mediterranean: What Role for Credit Guarantee Schemes? European
Commission, MEDPRO Technical Report No. 35/2013.
Beck, Thorsten, Leora F. Klapper, and Juan Carlos Mendoza. 2010. The Typology
of Partial Credit Guarantee Funds Around the World. Journal of Financial
Stability 6: 10–25.
126 M. Fenwick et al.
Kolodny, Lora. 2013. AngelList and Beyond: What VCs Really Think of
Crowdfunding. Wall Street Journal. October 8. http://blogs.wsj.com/venture-
capital/2013/10/08/angellist-and-beyond-what-vcs-really-think-of-crowd-
funding/. Accessed 20 Apr 2017.
KPMG. 2017a. The Pulse of FinTech Q4 2016: Global Analysis of Investment in
FinTech. February 21. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/
pdf/2017/02/pulse-of-fintech-q4-2016.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2017.
———. 2017b. US Fintech Funding Drops in 2016: KPMG Report. February
21. https://home.kpmg.com/us/en/home/insights/2017/02/us-fintech-
funding-and-deal-volume-drop-significantly-in-2016-kpmg-q4-16-pulse-of-
fintech-report.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2017.
Lewis, Neil. 2013. Business Angels vs Equity Crowdfunding: 7 Key Differences.
iBusinessAngel. http://www.ibusinessangel.com/2013/04/business-angels-
vs-equity-crowdfunding/. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Mills, Karen, and Brayden McCarthy. 2014. The State of Small Business Lending:
Credit Access during the Recover and How Technology May Change the Game.
Harvard Business School Working Paper 15-004. https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/abstract=2470523. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Mittal, Alex. 2016. Read the Fine Print Before You Turn to Equity Crowdfunding.
Mattermark. April 25. https://mattermark.com/read-fine-print-turn-equity-
crowdfunding/. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Morgan Stanley Research. 2015. Can P2P Lending Reinvent Banking? June 17.
https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/p2p-marketplace-lending. Accessed
20 Feb 2017.
Morse, Adair. 2015. Peer to Peer Crowdfunding: Information and the Potential
for Disruption in Consumer Lending. National Bureau of Economic Research.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20899. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
OECD. 2013. SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2013: An OECD Scorecard. April 17.
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=
CFE/SME(2012)12/FINAL&docLanguage=En. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
———. 2015. New Approaches to SME and Entrepreneurship Financing. https://
www.oecd.org/cfe/smes/New-Approaches-SME-full-report.pdf. Accessed 20
Feb 2017.
———. 2016. Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2016: Highlights. April.
h t t p : / / w w w. o e c d . o r g / c f e / s m e s / f i n a n c i n g - s m e s - a n d - e n t re p re -
neurs-23065265.htm. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Parker, Geoffrey G., Marshall W. van Alsyne, and Sangeet P. Choudary. 2016.
Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy—
128 M. Fenwick et al.
And How to Make Them Work For You. New York: W.W. Norton and
Company.
Philippon, Thomas. 2016. The FinTech Opportunity. National Bureau of
Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22476. Accessed 28 Apr
2017.
———. 2016. Blurred Lines: How Fintech is Shaping Financial Services. March.
https://www.pwc.se/sv/pdf-reports/blurred-lines-how-fintech-is-shaping-
financial-services.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Saha, A., and J. Parsont. 2017. Regulation Crowdfunding: A Viable Capital-Raising
Method for Tech Companies? http://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2017/03/06/
regulation-crowdfunding-a-viable-capital-raising-method-for-tech-compa-
nies/
Vismara, Silvio. 2016. Information Cascades Among Investors in Equity
Crowdfunding. Enterpreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/
10.1111/etap.12261.
World Economic Forum. 2015. The Future of FinTech: A Paradigm Shift in Small
Business Finance. October. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/IP/2015/FS/
GAC15_The_Future_of_FinTech_Paradigm_Shift_Small_Business_
Finance_report_2015.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Yum, Haewon, Byungtae Lee, and Myungsin Chae. 2012. From Wisdom of the
Crowds to my Own Judgment in Microfinance Through Online Peer-to-Peer
Lending Platforms. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 11:
469–483.
Mark Fenwick is Professor of Law at Kyushu University. His research areas are
white-collar and corporate crime, terrorism, emergencies and the law, bioethics
and criminal law and theoretical criminology and social theory. He received his
PhD from Cambridge University.
Despite the relatively low level of consequences for failure, I find that
crowdfunding project creators deliver their promised rewards the vast
majority of the time (over 90%), and seem to make great efforts to fulfill
their obligations. Additionally, a large number of projects, especially
those in product-oriented categories, turn into ongoing ventures. Overall,
the data suggests that crowdfunding is a viable method of producing new
enterprises.
E. Mollick (*)
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, PA, USA
and 8448 (13.7%) completed most or all of the survey. These response
rates are comparable with other web-based surveys in non-traditional
industries within the management literature (Kriauciunas et al. 2011).
Additionally, it is likely that many of the email accounts were set up for
completed projects and were no longer actively used, artificially lowering
response rates, though the proportion of these emails is difficult to deter-
mine. Therefore, in order to provide a more accurate accounting of actual
responses, open rates on emails were tracked (Nickerson 2007), with an
open rate of 47.8%. Open rate tracking works well for web-based email
addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail), but may not work in all cases, and
could result in an underestimate of read emails. Nonetheless, using open
rates suggests that overall response rates were between 16% and 34% of
delivered email. Response rates varied by amount raised, with larger proj-
ects responding at a higher rate. After controlling for this factor, there was
no significant difference between respondents and non-respondents in
the types of backers they attracted (those who had backed projects before
or those who had never backed projects), or the number of projects
backed or launched by the creator.
The second survey was of project backers. In total 456,751 backers
were surveyed, representing 65,326 projects. All projects from 2009
through May 2015 that raised over USD 1000 were included in the sam-
ple, as well as half the projects that raised less than USD 1000 but over
USD 250, and a quarter of projects raising less than USD 250. Backers
were selected randomly, without replacement, to maximize the number
of backers per project. A mean of 7.2 backers were surveyed per project,
with 7 backers surveyed in 89% of projects and 10 backers surveyed in
7.8% of projects.
A total of 47,188 backers (10.3%) responded. In total, there is at least
one response for 30,323 projects, (46.4% of all projects), with 1.56
backer responses per project on average. The mean backer in the sample
contributed USD 76.43 to the project they backed.
Response rates were not entirely representative of the project backer
population, as response rates were higher for projects that traditionally
produce consumer products, such as games (83% of all projects), tech-
nology (72% of all projects), design (70% of all projects), and comics
(72% of all projects). They were lower for categories focused more on
Crowdfunding as a Font of Entrepreneurship: Outcomes… 135
the original, without makerspaces), and Film (the same as the original,
without movie theaters). The Art category now includes projects in art,
photography, graphic design, crafts, architecture, civic design, and typog-
raphy. The Publishing category includes cookbooks and journalism, as
well as the original publishing category. Dance and Theater are com-
bined. Product Design only includes product design projects and unclas-
sified design projects. Finally, I created a small category, Spaces, for
projects supporting movie theaters, makerspaces, and practice spaces;
however, due to its small size I exclude it from most further analyses.
We can further cluster these categories into two general groups:
“product-oriented” and “art-oriented.” Examining all 11 of the newly
defined categories by whether the goal of the creator was to create or
sustain an organization, or else to launch a one-time project, the contrast
between types of projects becomes clear. The five “product-oriented” cat-
egories are dominated by attempts to build organizations: three quarters
or more of the projects in these categories are started by current or new
formal organizations (mean = 0.84). On the other hand, the six “art-
oriented” categories are generally created by one-time or informal groups,
with less than half the projects involving organizations. Qualitatively, the
artistic categories tend to also contain a higher proportion of purely cre-
ative projects, while the product categories are more likely to be commer-
cial in nature (see Fig. 7.1).
Using these rough divisions, we can now begin to examine the multi-
ple types of impacts these projects have had, both for the creators them-
selves and for society overall. In the charts below, I often separate projects
into art-oriented and product-oriented categories. When I do, I also
separately rake both categories to yield more accurate weighting.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Table 7.2 Percent agreeing that “my Kickstarter campaign helped me…”
Advance in Increase the Switch Find new job
my career (%) money I made (%) careers (%) opportunities (%)
Product- 26 28 14 16
oriented
Art-oriented 41 18 5 21
I was also able to use salary data from the survey to examine the claims
of those individuals who felt that their project helped increase the money
they earned. Looking at creators who raised money before 2014, the total
earnings of those who say that Kickstarter increased their earnings went
up by USD 16,339 (SE = USD 1602) compared with USD 10,504
(SE = USD 689) for creators who reported that Kickstarter did not have
an impact on their earnings.
Projects also became the jobs for many creators. Almost 19% of proj-
ect creators said the project was their full-time job, even after the project
was completed (see Table 7.3).
In addition to direct career benefits, crowdfunding seemed to lead to
personal accomplishment as 60.1% of successful creators said their proj-
ect “helped fulfill a dream.”
142 E. Mollick
Moving from careers to the wider economy, there are a number of ways
to measure the potential economic impact of crowdfunding. One useful
measure is to look at the organizations and companies that were founded
as a result of crowdfunding (see Table 7.4). Many projects did not attempt
to create organizations, while others are projects from pre-existing com-
panies, and still others are new organizations created for Kickstarter.
Using the weighted sample and extrapolating to the population, I find
that, in total, through May 2015, around 4994 new formal organizations
(companies or partnerships) were created for Kickstarter projects (95%
confidence: 4642–5347). Of these, 3082 new for-profit companies and
1048 new not-for-profit companies are still in operation. Additionally,
11,314 (95% CI: 10,798–11,830) existing organizations raised money.
Another way of examining impact is to consider the earnings of proj-
ects outside of Kickstarter. The majority of projects created in Kickstarter
campaigns generated additional sales beyond the money they raised from
backers (see Table 7.5).
These results are lowered by the fact that many projects (30.8%) never
generate additional revenue. Of these, it is likely that most actually do
not seek additional outside revenue, as they could represent one-time
events or artistic efforts. Removing those we find the mean revenues are
higher (Table 7.6).
Extrapolating from the data, Kickstarter projects in total have gener-
ated non-crowdfunding revenues of around USD 3.4B (with a 95% con-
fidence interval of USD 2.8B to USD 4.0B). Overall, projects generate
an average of USD 2.46 of revenue from each dollar of pledges.
Figure 7.2 shows the ratio of dollars generated to dollars pledged for
projects by category, for those projects where creators stated that a project
Crowdfunding as a Font of Entrepreneurship: Outcomes… 143
Table 7.6 Average yearly revenues (outside of Kickstarter campaign money) for
projects that earned any income
Product Artistic
No organization USD 38,271 USD 3088
(6882) (572)
Ongoing pre-existing USD 104,020 USD 17,854
(15,246) (3959)
Ongoing new for-profit USD 121,739 USD 35,760
(24,144) (15,178)
Ongoing new non-profit USD 34,949 USD 71,069
(16,730) (41,928)
Standard errors in parentheses
is complete (that is, projects not still trying to deliver promised rewards
to backers). The lines represent 95% confidence intervals. All ratios are
positive and do not cross 0 except for the Film category.
In addition, the average project in the product-oriented category
added 0.6 permanent employees (SD = 0.1) (outside of founders), and
hired a maximum of 2.21 temporary employees (SD = 0.34) on average.
144 E. Mollick
$18
$16
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
* The lower bound for Film is -$.41, the upper bound for Food is $23.19
Art-oriented projects did not add permanent employees (in fact, the
number of permanent employees is slightly lower after the campaign,
−0.08, SD = 0.03), but hire a maximum of 2.69 temporary employees
(SD = 0.13). Thus, through May 2015, Kickstarter projects have created
5135 new ongoing jobs beside those that go to creators (though the 95%
confidence interval is large, ranging from 1188 to 9082), and led to the
hiring of 160,425 temporary workers (CI: 145,330 to 175,518).
Further, 11% of projects received additional funding after receiving
crowdfunding. A total of 6.6% (CI 6%–7%) received funding from angel
investors, VCs, or other companies. This suggests that crowdfunding can
be part of the fundraising mix available to entrepreneurs (Cosh et al.
2009). Indeed, recent research suggests that crowdfunding can lead to a
geographic expansion of venture capital (Sorenson et al. 2016).
While a hazard model examining the chances for failure, future fund-
ing, or exit would be ideal, it is difficult to do a longitudinal analysis with
the dataset. Nonetheless, failure rates do not seem particularly high, as
Crowdfunding as a Font of Entrepreneurship: Outcomes… 145
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Creators believe they are doing innovative work: 66% of them agreed or
strongly agreed that their project was innovative (see Fig. 7.3). There is
reason to believe that this self-assessment is largely accurate. In a separate
survey of backers, backers classified 50.1% of successful projects as inno-
vative. This innovativeness had a variety of measurable impacts. Around
4% of projects filed patents, meaning that, through May 2015, at least
2601 patents were filed by projects (CI = 2349–2854), though this could
be much higher since some projects likely filed multiple patents. In addi-
tion, 13.7% of projects reported winning major awards, which would
mean that 8446 projects (CI = 7975–8917) won these awards.
Additionally, all project creators were asked whether they agreed or
disagreed with the statements about the creative impact of the campaign
on their work in Table 7.7, with 1 being strongly disagree, 5 being
strongly agree, and 3 being neutral.
146 E. Mollick
Table 7.7 Responses to questions about artistic freedom (from 1, “strongly dis-
agree,” to 5, “strongly agree”)
Mean (1–5
scale) SE
This campaign afforded you the creative independence 4.00 0.011
you would not have been able to find through other
funding avenues
This campaign allowed you to bring the project to life 4.28 0.001
without compromising your vision
This campaign allowed you to pay collaborators you 3.61 0.014
would not have been able to pay otherwise
This campaign allowed you to pursue your vision full 2.79 0.015
time
This campaign helped you build a following or customer 3.53 0.013
base that patronized your work after your Kickstarter
campaign ended
7.4 Conclusions
This data presents a consistent (and remarkably sunny) view of the value
of reward-based crowdfunding. Projects seem to deliver the vast majority
of the time, despite the frequent barriers they face and the low cost of
failure. Further, successful crowdfunding projects have implications that
go beyond the interactions of the backers and creators who participate in
projects. Crowdfunding campaigns lead to new organizations that
ultimately generate billions in non-crowdfunding revenue and have
hired thousands of employees. Individual project creators often use
crowdfunding campaigns to transition or advance their careers, or else to
start new ventures. There also appears to be substantial new innovations
and positive social good that comes from crowdfunding campaigns,
though this can be difficult to quantify. While it is not possible in this
Crowdfunding as a Font of Entrepreneurship: Outcomes… 147
Table 7.9 Factors predicting campaign’s failure to deliver (Middle failure case)
(1) (2)
Variables Logit coeff Odds ratio
Log(Pledged) −1.511*** 0.221***
(0.257) (0.057)
Log(Pledged)2 0.161*** 1.174***
(0.033) (0.039)
Category: Comics −0.272* 0.762*
(0.139) (0.106)
Category: Crafts 0.313* 1.368*
(0.178) (0.244)
Category: Dance −0.424* 0.655*
(0.224) (0.147)
Category: Design 0.065 1.067
(0.111) (0.118)
Category: Fashion 0.077 1.080
(0.136) (0.147)
Category: Film & Video 0.375*** 1.455***
(0.085) (0.124)
Category: Food 0.441*** 1.555***
(0.108) (0.168)
Category: Games 0.166 1.181
(0.108) (0.127)
Category: Journalism −0.068 0.934
(0.281) (0.262)
Category: Music −0.220** 0.802**
(0.088) (0.071)
Category: Photography 0.004 1.004
(0.150) (0.150)
Category: Publishing −0.179* 0.836*
(0.106) (0.088)
Category: Technology 0.466*** 1.594***
(0.117) (0.186)
(continued)
148 E. Mollick
Table 7.9 (continued)
(1) (2)
Variables Logit coeff Odds ratio
Category: Theater 0.028 1.028
(0.120) (0.123)
Provided updates during −0.015*** 0.985***
campaign
(0.005) (0.004)
Had video −0.191*** 0.827***
(0.063) (0.052)
Creator commented during 0.000 1.000
campaign
(0.001) (0.001)
Days project was live 0.003* 1.003*
(0.002) (0.002)
Constant 0.860 2.362
(0.573) (1.353)
Observations 30,323 30,323
df_m 26 26
χ2 665.7 665.7
Pseudo r2 0.037 0.037
Omitted category is Art. Year controls included. Standard errors in parentheses
***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1
Notes
1. Kickstarter collaborated on data gathering, but these results are indepen-
dent and solely my own work. I was not paid by Kickstarter, and all analy-
ses were conducted independently of Kickstarter. Kickstarter was offered
the chance to comment on, but not change, this chapter before it was
made public. For the survey of project creators, the survey was conducted
by me alone, and responses were not shared with Kickstarter. For the
backer data, Kickstarter conducted the survey using questions jointly
developed with me, but shared all relevant non-private data. All errors and
omissions are mine. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Derya
and Matt Lane, who assisted me with the research. Funding for the proj-
ect was provided in part by the Kauffman Foundation.
2. Based on this survey, it appears that backers receive (or expect to receive)
their rewards on time in the majority of cases. Backers agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement that “the reward was delivered on time” for
65% of projects (i.e. the average answers from backers for a project ranged
from 4 to 5 on a 5-point scale); they disagreed or strongly disagreed with
the statement for 17% of projects (1–2 on the scale); and for the remain-
der neither agreed nor disagreed that delivery was on time (2.01–3.99 on
the scale). This only includes cases where backers were expecting a reward
of some kind.
3. See Mollick (2014), The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory
Study, Journal of Business Venturing, 29 (1).
References
Ahlers, Gerrit K.C., Douglas Cumming, Christina Günther, and Denis
Schweizer. 2015. Signaling in Equity Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 39: 955–980.
Bergmann, Michael. 2011. IPFWEIGHT: Stata Module to Create Adjustment
Weights for Surveys. Statistical Software Components. Boston College
Department of Economics.
150 E. Mollick
Ethan Mollick is the Edward B. and Shirley R. Shils Assistant Professor of
Management at the Wharton School. He studies innovation and entrepreneur-
ship and has published papers in top academic journals on topics ranging from
crowdfunding to entrepreneurial strategy. He is a Schultze Distinguished
Professor and Kauffman Foundation Junior Faculty Fellow.
8
Crowdfunding Creative Ideas:
The Dynamics of Project Backers
Venkat Kuppuswamy and Barry L. Bayus
8.1 Introduction
An important barrier to commercializing new ideas is the availability of
early stage funding (Cosh et al. 2009). Given the difficulties that new
ventures face in attracting financing from angel investors, banks, and ven-
ture capital funds, some entrepreneurs are tapping into large, online com-
munities of consumer-investors (Schwienbacher and Larralde 2012;
Agrawal et al. 2015). A relatively new form of informal venture financing
called “crowdfunding” allows entrepreneurs to directly appeal to the gen-
eral public for financial help in getting their innovative ideas off the
ground. Related to crowdsourcing (Bayus 2013), crowdfunding involves
an open call (through the Internet) for the provision of financial resources
either in the form of donation or in exchange for some form of reward in
order to support initiatives for specific purposes (Belleflamme et al. 2014).
two years on 14,704 projects that began on or after January 1, 2010, and
concluded by December 31, 2011, are available for analysis purposes.
Descriptive statistics for these projects are reported in Table 8.1. The
average project2 has a goal of just over USD 9,900 but only receives a
little more than USD 2,100 in pledged contributions.3 Projects tend to
last for around six weeks; a relatively large proportion of backers support
a project in the first or last weeks of its funding cycle. Almost 80 percent
of the projects include a video. The average project offers more than seven
reward categories as incentives for their donors and receives about USD
70 per backer. Creators generally post a couple of project updates. Over
90 percent of creators only propose a single Kickstarter project.
There is a considerable amount of variance in the funding outcomes
for Kickstarter projects. Figure 8.1 shows the distribution of project suc-
cess: projects that reach their funding goal do so by a small margin (almost
half of all the successful projects are within 10 percent of their original
funding goal), while projects that miss their targets do so by a large mar-
gin (almost half of all the unsuccessful projects achieved less than 10
percent of their goal).
Table 8.1 also reports descriptive statistics by funding level achieved.
While unsuccessful projects have a funding goal more than four times as
large as successful projects (USD 14,686 compared to USD 3,486), these
projects receive less than half of the amount contributed to successful
projects (USD 1,214 compared to USD 3,496). Successful projects tend
to be shorter in duration. All projects receive a relatively large proportion
of their backers in the first week, and successful projects also get a lot of
support in the last week of their funding cycle. Not surprisingly, success-
fully funded projects have significantly more backers than unsuccessful
projects, and add more backers each day. Successful projects tend to com-
municate more to the community and their backers by posting updates.
Table 8.1 (continued)
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
Frequency
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
between the daily support a project receives and various explanatory and
control variables. The key dependent variable in our analyses is
BackersAdded, a count variable which is the number of backers project i
receives on day t. Because the dependent measure is a non-negative inte-
ger, our empirical strategy is to estimate appropriate panel count models
(using a Poisson Quasi-Maximum Likelihood estimator). To account for
Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers 159
1.8
1.6
Average Number of Backers 1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0–10 10–20 20–30 30–40 40–50 50–60 60–70 70–80 80–90 90–100
Percent of Funding Cycle Elasped
funding goal. To account for any differences in backer behaviors for these
projects, we include PostFunded, defined to be one for each day a project
has already been funded and zero otherwise. We control for competition
among projects for backer support by including ActiveProjects (the num-
ber of Kickstarter projects across all categories4 that are accepting pledges
on day t in thousands) in our estimations. We also include
MaxCompetingBackers (the maximum number of cumulative backers
across all competing projects accepting pledges on day t) to control for
any possible negative effects due to other projects that are receiving a lot
of backer support. Finally, we control for the possibility that pledges con-
centrate on certain days by including separate dummy variables for day of
week and account for any other unobserved time-varying effects by
including month-year dummy variables. This framework with the dummy
variables for time in the project-funding cycle, along with control vari-
ables, is the basic econometric model used in most of our analyses.
The results of estimating a conditional fixed-effects Poisson model that
corrects for overdispersion and allows for cluster-robust standard errors
(Wooldridge 1999; Cameron and Trivedi 2009) are given in Table 8.2.
While we do not report the estimation details for day of week and month-
year to conserve space, we can make a few observations. First, projects are
more likely to receive contributions on weekdays compared to weekends,
with activity increasing from Sunday to a peak on Wednesday; thereafter,
Table 8.2 Panel estimation results for the dynamics of backer support (cluster-robust standard errors; t-statistics in
parentheses)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
(Goal ≤ USD (Goal > USD
Variable (All) (Funded) (Unfunded) 3,500) 3,500)
Day in the project-funding cycle
Day 1 1.30 (0.02)*** 1.13 (0.02)*** 1.58 (0.02)*** 1.27 (0.02)*** 1.32 (0.02)***
Day 2 1.11 (0.02)*** 1.00 (0.02)*** 1.31 (0.02)*** 1.06 (0.02)*** 1.14 (0.02)***
Day 3 0.81 (0.01)*** 0.68 (0.02)*** 1.03 (0.02)*** 0.75 (0.02)*** 0.85 (0.02)***
Day 4 0.61 (0.02)*** 0.49 (0.02)*** 0.83 (0.02)*** 0.56 (0.02)*** 0.64 (0.02)***
Day 5 0.47 (0.02)*** 0.36 (0.02)*** 0.66 (0.03)*** 0.43 (0.02)*** 0.50 (0.02)***
Day 6 0.37 (0.02)*** 0.28 (0.02)*** 0.56 (0.03)*** 0.32 (0.02)*** 0.42 (0.02)***
Day 7 0.28 (0.02)*** 0.19 (0.02)*** 0.44 (0.02)*** 0.24 (0.02)*** 0.31 (0.03)***
7th LastDay 0.34 (0.02)*** 0.45 (0.02)*** 0.04 (0.04) 0.38 (0.03)*** 0.31 (0.03)***
6th LastDay 0.42 (0.02)*** 0.55 (0.02)*** 0.11 (0.03)** 0.47 (0.02)*** 0.39 (0.03)***
5th LastDay 0.53 (0.02)*** 0.69 (0.02)*** 0.15 (0.04)*** 0.59 (0.03)** 0.48 (0.03)***
4th LastDay 0.69 (0.02)*** 0.87 (0.02)*** 0.31 (0.04)*** 0.76 (0.03)*** 0.63 (0.03)***
3rd LastDay 0.94 (0.02)*** 1.16 (0.02)*** 0.51 (0.04)*** 1.02 (0.02)*** 0.88 (0.03)***
2nd LastDay 1.23 (0.02)*** 1.53 (0.02)*** 0.73 (0.03)*** 1.31 (0.02)*** 1.16 (0.03)***
LastDay 1.02 (0.03)*** 1.45 (0.03)*** 0.46 (0.04)*** 1.22 (0.03)*** 0.87 (0.04)***
Explanatory variables
PostFunded −0.94 (0.02)*** −1.41 (0.03)*** NA −1.20 (0.03)*** −0.63 (0.04)***
Control variables
Active projects −0.20 (0.07)** 0.36 (0.08)*** −0.56 (0.10)*** 0.18 (0.09)* −0.40 (0.09)***
MaxCompetingBackers −0.05 (0.04) −0.04 (0.05) −0.06 (0.07) −0.10 (0.05) −0.03 (0.06)
Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers
Fixed-effects
Day of week Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Month-year Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(continued)
161
162
Table 8.2 (continued)
projects with different goal targets (Models 4 and 5). It is interesting that
successfully funded projects exhibit the same dip in activity during the
middle period of the funding cycle as projects that do not meet their goal.
Thus, even successful projects find it very difficult to maintain their ini-
tial momentum in continuing to get pledges over the entire funding
cycle. In our extended working paper (Kuppuswamy and Bayus 2015),
we confirm that this U-shaped pattern of project support is pervasive
across different project types (Art, Product Design, Film and Video,
Games, Music, Technology). These results extend common thinking that
only successfully funded projects exhibit a U-shaped pattern in project
support over its funding cycle (de Witt 2012; Steinberg 2012)—in fact,
this U-shaped pattern is systematic and persistent across Kickstarter
projects.6
One interesting perspective that might account for the U-shaped pattern
of backer support comes from research on the effects of consumers’ lim-
ited attention in the digital economy where information is abundant
Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers 165
the “Kickstarter Effect,” as a project nears its goal there can be a flurry of
activity that pushes it over its target (Galinsky 2010; Nelson 2013). Matt
Haughey, a backer of more than 150 Kickstarter projects, sums it up this
way (Steinberg 2012: 149):
[O]nce you pass 50 percent of your funding, at any point, you have a 95 percent
chance of reaching your goal. … Only a handful of projects have finished
unsuccessfully having reached 85 percent or more of their funding. The people
who are at like 60, 70 percent with a week to go, it’s gonna be OK!
Clearly, there is solid empirical support for this notion from the strong
U-shaped pattern of project support over the project-funding cycle.
While much of the research studying the reasons for goal pursuit has
emphasized individuals and their personal goals, this work can be used to
understand the motivations for individuals to contribute to the shared
goals of a group (Fishbach et al. 2011). When group identification is rela-
tively weak (as in crowdfunding communities with anonymous mem-
bers), research finds that individuals decide to pursue a shared group goal
if they believe the goal is worthwhile (Fishbach et al. 2011). Here, others’
prior contributions can positively influence the assessment of goal value.
In the case of crowdfunding, whether or not a project is deemed worthy
of support depends on how much of the goal has already been pledged.
Backers want the project to succeed, and projects closer to their target
goal are more likely to reach their funding objective.
Given that a project is considered to be worthwhile, the Kickstarter
Effect further suggests an acceleration in funding activity as a project
nears its goal. Such an increase in motivation and effort to reach a goal as
it is approached has been found in humans and other animals (Liberman
and Forster 2008; Toure-Tillery and Fishbach 2011). Rats run faster
through a maze as they get closer to food (Hull 1932), people increase
their purchases as they approach rewards from loyalty cards (Kivetz et al.
2006), and groups of donors contribute more to charitable campaigns
close to reaching their goals (Fishbach et al. 2011; Cryder et al. 2013).
More formally, the “goal-gradient” hypothesis is that motivation to reach
a goal increases monotonically with proximity to the desired end state
(Hull 1932). One key reason for goal-gradient behavior is that the
168 V. Kuppuswamy and B.L. Bayus
• Most backer contributions do not come in during the first and last
weeks because projects are more visible then due to sorting options
available on the platform.
• Support from family members tends to occur in the first week and just
before the project ends.
• Most of the contributors at any point in the funding cycle are one-
time backers that likely come from the creator’s own social circle.
• As the end goal is approached, project support monotonically increases.
Thus, there is strong and consistent evidence for the Kickstarter Effect
in which projects nearing their goal often see a flurry of activity that
pushes it over its target.
• Potential backers are influenced by how much of the goal has already
been pledged.
• Project support is positively related to updates, and updates are more
likely to be posted during the first week and last three days as com-
pared to the middle period of the funding cycle.
• Project creators tend to post updates as their project nears its goal.
The effects of social influence from others’ prior funding decisions are
of great interest in crowdfunding, particularly since the level of financial
support and its timing is publicly visible on most platforms. The effects
of social influence are found to be positive in crowdinvesting and
crowdlending communities (Herzenstein et al. 2011; Zhang and Liu
2012; Agrawal et al. 2015) and negative in a donation-based setting
(Burtch et al. 2013). In this chapter, we find strong evidence for positive
effects of social influence in reward-based crowdfunding. Because
consumer-investors in crowdinvesting and crowdlending expect a finan-
cial return on their contributions, the literature on rational herding and
information cascades argues that positive herding based on the number
of prior contributors signals that a project is of high quality (Devenow
and Welch 1996). In this case, herding behavior is a “rational” way for
individuals to reduce their own risk in the face of uncertainty about a
proposed new idea. For reward-based crowdfunding, we find positive
herding based on how much of the project goal has already been pledged
by others. We believe that the positive effects of social influence in reward-
based crowdfunding involve rational herding that comes from payoff
externalities in which a project closer to its goal is more likely to succeed
and, thus, a backer expects that their contribution will have more impact
if they also support this same project (Devenow and Welch 1996). Cryder
et al. (2013) present some empirical results from field and lab experiments
that are consistent with this idea. Further research is needed to confirm
the individual-level details of perceived impact of contributions near the
end of goal completion and whether payoff externalities do indeed explain
the observed goal-gradient behavior.
While there are some hints for other crowdfunding platforms that
project contributions follow a U-shaped pattern (Ceyhan et al. 2011)
and additional contributions are less likely once a project reaches its goal
(Herzenstein et al. 2011), further research is needed to firmly establish
whether these backer behaviors generalize across settings and projects.
For example, Hornuf and Schwienbacher (2017) find that the contribu-
tion pattern in crowdinvesting is L-shaped and very little is known about
the dynamics associated with different reward-based crowdfunding
models (does the entrepreneur keep all of the funds contributed no mat-
ter whether the target goal was reached versus the entrepreneur not
172 V. Kuppuswamy and B.L. Bayus
With very few notable exceptions, the vast majority of creative ideas on
Kickstarter involve relatively modest amounts of money (from Table 8.1,
the average project has a goal of USD 9900 and successful projects on
average receive around USD 3,500). Typically, crowdfunding involves
small contributions from many people (from Table 8.1, the average
contribution is USD 70 and more than 25 backers support the average
project). As emphasized in the “how to crowdfund” books (e.g., de Witt
2012; Steinberg 2012), setting appropriate funding goals is paramount to
having a successful project. Many project failures set unreasonable fund-
ing targets given the scope of their creative idea (from Table 8.1, the aver-
age goal for unsuccessful projects is almost five times the goal for successful
projects). In general, projects with large goals are less likely to be funded
(Mollick 2014). Our results emphasize the importance of setting appro-
priate project goals—potential backers make their pledging decision
based on how much of the project goal has already been funded by oth-
ers. In light of these results, entrepreneurs may be tempted to artificially
set low goals so as to ensure that their project will achieve its target, at the
same time hoping that their project will exceed its low goal. Such a strat-
egy, however, may backfire as potential backers are also much less likely
to contribute to a project once it reaches its goal. If the project creator
actually requires more funding than their goal to make their creative idea
Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers 173
a reality, they may end up with insufficient funds. While the importance
of setting goals is usually noted in the various types of crowdfunding
communities, further research is needed to test whether goal-gradient
behavior generalizes across platforms.
Very few Kickstarter projects achieve at least 50 percent of their goal
and are not eventually funded (Fig. 8.1). This suggests that the Kickstarter
community is generally sympathetic to an entrepreneur’s plea for help:
Kickstarter reports an overall success rate of almost 45 percent. At the
same time, our econometric results highlight the difficult challenge fac-
ing project creators. Inherent to the Kickstarter crowdfunding model is a
strong U-shaped pattern of project support over its funding cycle—the
initial excitement around a new project is quickly followed by a sharp
drop in support and a prominent lull in activity until the last week of the
funding cycle. As a result, some entrepreneurs want to allow as much
time as possible to raise funds by setting their funding cycle as long as
possible. Due to goal-gradient behavior and deadline effects, however, it
is difficult if not impossible to overcome this period of low activity
between the first and last weeks of the funding cycle. In fact, research
finds that project duration is negatively related to funding success
(Mollick 2014). Kickstarter also lowered the maximum project duration
from 90 to 60 days because they observed that most pledges come in the
first and last weeks of the funding cycle, with the length of the middle
period not really mattering to eventual project success (Strickler 2011).
Even though contributions during the middle period of the funding cycle
are generally lower than in the first and last weeks, these pledges are still
important for a project to experience the Kickstarter Effect (e.g., see
Table 8.1). Further research on the “optimal” project duration might
explore these trade-offs.
Because most project supporters in Kickstarter are one-time backers,
entrepreneurs must rely on their own social circle of family, friends, and
followers. Indeed, project creators need to be proactive by communicat-
ing with their social network. We find that project support is positively
related to updates at any point in the funding cycle, even though project
creators currently tend to only post updates in the first and last weeks of
the funding cycle. Clearly, our analysis of project updates is very basic.
Data limitations prevent us from considering the potential role of other
174 V. Kuppuswamy and B.L. Bayus
With the passing of the JOBS Act by the US Congress in 2012, policy
makers are persuaded by the potential of crowdfunding to help fund
small businesses and entrepreneurs with creative ideas (Stemler 2013). At
the same time, however, many pundits have sounded alarms at the poten-
tial for fraud associated with unregulated investing behavior, especially by
consumer-investors (the “crowd”). Of particular concern is that project
creators with unreasonable ideas will still find funding from naive inves-
tors due to “irrational” herding behavior (i.e., consumers will simply
mimic each other without any regard to project quality). In contrast to
this perspective, we find no evidence for irrational herding in the
Kickstarter community. Instead, we argue that goal-gradient behavior is
an example of rational herding that comes from payoff externalities, that
is, others’ previous funding decisions signal that a project is likely to suc-
ceed and thus a contribution to the same project will have greater impact.
Further research is needed to determine if our findings generalize to other
financial-based crowdfunding communities.
Another possible fear is that project creators propose projects, receive
the funding from consumer-investors, and then never complete the proj-
ect or deliver the promised rewards. Interestingly, Mollick (2014) con-
cludes that most Kickstarter project creators make serious efforts to fulfill
their obligations, but the majority deliver the promised rewards later than
expected. Although explicitly disclaimed by Kickstarter, many consumer-
investors believe that the website is essentially an online retail storefront
in which project creators presell products.
Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers 175
To explore the idea of new product pre-orders and the possible effects
of product rewards on backer behavior, we consider a separate model for
only Design, Games, and Technology projects—categories that typically
offer tangible new products as rewards for contributions (Steinberg 2012;
Mollick 2014). Based on analyses reported in our extended working
paper (Kuppuswamy and Bayus 2015), we do find that backer behavior
in this subsample differs once a project reaches its funding goal—here,
the coefficient estimate for PostFunded is positive and significant. Thus,
there is strong evidence that successfully funded projects in the Design,
Games, and Technology categories receive even more contributors before
their funding cycle ends. Once a project offering product pre-orders is
successfully funded, the risk for other “consumers” is reduced since the
project creator will receive all the pledged funds. Although our data do
not allow us to determine whether this represents rational or irrational
herding behavior, it is interesting to speculate that this herding behavior
for successfully funded projects may be responsible for the product
rewards delivery delays reported by Mollick (2014). Successfully funded
projects offering product pre-orders may actually be suffering from their
own success! This will especially be the case for projects that dramatically
exceed their original goal. For example, Eric Migicovsky’s Pebble E-Paper
Watch, one of the largest funded Kickstarter projects, received almost
69,000 backers—well over the 1000 backers expected with their original
goal of USD 100,000. While the promised watches were shipped more
than three months after the promised delivery date, all of their backers
(including the authors) did not receive their watches for several more
months.
Additional studies are needed to more completely understand the
possible herding behavior of consumer-investors in crowdfunding com-
munities. For example, an obvious recommendation might be to estab-
lish a restriction on the number of additional new backers that can
support a project once it reaches its goal. Here, the thinking would be
that small start-up businesses with limited resources and connections
should not be stressed beyond their real capabilities. Such a restriction,
however, could also change the dynamics of backer behavior—poten-
tial backers may be even more interested in contributing to projects
with a lot of past project support because the project (and its product
176 V. Kuppuswamy and B.L. Bayus
rewards) may not be available once it meets its target. Thus, herding
and goal-gradient behaviors may be extreme if project backers are lim-
ited. Further research should tackle these topics more deeply by consid-
ering backer motivations and behavior in supporting projects that have
already reached their goal.
Notes
1. Shortly after our data collection in March 2012, Kickstarter removed this
information from their updated website design.
2. One project had a goal of over USD 21 million (Kickstarter’s limit) to
help reduce the national debt (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/
2116548608/help-erase-the-national-debt-of-the-usa?ref=search). This
project only had eight backers who pledged USD 180.
3. The largest funded project in our sample received a little over USD
95,000. Since our data collection, several projects have received over USD
1 million in funding.
4. An alternate measure involving the number of competing projects in the
same category as project i gives the same results across all our estimated
models as those reported for ActiveProjects.
5. The consistent drop in the coefficient estimate for the very last day comes
from the fact that projects end at various times during the last day, that is,
many projects do not have a complete 24 hours of funding time on the
last day.
6. Yan Budman, Director of Marketing at Indiegogo, reports a similar pat-
tern of backer behavior for Indiegogo projects (Budman 2012).
7. Some of our preliminary analyses involving the Kickstarter (all-or-noth-
ing) and Indiegogo (keep-it-all) communities suggest that the goal-gradi-
ent effect is robust across platforms.
Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers 177
References
Agrawal, Ajay, Christian Catalini, and Avi Goldfarb. 2015. Crowdfunding:
Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions.
Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 24: 253–274.
Allison, Paul D. 2005. Fixed Effects Regression Methods for Longitudinal Data
Using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Allison, Thomas H., Blakley C. Davis, Jeremy C. Short, and Justin W. Webb.
2015. Crowdfunding in a Prosocial Microlending Environment: Examining
the Role of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 39: 53–73.
Ariely, Dan, and Itamar Simonson. 2003. Buying, Bidding, Playing, or
Competing? Value Assessment and Decision Dynamics in Online Auctions.
Journal of Consumer Psychology 13: 113–123.
Bakos, J. Yannis. 1997. Reducing Buyer Search Costs: Implications for Electronic
Marketplaces. Management Science 43: 1676–1692.
Bayus, Barry L. 2013. Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas Over Time: An
Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community. Management Science 59:
226–244.
Belleflamme, Paul, Thomas Lambert, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2014.
Crowdfunding: Tapping the Right Crowd. Journal of Business Venturing 29:
585–609.
Block, Jörn, Lars Hornuf, and Alexandra Moritz. 2017. Which Updates During
an Equity Crowdfunding Campaign Increase Crowd Participation? Small
Business Economics. Forthcoming.
Boyle, Katherine. 2013. Yes, Kickstarter Raises More Money for Artists than the
NEA. Washington Post, July 27. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
wonkblog/wp/2013/07/07/yes-kickstarter-raises-more-money-for-artists-
than-the-nea-heres-why-thats-not-really-surprising/. Accessed 12 Sep 2014.
Budman, Yan. 2012. In a Crowdfunding Campaign, What is the Donation
Pattern. Quora Answer to Question. http://www.quora.com/Crowdfunding/
In-a-crowdfunding-campaign-what-is-the-donation-pattern-Peaks-and-
valleys-vs-time-into-the-campaign. Accessed 7 Nov 2013.
Burtch, Gordon, Anindya Ghose, and Sunil Wattal. 2013. An Empirical
Examination of the Antecedents and Consequences of Investment Patterns in
Crowd-Funded Markets. Information Systems Research 24: 499–519.
Cameron, A. Colin, and Pravin K. Trivedi. 2009. Microeconometrics: Methods
and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
178 V. Kuppuswamy and B.L. Bayus
Ceyhan, Simla, Xiaolin Shi, and Jure Leskovec. 2011. Dynamics of Bidding in
a P2P Lending Service: Effects of Herding and Predicting Loan Success. In
Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web: 547–556.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1963483. Accessed 27 Nov 2013.
Colombo, Massimo G., Chiara Franzoni, and Cristina Rossi-Lamastra. 2015.
Internal Social Capital and the Attraction of Early Contributions in
Crowdfunding Projects. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39: 75–100.
Cosh, Andy, Douglas Cumming, and Alan Hughes. 2009. Outside
Entrepreneurial Capital. The Economic Journal 119: 1494–1533.
Cryder, Cynthia E., George Loewenstein, and Howard Seltman. 2013. Goal
Gradient in Helping Behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49:
1078–1083.
Cumming, Douglas, and Sofia A. Johan. 2009. Venture Capital and Private
Equity Contracting: An International Perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Cumming, Douglas, Gaël Leboeuf, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2015.
Crowdfunding Models: Keep-It-All Versus All-Or-Nothing. Social Science
Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2828919. Accessed 28
Feb 2017.
Devenow, Andrea, and Ivo Welch. 1996. Rational Herding in Financial
Economics. European Economic Review 40: 603–615.
Dushnitsky, Gary, and Dan Marom. 2013. Crowd Monogamy. Business Strategy
Review 24: 24–26.
Falkinger, Josef. 2008. Limited Attention as a Scarce Resource in Information-
Rich Economies. The Economic Journal 118: 1596–1620.
Fishbach, Ayelet, Marlone D. Henderson, and Minjung Koo. 2011. Pursuing
Goals with Others: Group Identification and Motivation Resulting From
Things Done Versus Things Left Undone. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General 140: 520–534.
Flood, Alsion. 2012. Kickstarter Becomes the Fourth Biggest Publishers of
Graphic Novels. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/
jul/11/kickstarter-fourth-biggest-publisher-graphic-novels. Accessed 12 Sep
2014.
Galinsky, Michael. 2010. The Kickstarter Effect: Fundraising as Game Theory.
International Documentary Association. http://www.documentary.org/con-
tent/kickstarter-effect-fundraising-game-theory. Accessed 7 Oct 2013.
Goninon, Mark. 2013. Is Kickstarter Fatgiue Starting to Kick In? Choicest
Games, July 24. http://www.choicestgames.com/2013/07/is-kickstarter-
fatigue-starting-to-kick.html. Accessed 8 Oct 2013.
Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers 179
Gorbatai, Andrea Daniela, and Laura Nelson. 2015. Gender and the Language
of Crowdfunding. Academy of Management Proceedings 1: 15785.
Herzenstein, Michal, Uptal M. Dholakia, and Rick L. Andrews. 2011a. Strategic
Herding Behaviors in Peer-to-Peer Loan Auctions. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 25: 27–36.
Herzenstein, Michal, Scott Sonenshein, and Uptal M. Dholakia. 2011b. Tell Me
a Good Story and I May Lend You Money: The Role of Narratives in Peer-to-
Peer Lending Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 48: 138–149.
Hodas, Nathan O., and Kristina Lerman. 2013. Attention and Visibility in an
Information-Rich World. Second International (ICME) Workshop on Social
Multimedia Research arXiv: 1307.4798 [cs.SI].
Hornuf, Lars, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2017. Market Mechanisms and
Funding Dynamics in Equity Crowdfunding. Journal of Corporate Finance.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119916302450.
Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Hull, Clark. 1932. The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis and Maze Learning.
Psychological Review 39: 25–43.
Kickstarter. 2013. Blockbuster Effects. Accessed October 15, 2013. http://www.
kickstarter.com/blog/blockbuster-effects
———. 2016. Kickstarter Stats. https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats.
Accessed 28 Oct 2016.
Kivetz, Ran, Oleg Urminsky, and Yuhuang Zheng. 2006. The Goal-Gradient
Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress,
and Customer Retention. Journal of Marketing Research 43: 39–58.
Kuppuswamy, Venkat, and Barry L. Bayus. 2015. Crowdfunding Creative Ideas:
The Dynamics of Project Backers in Kickstarter, Social Science Research
Network. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2234765. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
———. 2017. A Review of Crowdfunding Research and Findings. In Handbook
of New Product Development Research, ed. P. Golder, and D. Mitra.
Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
———. 2017. Does My Contribution to Your Crowdfunding Project Matter?
Journal of Business Venturing 32: 72–89.
Liberman, Nira, and Jens Forster. 2008. Expectancy, Value and Psychological
Distance: A New Look at Goal Gradients. Social Cognition 26: 515–533.
Lin, Yan, Wai F. Boh, and Kim H. Goh. 2014. How Different are Crowdfunders?
Examining Archetypes of Crowdfunders and Their Choice of Projects.
Academy of Management Proceedings. http://proceedings.aom.org/con-
tent/2014/1/13309.short. Accessed 4 Jan 2016.
180 V. Kuppuswamy and B.L. Bayus
Marom, Dan, Alicia Robb, and Orly Sade. 2015. Gender Dynamics in
Crowdfunding (Kickstarter): Evidence on Entrepreneurs, Investors, Deals
and Taste Based Discrimination. Social Science Research Network. http://ssrn.
com/abstract=2442954. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Maxwell, Brian. 2013. Kickstarter Fatigue a Myth, Says Richard Garriott. http://
www.edge-online.com/news/kickstarter-fatigue-a-myth-says-richard-garri-
ott/. Accessed 10 Oct 2013.
Mollick, Ethan. 2014. The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study.
Journal of Business Venturing 29: 1–16.
Mollick, Ethan, and Ramanda Nanda. 2016. Wisdom or Madness? Comparing
Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts. Management Science 62:
1533–1553.
Moritz, Alexandra, and Jörn Block. 2016. Crowdfunding: A Literature Review
and Research Directions. In Crowdfunding in Europe: State of the Art in Theory
and Practice, ed. D. Bruntje and O. Gajda, 25–53. Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Nelson, S.. 2013. The Kickstarter Effect (Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying
and Love Crowdfunding). Kickstarteradventure. http://www.kickstartadven-
ture.com/home/the-kickstarter-effect-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-
and-love-crowdfunding/. Accessed 7 Oct 2013.
Pope, Devin G., and Justin R. Sydnor. 2011. What’s in a Picture? Evidence of
Discrimination from Prosper.com. Journal of Human Resources 46: 53–92.
Qiu, Calvin. 2013. Issues in Crowdfunding: Theoretical and Empirical
Investigation on Kickstarter. Social Science Research Network. http://ssrn.
com/abstract=2345872. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Schwienbacher, Armin, and Benjamin Larralde. “Crowdfunding of
Entrepreneurial Ventures.” In The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurial
Finance, by D. Cumming (ed.), 369-391. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2012.
Simon, Herbert. 1971. Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich
World. In Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest, ed.
M. Greenberger, 38–52. John Hopkin: Baltimore.
Smith, Sarah, Frank Windmeijer, and Edmund Wright. 2014. Peer Effects in
Charitable Giving: Evidence from the (Running) Field. The Economic Journal
125: 1053–1071.
Steinberg, Don. 2012. The Kickstarter Handbook. Philadelphia, PA: Quirk
Books.
Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers 181
Stemler, Abbey R. 2013. The JOBS Act and Crowdfunding: Harnessing the
Power—and Money—of the Masses. Business Horizons 56: 271–275.
Strickler, Yancey. 2011. Shortening the Maximum Project Length. Kickstarter,
June 17. http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/shortening-the-maximum-proj-
ect-length. Accessed 17 Oct 2013.
Toure-Tillery, Maferima, and Ayelet Fishbach. 2011. The Course of Motivation.
Journal of Consumer Psychology 21: 414–423.
Vismara, Silvio. 2015. Information Cascades Among Investors in Equity
Crowdfunding. Social Science Research Network. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2589619. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
Webb, Eugene, and Karl E. Weick. 1979. Unobtrusive Measures in Organizational
Theory: A Reminder. Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 650–659.
de Witt, Nelson. 2012. A Kickstarter’s Guide to Kickstarter. Kickstarterguide.
http://kickstarterguide.com/files/2012/07/A-Kickstarters-Guide.pdf.
Accessed 15 Nov 2012.
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 1999. Distribution-Free Estimation of Some Nonlinear
Panel Data Models. Journal of Econometrics 90: 77–97.
Wu, Fang, and Bernardo A. Huberman. 2007. Novelty and Collective Attention.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 17599–17601.
Zhang, Juanjuan, and Peng Liu. 2012. Rational Herding in Microloan Markets.
Management Science 58: 892–912.
Zheng, Haichao, Dahui Li, Jing Wu, and Xu. Yun. 2014. The Role of
Multidimensional Social Capital in Crowdfunding: A Comparative Study in
China and US. Information and Management 51: 488–496.
9.1 Introduction
The regulation of crowdinvesting involves a trade-off between small busi-
ness capital formation and investor protection. Offerings of securities in
the United States, including both equity and debt securities, must ordi-
narily be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
This registration process involves extensive mandatory disclosure and
complicated limits on the offer and sale of the securities. These require-
ments, designed to protect investors, are too expensive for the small capi-
tal offerings typically attracted to crowdinvesting.
The registration requirements do not apply to donation- and reward-
based crowdfunding, and these types of crowdfunding have been very
popular in the United States. But sales of equity through crowdinvest-
ing and sales of debt securities through crowdlending are subject to the
SEC registration requirements; because of the high cost of registration,
C. Steven Bradford (*)
University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law, Lincoln, NE, USA
these types of offerings can succeed in the United States only if they are
exempted from these requirements.
Four different exemptions are available for crowdinvesting in the
United States. Two of these exemptions—federal Rules 506(b) and
506(c)—limit sales to sophisticated or wealthy investors, and therefore
are probably not accurately described as crowdinvesting exemptions.
They do not allow sales to the “crowd” of public investors. However,
Regulation Crowdfunding, finalized by the SEC in 2015 to implement
an exemption in section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act, is specifically aimed
at retail crowdinvesting by the general public. In addition, many US
states have adopted state crowdfunding exemptions that allow debt and
equity offerings limited to the residents of a particular state. These state
exemptions are coordinated with a federal intrastate offering exemption,
so, like the other exemptions discussed, they provide a coordinated
exemption from both federal and state securities law.
There are three different groups involved in crowdinvesting, and thus
three different possible loci for any crowdinvesting regulation: the issuers
who sell securities to raise capital; the intermediaries who operate the
platforms through which these securities are sold; and the investors buy-
ing the securities. The Rules 506(b) and 506(c) exemptions focus their
regulation almost exclusively on investors, limiting who may invest. The
policy idea is to limit investment to those who can protect themselves
and therefore do not need mandatory disclosure or other regulation. The
absence of other significant restrictions reduces the regulatory cost, but it
is not clear that the basic premise of these rules is sound. Many of the
investors who qualify for these offerings are not sophisticated investors.
Regulation Crowdfunding and the state exemptions broadly regulate
all three groups, imposing substantial regulatory requirements on issuers,
intermediaries, and investors. The investor protection motive underlying
these extensive regulatory requirements may be admirable, but the cost
may be too high for many small business offerings. It is not clear that any
of the US exemptions has found the appropriate balance between capital
formation and investor protection.
This chapter discusses the various exemptions available for crowdfund-
ing and the policy underlying them. Section 9.2 briefly describes the US
registration requirement, its scope, and the problem it poses for crowd-
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in the United States 187
funding. Section 9.3 discusses the Rule 506(b) and 506(c) exemptions.
Section 9.4 discusses the crowdfunding exemption in section 4(a)(6) of
the Securities Act, and Regulation Crowdfunding adopted to implement
it. Section 9.5 discusses the intrastate crowdfunding exemptions. Section
9.6 provides a brief comment on the scope of these exemptions.
9.2 A
pplicable Regulation in the Absence
of a Crowdfunding-Specific Exemption
9.2.1 The Registration and Prospectus Requirements
In the United States, companies selling securities must register their offer-
ings with the SEC unless an exemption is available.1 The offering com-
pany must file an extensive disclosure document known as a registration
statement with the SEC and must provide most of that disclosure to
investors in a document known as the prospectus. There are also compli-
cated limits on communications with potential investors, including post-
ing on websites, before and during the offering.
The registration process for first-time registrants often takes months
(SEC 1996, 88,439; Cohn and Yadley 2007, 7), and the direct cost to
prepare and file the registration statement—including legal fees, account-
ing fees, registration fees, and printing costs—can be hundreds of thou-
sands of dollars (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2000, 23; Prifti
2010, § 1A-17; Sjostrom 2001, 575–576). This cost is simply too high
for the smaller amounts entrepreneurial capital start-ups and other small
businesses want to raise through crowdinvesting and crowdlending.
Because of economies of scale, registration expenses that might be man-
ageable for large offerings are not feasible for smaller offerings (Bradford
2001, 25–27). And the United States, unlike some countries, has no gen-
eral exemption for smaller offerings.
Registration, however, is not impossible. Two US crowdlending sites,
Prosper and Lending Club, register the notes they offer, but they had to
completely restructure their business models to make it work (Bradford
2012a, 43–44). The model they use would not work for crowdinvesting.
188 C. Steven Bradford
business entity with more than USD 5 million in assets.6 But it also
includes individual investors with either (1) a net worth of at least USD
1 million (excluding the value of their home and related mortgage indebt-
edness up to the value of the home)7 or (2) an annual income of more
than USD 200,000 (or joint income with a spouse of at least USD
300,000).8
The argument for exempting offers to sophisticated investors such as
brokers and insurance companies is apparent: these investors can fend for
themselves and do not need the regulatory protection that registration
provides.9 The extension of this argument to wealthy, unsophisticated
investors is more controversial. Wealth is a very imperfect proxy for inves-
tor sophistication; the person who wins USD 5 million in a lottery, for
example, may know absolutely nothing about investing. One might
argue that wealthy people can afford to lose the money they are investing,
and do not need as much protection for that reason. But the wealth and
income levels necessary to qualify as an accredited investor are relatively
low; many of these people do not have money to burn. In addition, there
are no limits on how much of their wealth accredited investors may
invest. An investor who has a net worth of USD 1 million and invests the
entire USD 1 million in a single offering certainly cannot afford to lose
that money. There has been some discussion at the SEC about restructur-
ing the definition of accredited investor or limiting how much accredited
investors may invest (SEC 2015c), but the SEC has not yet taken any
action on these proposals.
Because of the limits on who may purchase, securities cannot be sold
to the general public in Rule 506(b) and 506(c) offerings. Since the issuer
is not selling to the “crowd,” it is probably inappropriate to call these
offerings crowdinvesting or crowdfunding. But these terms have been
applied to Rule 506 offerings, and therefore these offerings are discussed
here.
Rule 506(b) and Rule 506(c) share some common requirements. First,
they contain so-called bad actor disqualifications barring issuers from
using the exemption if they or certain related persons have been found to
have engaged in various types of wrongdoing in the past.10 The theory is
that companies and individuals who have been involved in past wrong-
190 C. Steven Bradford
doing are more likely to engage in similar behavior now; barring them
helps to protect investors in the current offering. There are no other lim-
its on the companies that may use the Rule 506(b) and 506(c) exemp-
tions; any company not barred by the “bad actor” disqualifications is
eligible.
The two exemptions also share resale restrictions. Securities acquired in
a Rule 506(b) or (c) offering may not be resold without registration or an
exemption for the resale.11 The most commonly applicable resale exemp-
tion in the United States would allow resale after a 6- or 12-month hold-
ing period.12
To qualify for the Rule 506(b) exemption, sales must be made only to
accredited investors or up to 35 non-accredited investors who satisfy a
sophistication requirement.13 Each non-accredited investor must “either
alone or with his purchaser representative(s) … [have] … such knowl-
edge and experience in financial and business matters that he is capable
of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospective investment.”14
Accredited investors are not required to meet this standard. Even if a
particular purchaser does not fall within one of these two categories, the
issuer’s exemption is still protected as long as the issuer reasonably believed
the purchaser qualified.15
Otherwise, Rule 506(b) offerings are lightly regulated. Rule 506(b)
does not limit either the size of the offering or the amount each investor
may invest. The issuer is not required to use an intermediary and, if it
does sell through an intermediary, Rule 506(b) imposes almost no
requirements on that intermediary. However, if an intermediary is
involved, depending on how the intermediary operates, there is a risk
that it could be a securities broker or investment adviser, and in viola-
tion of federal securities law if it is not registered as such (Bradford
2012a, 51–80).
No mandatory disclosure is required if the issuer sells only to accredited
investors. If, however, the issuer also sells to non-accredited, sophisticated
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in the United States 191
9.4 S
ection 4(a)(6) and Regulation
Crowdfunding
The Section 4(a)(6) crowdfunding exemption was added to the Securities
Act by the JOBS Act in 2012.22 However, the SEC did not adopt the
required implementing regulations, known as Regulation Crowdfunding,
until November 2015; these regulations became effective on May 16,
2016 (SEC 2015b). The statutory requirements of the crowdfunding
exemption lie primarily in sections 4(a)(6) and 4A of the Securities Act.23
Regulation Crowdfunding incorporates these requirements and adds
additional ones.24 For convenience, I will refer to the exemption as the
section 4(a)(6) exemption, even though one must look to the regulation
to see the full set of requirements.
The section 4(a)(6) exemption, unlike the Rule 506(b) and 506(c)
exemptions, is designed for and limited to crowdfunded securities offer-
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in the United States 193
ings. Section 4(a)(6) is also much more regulatory than those other
exemptions, imposing significant restrictions on all three groups involved
in crowdinvesting: the issuers selling securities; the intermediaries through
whom the securities are sold; and the investors purchasing the securities.
Section 4(a)(6) also imposes structural requirements on the offerings
themselves.
Section 4(a)(6) offerings are open to the general public, and many of
these requirements are designed to protect unsophisticated investors. But
the cost to comply with these regulatory requirements, although less than
the cost of registration, is significant. Crowdfunding regulation requires
a careful balancing of cost and investor protection, and the section 4(a)
(6) exemption may have tilted too far to the investor protection side.
Hence, many small business issuers may find section 4(a)(6) too expen-
sive, and it is unlikely to be the capital formation panacea many of its
supporters hoped for.
Section 4(a)(6) limits how much each investor may invest; the limit
depends on each investor’s net worth and annual income, and there are
special rules for calculating these.25 Net worth may be calculated jointly
with the investor’s spouse, as long as the aggregate investment of the two
does not exceed the limits that would apply to the two of them individu-
ally.26 Generally, the investor’s principal residence, and related mortgage
indebtedness up to the value of that residence, is excluded from the net
worth calculation.27
194 C. Steven Bradford
If the investor’s annual income and net worth each exceed USD
100,000, the investor’s investment limit is 10 percent of annual income
or net worth, whichever is less. If not, then the limit is 5 percent of
annual income or net worth, whichever is less. However, there is a USD
2000 minimum and a USD 100,000 maximum. Every investor may
invest USD 2000, no matter how small their annual income and net
worth. And no one may invest more than USD 100,000, no matter how
great their annual income and net worth.
These are annual investment limits; an investor may not exceed his or
her limit in any 12-month period. But there are no limits on the total
investment in his or her portfolio. For example, an investor whose limit
is USD 7000 could invest USD 7000 now and an additional USD 7000
12 months later, even if he or she still owns the prior investment.
However, the limits are applied collectively to all section 4(a)(6) invest-
ments, not just on a per-offering basis. The total amount an investor
invests annually in all section 4(a)(6) offerings cannot exceed the inves-
tor’s limit. Assume again that the investor’s limit is USD 7000. If the
investor, in a single 12-month period, invests in section 4(a)(6) offerings
by issuers A, B, and C, the total of the investments in A, B, and C may
not exceed USD 7000.
The intermediary must disclose these limits to the investor when the
investor opens an account.28 The intermediary is also required to enforce
these limits at the time of any investment. Before accepting any invest-
ment commitment, the intermediary must “have a reasonable basis for
believing that the investor satisfies … [these] … limitations.”29 The inter-
mediary usually will not know what amounts the investor has invested
through other intermediaries, of course. But the intermediary is allowed
to rely on the investor’s representations as to annual income, net worth,
and the amount of the investor’s other section 4(a)(6) investments unless
the intermediary has some reason to question those representations.30
Therefore, the intermediary’s burden is nominal.
The policy argument for these investment limits is straightforward. They
limit each investor’s risk so that, even if the investor loses the entire amount
invested, the loss will be less than catastrophic. Of course, even a USD 2000
loss will be catastrophic to many poorer investors, and it is not clear whether
more sophisticated investors need this paternalistic protection. Moreover,
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in the United States 195
investors can easily circumvent these limits by lying about their net worth
or annual income. Hence, the limits might not be very effective.
• how the section 4(a)(6) process works and the risks associated with
section 4(a)(6) crowdfunding;
• the types of securities offered on the intermediary’s platform and the
risks associated with each type of security, including the risk of dilu-
tion in voting power;
• the restrictions on the resale of securities purchased in section 4(a)(6)
offerings;
• the types of information the issuer is required to provide, including
annual reports, and the possibility that these disclosure obligations
might terminate in the future, leaving the investor without current
financial information about the issuer;
• the limits on how much investors may invest;
• the rules regarding cancellation of an investment commitment, either
by the investor or by the issuer;
• the need for the investor to consider whether the investment is appro-
priate for the investor; and
• the fact that the relationship between the issuer and the intermediary
might terminate after the offering.
Section 4(a)(6) limits the companies that may use the exemption and the
amount of money these companies may raise. It also imposes significant
disclosure requirements on these issuers. Issuers must provide extensive
disclosure, including in some cases audited or certified financial state-
ments, to potential investors and to the SEC at the time of the offering.
In addition, issuers who successfully complete a section 4(a)(6) offering
must subsequently file annual reports that include audited or certified
financial statements. These disclosure requirements may prove too costly
for many of these small offerings, reducing the usefulness of the section
4(a)(6) exemption.
There are a number of limits on the issuers that may use the crowdfund-
ing exemption. The issuer must be incorporated or organized under US
law.37 It cannot be a public company already subject to the reporting
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,38 and certain other
types of companies are also excluded.39
Finally, the crowdfunding rules contain an extensive list of what are
known as “bad actor” disqualifications. The exemption is not available if
the issuer, or specified parties related to the issuer, have been found to
have engaged in any of a long list of violations in the past.40 These dis-
qualifications apply to the issuer; any predecessor or affiliated issuer; any
director, officer, general partner, or managing member of the issuer; any-
one who beneficially owns at least 20 percent of the issuer’s voting securi-
ties; any promoter connected with the issuer; any person who will be
compensated for soliciting purchasers in the offering; or any general part-
ner, director, officer, or managing member of any such solicitor.41 The
198 C. Steven Bradford
policy basis for these “bad actor” disqualifications is obvious: one of the
best ways to protect investors is to exclude past violators.
The total amount of securities sold by the issuer pursuant to the crowd-
funding exemption cannot exceed USD 1 million in any 12-month
period.42 There is no cumulative limit; nothing would keep the issuer
from using the crowdfunding exemption to sell securities again and again,
as long as the amount raised in any 12-month period never exceeds USD
1 million.
Offering-Related Disclosure
The issuer must provide detailed disclosure about the company, the secu-
rities being offered, and the offering process. If, during the course of the
offering, the issuer makes any material changes to its disclosure or the
terms of its offering, it must notify all investors who have already com-
mitted to invest.43 All investment commitments are automatically can-
celed unless the investor reconfirms the commitment within five business
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in the United States 199
days after the notice.44 If a material change occurs within five business
days of the end of the offering, the offering deadline must be extended to
allow investors the full five business days.45
The issuer must provide detailed disclosure about itself and its principals,
including:
Financial Information
• USD 100,000 or less. If the target amount is USD 100,000 or less, the
issuer must disclose the total income, taxable income, and total tax
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in the United States 201
reported on its most recent federal income tax returns. The chief exec-
utive officer (CEO) must certify the accuracy of these figures. However,
if certified or audited financial statements are available, the issuer must
provide those instead.
• USD 100,000–USD 500,000. If the target amount is more than USD
100,000 but not more than USD 500,000, the issuer must furnish
financial statements reviewed by an independent public accountant.
However, if audited financial statements are available, the issuer must
provide those instead.
• More than USD 500,000. If the target amount of the offering is more
than USD 500,000, the issuer must furnish audited financial state-
ments, unless this is its first section 4(a)(6) offering. In that case, finan-
cial statements reviewed by an independent public accountant are
sufficient (unless it already has audited financial statements available).
The issuer must also include detailed disclosure about the offering and
the offering process:
The issuer must also post updates on its progress in meeting the target
offering amount.77 At a minimum, it must disclose when it reaches 50
percent of its target offering amount and when it reaches 100 percent of
its target offering amount.78 If it sells more than its target amount, it
must within five business days of the offering deadline disclose the total
amount of securities it sold.79
Annual Reports
Issuers which have successfully sold securities using the section 4(a)(6)
exemption are required to provide subsequent annual reports. These
annual reports must be filed with the SEC no later than 120 days after
the end of the issuer’s fiscal year, and must be posted on the issuer’s web-
site, but they are not required to be provided directly to investors.81
If the issuer has available financial statements that have been reviewed
or audited by an independent public accountant, these financial state-
ments must be included in the annual report. If not, the issuer must
provide financial statements that its CEO certifies are true and complete
in all material respects.82 These annual reports must also include much of
the disclosure that was required at the time of the offering, except for the
disclosures related to the offering and the offering process.83
The issuer’s annual reporting obligation generally continues until it
becomes a reporting company required to file reports under the Securities
Exchange Act; it (or someone else) repurchases all of the securities it sold
pursuant to the crowdfunding exemption; or it liquidates or dissolves its
business.84 There are also two size-based exceptions to the annual report-
ing requirement. The issuer no longer has to provide annual reports if (1)
after it has filed at least one annual report, it has fewer than 300 record
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in the United States 203
shareholders85; or (2) if it has filed annual reports for the past three years
and has total assets of less than USD 10 million.86
9.4.3 R
estrictions on Intermediaries and the Manner
of the Offering
The issuer must sell the crowdfunded securities through the crowdfund-
ing platform. The issuer and its representatives may not even advertise the
offering off-platform.92 Nor may the issuer compensate anyone else for
promoting an offering off the intermediary’s platform.93 The issuer may,
however, publish a brief notice that directs investors to the intermediary’s
204 C. Steven Bradford
platform and contains limited information about the issuer and the
offering, including the type and amount of securities being offered, the
price, and the closing date.94
adopted a safe harbor rule, Securities Act Rule 147,113 that provides more
certainty. To qualify for that intrastate offering safe harbor, all of the offer-
ees (not just the ultimate purchasers) must be residents of the same state
as the issuer. The issuer must be organized or incorporated under that
state’s laws and have its principal office in the state.114
Until recently, the issuer also had to meet several other requirements:
(1) at least 80 percent of its gross revenues had to be from operations in
that state; (2) at least 80 percent of its assets had to be located in the state;
and (3) at least 80 percent of the offering proceeds had to be used in
connection with operations in that state.115 All of these requirements had
to be met. However, the SEC amended Rule 147 in 2016 (effective in
2017) to phrase these requirements in the alternative. Now, only one of
these requirements or a new fourth requirement—that a majority of the
issuer’s employees be based in the state—must be met (SEC 2016, 197).
The SEC (2016, 202–207) also adopted a new intrastate exemption,
Rule 147A, that does not require the issuer to be incorporated in the state
and allows offers to non-residents, as long as the securities are sold only to
residents.
The intrastate offering exemption, as I indicated, is only from federal
registration requirements; it does not free issuers from the registration
requirements imposed by the law of the state in which the offering occurs.
However, many states have adopted crowdfunding exemptions under
state law that free intrastate crowdfunded offerings of securities from state
registration requirements as well. The exact requirements of these state
crowdfunding exemptions vary from state to state, but they generally
mimic many of the requirements of the federal crowdfunding exemption
(Pei 2014, 869–876). They limit the amount of the offering; limit the
amounts investors may invest; require risk disclosures; require disclosure
by the issuer; require that the offering be conducted through a state-
regulated portal; and restrict how these portals operate.116 However, there
is considerable variation among the states. Some state exemptions remove
investment limits for certain categories of investors; some of them allow
advertising; and some of them do not even require the use of an interme-
diary (Pei 2014, 869–876).
It is not clear how successful these intrastate provisions will be. The
requisite connections to a single state may be too restrictive, particularly
208 C. Steven Bradford
in smaller states, although the recent amendments to Rule 147 ease these
restrictions a bit. The SEC staff has also provided some relief, indicating
that an offer is not made to out-of-state offerees merely because it appears
on a web platform accessible from out of state. According to the SEC
(2015a), the offering would be intrastate as long as the portal makes it
clear that the offering is limited to residents of a particular state; the
offeree confirms his or her residence before accessing the offering materi-
als; and sales are made only to residents of the state. New Rule 147A
makes it even easier, completely eliminating the requirement that all
offerees be residents, but many of the state exemptions will have to be
amended to take advantage of that new rule.
All of the exemptions discussed in this chapter exempt offerings from the
registration and prospectus requirements of both federal and state law.
Securities offered and sold pursuant to the Rule 506(b) or 506(c)
exemptions are “covered securities” as defined in section 18 of the
Securities Act of 1933.117 Securities sold pursuant to the crowdfunding
exemption in § 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act are also covered securities.118
Section 18(a) of the Securities Act expressly excludes offerings involving
covered securities from state registration, offering, and prospectus
requirements.119
The state crowdfunding exemptions are, by definition, exemptions
from state registration and prospectus requirements. But since these state
exemptions require that the offering also be in compliance with the
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in the United States 209
9.7 Conclusion
The regulation of crowdinvesting and crowdlending involves a trade-off
between capital formation and investor protection. Disclosure require-
ments, structural limitations on crowdfunded offerings, investment lim-
its, and other regulatory requirements designed to protect investors
increase the cost of crowdinvesting and crowdlending. As the regulatory
cost increases, crowdfunding become a less viable option for small busi-
ness capital formation. But, absent adequate investor protection, losses
due to fraud and manipulation may drive investors away from crowd-
funded securities offerings.
The two federal exemptions limited to accredited or sophisticated
investors—Rule 506(b) and Rule 506(c)—impose the least regulatory
cost. Issuers can avoid mandatory disclosure requirements, limits on the
structure of their offerings, and offering and investment amount limits.
But these two exemptions essentially take the “crowd” out of crowdin-
vesting. Issuers may sell only to sophisticated or wealthy investors and, in
the case of Rule 506(b), may not even advertise the offering on a publicly
accessible Internet site.
These exemptions also raise investor protection concerns. Their basic
premise—that investors who meet the wealth and income requirements
to qualify as accredited investors do not need regulatory protection—is
questionable, particularly since the amounts these investors may invest is
unlimited.
The Section 4(a)(6) crowdfunding exemption and the many intrastate
crowdfunding exemptions widen the scope of permissible investors. The
intrastate exemptions still limit the investors to the residents of a p
articular
state, a troublesome, perhaps archaic restriction in the global Internet
age. But all of the crowdinvesting-specific exemptions, state and federal,
allow the general public to invest, without any restrictions based on
wealth or sophistication.
That breadth comes at a regulatory price. The federal and state regula-
tors have imposed significant regulatory costs on these offerings—invest-
ment limits, sales through neutral intermediaries, limits on the structure
of offerings, and, probably the costliest part of these rules, substantial
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in the United States 211
Notes
1. Section 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that no one may
offer securities until a registration statement has been filed with the
SEC. 15 U.S.C. § 77e(c). Section 5(a)(1) of the Act prohibits sales of
those securities until the registration statement has become effective. 15
U.S.C. § 77e(a)(1).
2. 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1). Hazen (2016, §§ 1:49–1:79) provides a good
general discussion of the interpretation of that definition.
3. 17 C.F.R. § 230.506(b). Before 2013, when the Rule 506(c) exemption
was added, this exemption was known simply as the Rule 506
exemption.
4. 17 C.F.R. § 230.506(c).
5. Pub. L. 112–106, 126 Stat. 306 (2012).
6. See Securities Act Rule 501(a), 17 C.F.R. § 230.501(a).
7. Securities Act Rule 501(a)(5), 17 C.F.R. § 230.501(a)(5). A spouse’s
net worth may also be included to reach the USD 1 million limit. Id.
8. Securities Act Rule 501(a)(6), 17 C.F.R. § 230.501(a)(6).
9. See, for example, SEC v. Ralston Purina Co., 346 U.S. 119 (1953). In
Ralston Purina, the court held that the US private offering exemption
(now in section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act) applies to offerings to
those who are “able to fend for themselves” and therefore do not need
the protection of registration. Id., at 125.
10. Securities Act Rule 506(d), 17 C.F.R. § 230.506(d).
11. Securities Act Rule 502(d), 17 C.F.R. § 230.502(d).
212 C. Steven Bradford
References
Bradford, C. Steven. 2001. Securities Regulation and Small Business: Rule 504
and the Case for an Unconditional Exemption. The Journal of Small and
Emerging Business Law 5: 1–47.
———. 2012a. Crowdfunding and the Federal Securities Laws. Columbia
Business Law Review, 1–150.
———. 2012b. The New Federal Crowdfunding Exemption: Promise
Unfulfilled. Securities Regulation Law Journal 40: 195–250.
———. 2015. Shooting the Messenger: The Liability of Crowdfunding
Intermediaries for the Fraud of Others. University of Cincinnati Law Review
83: 371–410.
Campbell, Rutheford B., Jr. 1995. Resales of Securities under the Securities Act
of 1933. Washington & Lee Law Review 52: 1331–1384.
Cohn, Stuart R., and Gregory C. Yadley. 2007. Capital Offense: The SEC’s
Continuing Failure to Address Small Business Financing Concerns.
N.Y.U. Journal of Law and Business 4: 1–87.
Hazen, Thomas Lee. 2016. Treatise on the Law of Securities Regulation. 7th ed.
St. Paul, Minn: Thomson Reuters.
Ivanov, Vlad, and Scott Bauguess. 2012. Capital Raising in the U.S.: The
Significance of Unregistered Offerings Using the Regulation D Exemption.
216 C. Steven Bradford
C. Steven Bradford is the Henry M. Grether, Jr. Professor of Law at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law. He has written numerous arti-
cles on US securities law, including several articles on crowdfunding and the
regulation of small business securities offerings. He has testified on crowdfund-
ing issues before the US Congress and the Nebraska State Legislature. He has
made crowdfunding presentations to numerous groups, including the SEC
Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation, the
New York State Bar Association, and the Practising Law Institute.
10
The Regulation of Crowdfunding
in Europe
Lars Klöhn
10.1 T
he Capital Markets Union
and the European Institutions’ Work
on Crowdfunding
On September 30, 2015, the European Commission published its Capital
Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan.1 The plan aims to tackle investment
shortage by increasing and diversifying the funding sources for European
businesses—especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—and
long-term projects and to provide more options and better returns for
savers and investors. Crowdfunding is a cornerstone of the CMU Action
Plan. The Commission conducted a public consultation on crowdfund-
ing, set up a website on which it informs market participants on its ongo-
ing work,2 and established a European Crowdfunding Stakeholder Forum
(ECSF), which at the time of writing, has held four meetings since its
creation.3
L. Klöhn (*)
Faculty of Law, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
the Commission to give “breathing space for the emergence of these new
models and to explore and promote them, giving priority to their cross-
border dimension and ensuring the reduction of market entry
barriers.”12
10.3.3.1 A
uthorization, Organizational Requirements,
and Conduct of Business Regulation
Overview
Organizational Requirements
contain the rules under which investment firms must conduct their busi-
ness with regard to investor protection. As a general rule, Art. 24(1)
MiFID obliges member states to make sure that, when providing invest-
ment services, an investment firm act honestly, fairly, and professionally
in accordance with the best interests of its clients and comply with all
principles set out in MiFID and the respective Level-2-acts. Specific
aspects of this general duty to always act in good faith are the investment
firm’s information duties and know-your-customer-requirements.
Information Duties
Know-Your-Customer-Rules
All of these rules apply only to investment firms within the meaning of
Art. 4(1) MiFID, that is to firms providing financial services as defined by
Section A of Annex I MiFID, relating to financial instruments as defined
by Section C of Annex I MiFID. Therefore, the regulatory regime for
crowdfunding platforms in Europe is just as divided as the prospectus
regime:
10.3.3.4 R
egulation under the Distance Marketing
of Consumer Financial Services Directive
In the UK, the legislator of the Financial Services and Markets Act
(FSMA) has made use of the option provided by the Prospectus Directive
to exempt all offerings of securities to the public from the prospectus
requirement if the total consideration is less than EUR 5 million.31
Therefore, start-ups can issue transferable securities such as stocks and
bonds to the crowd without a prospectus as long as they raise less than
EUR 5 million within 12 months. This generous exemption from the
prospectus requirement reduces start-ups’ and platforms’ incentives for
regulatory arbitrage by designing investment contracts which would fall
outside the scope of the Prospectus Directive. Furthermore, crowdinvesting
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in Europe 231
• professional clients, or
• retail clients who confirm that, in relation to the investment promoted,
they will receive regulated investment advice or investment manage-
ment services from an authorized person (“advised investors”), or
• retail clients who are venture capital contacts or corporate finance con-
tacts, or
• retail clients, who are certified or self-certify as sophisticated investors;
or
• retail clients who are certified as high net worth investors, or
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in Europe 233
• retail clients who certify that they will not invest more than 10% of
their net investible financial assets in unlisted equity and debt securi-
ties (i.e. they certify that they will only invest money that does not
affect their primary residence, pensions, and life cover) (“restricted
investors”).
10.4.3 Germany
Unlike in the UK, the German legislator has chosen not to make use of
the Prospectus Directive’s option to exempt all offerings with a consider-
ation of less than EUR 5 million from the prospectus requirement. The
small offer exemption provided by German law is available only to securi-
ties offerings of less than EUR 100,000 within a 12-month-period.42 The
same rule applies to firms offering investment contracts which do not
qualify as securities.43
The strict prospectus requirement gave German crowdfunding plat-
forms a strong incentive for regulatory arbitrage by designing investment
contracts not covered by German prospectus regulation. In November
2012, crowdinvesting platforms in Germany therefore began to broker
subordinated profit participating loans (partiarische Nachrangdarlehen)
to the crowd. These are hybrid investment contracts which are loan-
based but mimic features of equity. At the time of introduction to the
234 L. Klöhn
10.5 C
rowdinvesting Contracts and (Other)
Market-Based Safeguards
10.5.1 Overview
• They are gatekeepers, because they decide which start-ups can run
crowdfunding campaigns on their platforms.
• They are information intermediaries, because they reach out to start-
ups and tell them what information they must provide to investors.
Also, they usually channel communications between investors and
businesses in an investor-relations portal.
• Finally, they are drafters of investment contracts; they choose what types
of investment contracts start-ups offer to the crowd, and they design
the details of those contracts.
• Race to the top: In the first scenario competition will lead platforms to
develop optimal financing agreements. These contracts consist of pro-
visions on which companies and investors would agree if they were
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in Europe 239
race to the top or a race to the bottom. The relatively few insolvencies
of start-ups funded by crowdinvesting as well as estimates on the firm
survival, which show a higher survival rate of crowd-funded start-ups
compared with German start-ups in general (Hornuf and Schmitt
2016a), might support the race to the top thesis. On the other hand,
compared to the earnings of venture capital funds, absolute returns in
crowdinvesting seem to be low (Hornuf and Schmitt 2016a). In par-
ticular, to date, there have been only a few exit opportunities for crowd
investors.
platforms finds that, where such information is made available, large invest-
ments by a single investor are positively correlated with the number of
subsequent investments later the same day (Hornuf and Schwienbacher
2017a).
Finally, crowdinvesting platforms have experimented with restricting
investor access to individuals which are expected to be particularly sophis-
ticated or at least well-aware of the risks of crowdinvesting (for empirical
evidence on the correlation between the minimum investment and inves-
tor sophistication, see Hornuf and Schmitt 2016b). In Germany, the
crowdinvesting platform Innovestment started with a minimum invest-
ment per individual of EUR 1000 but later abolished this requirement,
possibly due to competitive pressure by other platforms using much
lower investment limits (the two leading platforms Companisto and
Seedmatch use investment limits of EUR 5 and EUR 250 respectively).
Just recently, however, Innovestment announced to raise the minimum
investment requirement to EUR 1000 again. In the US, AngelMD is an
investment platform which allows only medical professionals to invest in
medical start-ups (Armour and Enriques 2017, 44).
Start-ups are extremely difficult to price. Given the far from perfect
incentives of crowdinvesting platforms to ensure that start-ups are valued
at appropriate levels (see above), crowd investors face an exceptionally
high adverse selection risk when making their investment decisions (see
Armour and Enriques, Chap. 12 sub 12.2.1.; Ibrahim 2015; Hurt 2015,
254). Moreover, most crowdinvesting platforms offer investments at a
take-it-or-leave-it price. This exacerbates the danger of herding among
crowd investors because on the platform websites investors can only
observe decisions to make an investment as opposed to decisions to
abstain from making an investment (Armour and Enriques 2017, 12
et seq.; Wilson and Testoni 2014, 7).
Some platforms have experimented with alternative pricing models. For
example, the German crowdinvesting platform Innovestment started with
an ambitious auction mechanism designed by an economics Ph.D. candi-
date writing his thesis about auction theory (see Hornuf and Neuenkirch
2017 for details on the auction mechanism and empirical evidence on the
characteristics which influence pricing; on the correlation between portal
design and investor types see Hornuf and Schmitt 2016b). In the UK,
Crowdcube60 provides a “price review” mechanism, which relies on the
bargaining power of investors willing to buy a relatively large stake in the
company (see Armour and Enriques 2017, 49 et seq. for details).
10.6 Outlook
So what should the EU do? Any section about the regulatory perspec-
tives in Europe must start with the realization that a full-blown harmo-
nization of the laws governing crowdinvesting is, at least for the next
244 L. Klöhn
ten years, simply not feasible. As the German experience shows, such
harmonization would require extending the European term of “finan-
cial instruments” (as within the meaning of MiFID) or “transferable
securities” (as within the meaning of the Prospectus Directive) to any
investment contract regardless of its exact legal structure, that is to
adopt a concept of “financial instruments” or “transferable securities”
similar to the concept of “security” which is predominant in the
US. This would be a huge step. It would significantly extend the reach
of European securities regulation to previously unregulated areas and
markets. The potential side effects of such step are almost impossible to
assess. Furthermore, there are several (at least on a national level) pow-
erful interest groups whose constituents rely on finance provided by
investments not governed by EU regulation (take the Federal Association
of Cooperatives in Germany) and who would no doubt strongly oppose
such regulation. Crowdinvesting is simply not important enough to
convince any decision maker in Brussels or Luxembourg to take this
step.
Given this—rather sobering—fact, one must realize that any attempt
to regulate crowdinvesting on the EU level will be limited to financial-
instruments-based or securities-based crowdinvesting. Market partici-
pants will be able to avoid such regulation by designing investment
contracts not covered by EU regulation, such as subordinated profit par-
ticipating loans in Germany. The most important implication is that
stricter regulatory requirements in the area covered by European law
(securities and financial instruments) will increase issuers’ and platforms’
incentives to avoid such regulation by designing investment contracts not
covered by EU law.
Taking into consideration that crowdinvesting platforms seem to be
experimenting with contractual clauses and other market-based solutions
to protect investors (see above Sects. 10.5.3 and 10.5.4), the best option
seems to be to not further regulate the market but to actually do the
opposite and liberate the market in order to create a level playing field for
securities-based and non-securities-based crowdinvesting.
• The first step towards such level playing field must be a reform of the
small offerings exemption in the Prospectus Directive. The proposal
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in Europe 245
for a new Prospectus Regulation goes into the right direction and cre-
ates a mandatory exemption for offers of a consideration below EUR
1,000,000 (as of today this limit is EUR 100,000).61 It prevents
member states from imposing disclosure requirements which would
constitute a disproportionate or unnecessary burden in relation to
such offers and thus increase fragmentation of the internal market.
This is the right approach, but the European legislator should go fur-
ther and exempt any securities offer to the public with a consideration
below EUR 2.5 million from the prospectus requirement. This pro-
posal is also supported by a recent study by Hornuf and Schwienbacher
(2017b), which indicates that exemptions from the prospectus require-
ment should be more extensive in countries with smaller angel and
venture capital markets—like it is the case in (continental) Europe—
as smaller firms seeking seed or early-stage capital raise inefficiently
low amounts of money when the exemptions are restrictive.
• The second step could be tailored exemptions from MiFID’s organiza-
tional and conduct-of-business requirements to lower market entry
barriers for crowdfunding platforms and to give crowdfunding plat-
forms more latitude to develop market-based investor protection tools.
For example, it is highly doubtful that the appropriateness test required
by MiFID has any significant effect on crowd investor protection in
the UK. Instead, EU law could require MiFID crowdinvesting plat-
forms to adopt investor protection measures specifically tailored to the
dangers of crowdinvesting (e.g. herding) if it seems probable that such
mechanisms would not be introduced by the platforms due to reputa-
tional and/or market pressure.
Notes
1. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Action Plan on Building
a Capital Markets Union, COM (2015) 468 final, 30.9.2015.
2. http://ec.europa.eu/finance/general-policy/crowdfunding/index_en.
htm.
246 L. Klöhn
20. For the US concept see SEC v. Howey Co. 328 U.S. 293 (1946), com-
pare, with regard to crowdfunding, e.g. Hurt (2015), p. 235 et seq.
21. Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of May 15, 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending
Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU, OJ No L 173 of
12.6.2014, p. 39.
22. The terminology refers to the Lamfalussy Process, a legislative procedure
under which EU securities regulation is passed. For an overview see Walla
(2013), pp. 27–36.
23. For the obligations of crowdfunding portals regarding the provision of
information and their liability under US law, see Bradford (2015a).
24. Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of June 26, 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the
prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms,
amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC
and 2006/49/EC, OJ No 176 of 27.6.2013, p. 338.
25. Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of June 26, 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institu-
tions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No
648/2012, OJ (EU) No L 176 of 27.6.2013, p. 1.
26. Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of October 26, 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system
for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, OJ (EU)
No L 309 of 25.11.2005, p. 15.
27. Directive 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
November 25, 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amend-
ing Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and
Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC,
OJ (EU) No L 337 of 23.12.2015, p. 35.
28. Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of September 23, 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer
financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and
Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, OJ (EU) No L 271 of 9.10.2002,
p. 16.
29. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of April 27, 2016 on the protection of natural persons with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection
Regulation), OJ (EU) No. L 119 of 4.5.2016, p. 1.
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in Europe 249
References
Anand, Anita I. 2014. Is Crowdfunding Bad for Investors? Canadian Business
Law Journal 55: 215–229.
Armour, John, and Luca Enriques. 2017. The Promise and Perils of Crowdfunding:
Between Corporate Finance and Consumer Contracts. Working Paper (on file
with the author).
The Regulation of Crowdfunding in Europe 251
Belleflamme, Paul, Nesrine Omrani, and Martin Peitz. 2015. The Economics of
Crowdfunding Platforms. Information Economics and Policy 33: 11–28.
Bradford, Steven. 2015a. Shooting the Messenger: The Liability of Crowdfunding
Intermediaries for the Fraud of Others. University of Cincinnati Law Review
83: 371–411.
———. 2015b. Regulating Investment Crowdfunding: Small Business Capital
Formation and Investor Protection. Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und
Bankwirtschaft/Journal of Banking Law and Banking 27: 376–382.
Dehner, Joseph J., and Jin Kong. 2014. Equity-Based Crowdfunding Outside
the USA. University of Cincinnati Law Review 83: 413–443.
Gabison, Garry A. 2015. Equity Crowdfunding: All Regulated but Not Equal.
DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal 13: 359–409.
Grossman, Sanford J. 1981. The Informational Role of Warranties and Private
Disclosure About Product Quality. The Journal of Law & Economics 24:
461–483.
Heminway, Joan MacLeod. 2013. The New Intermediary on the Block: Funding
Portals under the Crowdfund Act. UC Davis Business Law Journal 13:
177–205.
———. 2014. How Congress Killed Investment Crowdfunding: A Tale of
Political Pressure, Hasty Decisions, and Inexpert Judgments that Begs for a
Happy Ending. Kentucky Law Journal 102: 865–889.
Hornuf, L., and M. Neuenkirch. 2017. Pricing Shares in Equity Crowdfunding.
Small Business Economics 48: 795–811.
Hornuf, Lars, and Matthias Schmitt. 2016a. Success and Failure in Equity
Crowdfunding. CESifo DICE Report 14: 16–22.
———. 2016b. Does a Local Bias Exist in Equity Crowdfunding? The Impact
of Investor Types and Portal Design. Max Planck Institute for Innovation &
Competition Research Paper No. 16-07.
Hornuf, Lars, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2016. Crowdinvesting—Angel
Investing for the Masses? In Handbook of Research on Venture Capital: Volume
3. Business Angels, ed. Hans Landström and Colin Mason, 381–397.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
———. 2017a. Market Mechanisms and Funding Dynamics in Equity
Crowdfunding. Journal of Corporate Finance. http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0929119916302450. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
———. 2017b. Should Securities Regulation Promote Equity Crowdfunding.
Small Business Economics 49: 579–593.
Hurt, A. Christine. 2015. Pricing Disintermediation: Crowdfunding and
Online Auction IPOs. University of Illinois Law Review 1: 217–262.
252 L. Klöhn
Lars Klöhn holds a professorship for civil and business law at Humboldt
University of Berlin. He has published several scholarly articles on corporate,
banking, and capital markets law. He is inter alia co-editor of ZBB, a leading
German banking and capital markets law journal, and a regular advisor to the
German Legislature and the German Ministry of Finance in matters related to
capital markets and banking law.
11
Individual Investors’ Access
to Crowdinvesting: Two Regulatory
Models
John Armour and Luca Enriques
11.1 Introduction
In recent years, a new source of finance, “crowdinvesting”, has become
available to smaller firms, typically start-ups and early-stage ones. It con-
sists of raising capital via the internet from a large number of individuals,
each typically contributing a small sum in exchange for an equity interest
in the firm. Crowdinvesting is channeled through a web-based portal,
which aggregates business plans from fund-seekers and permits potential
investors to browse projects on offer.
Crowdinvesting is one of the riskiest asset classes individual investors
may access. Issuers in these markets have usually no track record.
Because the market is relatively new, that is also true for the online plat-
forms which may in theory act as gatekeepers and develop a reputation
for screening good investment opportunities. And, unless alternative
app or a video game), may simply not need those services. Further, there
are strings, whether visible or invisible, attached to the involvement of
VCs and, to a lesser degree, angel investors. Venture capital firms rou-
tinely negotiate a number of governance rights which limit the entrepre-
neur’s freedom of action and may even put them in control (Fried and
Ganor 2006). Angel investors, while relying as often on informal as on
formal mechanisms, still heavily monitor ex post the ventures they fund,
thereby reducing entrepreneurs’ freedom of action (Ibrahim 2008,
1431–1433).2 Crowdinvesting allows entrepreneurs to obtain funding
with hardly any strings attached. It may also avoid the risks inherent to
staged financing, which is typical of VC investing, and precisely that VCs
will take a less positive view of the venture at stage 2 than at stage 1, not
because any new negative information has emerged about the venture but
simply because the market as a whole has become less “hot” or optimistic
(Nanda and Rhodes-Kropf 2013): the crowd’s lack of financial sophisti-
cation, together with the hype which may go together with crowdinvest-
ing in a booming technology market, may help the entrepreneur secure
enough capital to rule out the financing risk stemming from the staged
financing constraint.
In addition to that, while feedback on the product from the crowd-
funding community may be more common in the reward than in the
crowdinvesting setting, one cannot rule out that interactions with crowd-
investors help the entrepreneur improve the product, the production pro-
cess, or more likely corporate finance and managerial aspects of the
venture. Similarly, crowdinvesting may be an effective marketing tool
itself both to find financiers in a later round and to create product aware-
ness (Belleflamme et al. 2015, 40–41).
The risk that competitors appropriate the entrepreneurial idea by tak-
ing advantage of information disclosed on the crowdinvesting platform is
real. But, while emulation by competitors thanks to crowdinvesting dis-
closures may be a concern for some projects, some business ideas may be
described in the pitch without giving away information that competitors
can profit from (Agrawal et al. 2014) or may be difficult to replicate, for
example because their success may critically be linked to the founder’s
personality or unique skillset (Hornuf and Schwienbacher 2016).
Individual Investors’ Access to Crowdinvesting… 261
Finally, reward crowdfunding cannot be used for each and any entre-
preneurial project: Sergei Brin and Larry Page could have never “pre-
sold” their search engine or the related services. In addition to
advertising-based business models, any business-to-business venture
would also be an unlikely candidate for reward crowdfunding. And even
business-to-consumer ventures may find it hard to raise sufficient capital
via reward crowdfunding if a lot of capital is required to fund the business
(Belleflamme et al. 2014).
To conclude on this point, the idea that crowdinvesting will only
attract lemons (i.e., fraudsters and low-quality, negative NPV projects)
seems unpersuasive.3 For sure, crowdinvesting will not cater to each and
every kind of venture, but there is no reason not to think that entrepre-
neurs will make use of it for good projects as well.
11.2.3 Reputation
The very nature of the projects as start-ups means that, in most cases, no
reputation can be pledged to investors. Nor are there any gatekeepers
who can pledge their own reputation to overcome this constraint as
Individual Investors’ Access to Crowdinvesting… 263
11.2.4 Governance
followed the directive and implemented the EUR 5 million offering size
limit.6
At the same time, if the securities offered on the crowdinvesting plat-
form qualify as “financial instruments”,7 which is usually the case, then,
under the framework set out in the Markets in Financial Instruments
Directive (“MiFID”),8 crowdinvesting portals need to be authorized as
performing investment services or activities, because they usually engage
at the very least in the business of receiving and transmitting crowd-
funders’ orders relating to financial instruments (European Securities and
Markets Authority 2014, 16).9 In particular, according to ESMA,
crowdinvesting platforms are required to conduct an assessment of
whether the investment is appropriate for the investor (id., 14–15).
Within this framework of European rules, the UK’s Financial Conduct
Authority (“FCA”) has established a flexible regime for crowdinvesting
platforms. Section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as
amended) requires crowdinvesting intermediaries to be authorized by the
FCA if they conduct regulated activities. Activities that crowdinvesting
platforms may only undertake with such authorization include arranging
deals in investments10 and carrying out financial promotions. In particu-
lar, financial promotions, defined as “invitation[s] or inducement[s] to
engage in investment activity”,11 clearly encompass crowdinvesting
offerings.
Under MiFID, all financial promotions must be “fair, clear and not
misleading”.12 In 2013, the FCA introduced specific consumer protec-
tion rules governing the sale of crowdinvesting securities (Financial
Conduct Authority 2014). The main elements of these rules are restric-
tions on the persons to whom crowdinvesting offerings of non-readily
realizable securities may be offered and a requirement that the crowdin-
vesting platform assess whether the product is appropriate for the client.13
In practice, this assessment is conducted by means of a simple multiple
choice questionnaire carried out as part of the investor’s process of sign-
ing up for an account with the platform. Platforms provide “investment
guides” which investors are encouraged to study as a means of preparing
to take these tests.14
Such securities may only be offered to certain sophisticated investors
or to retail investors who certify that they have not invested, and will not
Individual Investors’ Access to Crowdinvesting… 267
invest, more than 10% of their net assets (excluding the value of their
home) in non-readily realizable securities.
11.3.2 T
he US: The Long-Awaited Crowdfunding
Exemption
Under Title III of the JOBS Act,15 the US Congress provided for a small
offering exemption for crowdinvesting and directed the SEC to imple-
ment a framework of rules to govern such offerings. While the JOBS Act
required the SEC to have crowdinvesting rules in place by the end of
2012, it was not until October 2013 that its “Regulation Crowdfunding”
was proposed.16 These proved contentious, and as a result it was October
2015 before the SEC adopted its final crowdinvesting regulations, which
eventually came into force on May 16, 2016.
Title III of the JOBS Act added a new Section 4(a)(6) to the US
Securities Act of 1933,17 which provides an exemption from registration
of a crowdinvesting offering under the 1933 Act if certain conditions are
met. These conditions include a limit on the amount of capital raised of
USD 1 million per 12-month period, limits on the amount a single
investor may invest per issuer (rather than in the asset class as a whole)
based on his or her income and net worth,18 a requirement that investors
understand the risks of crowdinvesting, and a requirement that transac-
tions are conducted through an intermediary registered with the SEC as
either a broker or a new type of regulated entity called a “funding
portal”.
Regulation Crowdfunding also requires that only a single intermediary
is used for a crowdinvesting offering, and that all information in relation
to the offering is available “online only” in order to ensure that the collec-
tive opinion of the crowd is equally available to all potential investors.19
Section 4(a)(b) of the Securities Act requires crowdinvesting issuers to
file certain specified disclosures with the SEC and provide these to poten-
tial investors and the crowdinvesting platform. Such required disclosures
include information on the issuer’s directors, officers, and principal share-
holders,20 a description of its business and business plan,21 the purpose
and intended use of proceeds of the offering,22 the price of the securities
268 J. Armour and L. Enriques
or the method for determining the price,23 the target offering amount,
the deadline to reach it, regular progress updates,24 and a description of
the ownership and capital structure of the issuer as well as any risk factors
related to the offering.25 Further, crowdinvesting issuers must provide a
complete set of financial statements prepared in compliance with US
GAAP for the last two years or the period since the issuer’s inception,
whichever is shorter.26 In each case, these financial statements must be
certified by the issuer’s CEO. For offerings of more than USD 100,000,
they must also be reviewed by an independent public accountant, who,
in the case of offerings of more than USD 500,000, must also audit the
statements.27 The issuer must also provide a narrative discussion of its
historical results, liquidity, and capital resources,28 and must file annual
reports with the SEC following a completed crowdinvesting offering.29
In addition, the SEC has used its discretion to propose further items
that must be disclosed,30 including the amount of compensation the
issuer is paying to the intermediary31 the material terms of any debt
finance it has raised,32 and details of certain related-party transactions.33
The investor may not transfer securities issued in a crowdinvesting
transaction for a period of one year, with certain limited exceptions such
as resales to the issuer or to accredited investors, but are freely transferable
thereafter.34
To avoid conflicts of interest, brokers and funding portals, as well as
their directors, officers, and partners, are prohibited from having (or
accepting as payment) any financial interest in any issuer using their ser-
vices.35 Regulation Crowdfunding also requires an intermediary to take
measures to reduce the risk of fraud in crowdinvesting transactions on its
platform. Such measures include having a reasonable basis for believing
that the issuer is in compliance with relevant regulations and has estab-
lished means to keep accurate records of holders of the securities it
offers.36 The intermediary must deny access to the platform for issuers
that it believes may present a potential fraud risk.
Crowdfunding investors may bring actions against issuers for material
misstatements or omissions in the offering documents,37 and the SEC has
indicated that “it appears likely” that crowdinvesting intermediaries
would be treated as issuers under the statute’s liability provision.38 The
SEC has not clarified its position in its final rules indicating that the
Individual Investors’ Access to Crowdinvesting… 269
11.4 T
he Fine Line Between Throwing
the Baby out with the Bathwater
and Giving Fraudsters Free Rein
In Sect. 11.3, we described the regulatory framework on crowdinvesting
in the US and the UK. In a companion paper, we show how, both in the
US (for offerings reserved to accredited investors) and in Europe, crowd-
investing platforms are experimenting with solutions to avoid adverse
selection problems and ensure a minimum quality of the offerings, at the
very least in terms of self-imposed disclosure requirements (Armour and
Enriques 2017). Market experimentation may provide support for a
“wait-and-see”, minimalist approach to the regulation of the sector. A
minimal-intervention approach, like the UK’s, would still aim to ensure
that potential investors understand the risks of crowdinvesting, for exam-
ple by conditioning their access to the platform upon correct completion
of a questionnaire.45 The requirement, common to both the US and the
UK, that retail investors may only invest a limited proportion of their
income or net worth into crowdinvesting also seems a sensible restriction
on retail investor participation in the market.
More risk-averse (or market-mistrusting) policymakers may be less
persuaded by a laissez-faire, experimentation-friendly regulatory environ-
ment, and impose obligations on fundraisers and platforms more similar
Individual Investors’ Access to Crowdinvesting… 271
Notes
1. The figure for the UK’s most popular platform is GBP 440,242 (USD
559,855). See https://www.crowdcube.com/infographic (accessed on
December 5, 2016).
272 J. Armour and L. Enriques
2. Angels’ investing styles vary significantly: while the overall picture is one
of less formal arrangements than in the case of VCs, still some angels
adopt the same protective measures that are common in VC investment
contracts. See Ibrahim (2008, 1420–1425).
3. The available empirical evidence on the incidence of fraud in reward
crowdfunding platforms shows that it is a contained phenomenon.
Cumming et al. (2016) find that actual or suspected fraud occurred in
0.01%of initiated projects per year. One may well question, though,
whether that is a good predictor of the incidence of fraud on crowdin-
vesting platforms.
4. See SEC, Crowdfunding, 78 Fed. Reg. 66,428, 66,458 n. 309 (to be
codified in scattered parts of 17 C.F.R.); Financial Conduct Authority
(2013).
5. Article 1(2)(h) Prospectus Directive [2003] O.J. L 345/64 (as amended)
(the “Prospectus Directive”).
6. Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”), Section 85(5)(a),
Schedule 11A, para 9.
7. Annex I, Section C, of MiFID 2 defines financial instruments to include
transferable securities. Transferable securities are defined in Art. 4(1)(44)
to include securities negotiable on the capital market, such as shares in
companies.
8. Markets in Financial Instruments Directive [2004] O.J. L 145/1
(“MiFID”).
9. MiFID allowed member states to carve out an exemption for crowdin-
vesting platforms under Article 3, and at least two member states have
apparently done so. Id., p. 19, para 57. Such an exemption is premised
on the platform not holding client funds or securities, not providing any
investment service except the reception and transmission of orders, and
transmit such orders only to other authorized firms. Art. 3 MiFID. While
this exemption remains in MiFID 2, a new Art. 3(2) therein requires
member states to apply to them rules and regulations equivalent to
MiFID 2 in many respects, including conditions for authorization and
supervision and conduct of business obligations.
10. Art. 25, The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated
Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/554 (available at http://www.legisla-
tion.gov.uk/uksi/2001/544/article/25/made).
11. FSMA 2000 s. 21.
12. FCA’s Conduct of Business Sourcebook (“COBS”) 4.2.1R., implement-
ing Art. 19(2) MiFID (now Art. 24(3) MiFID II).
Individual Investors’ Access to Crowdinvesting… 273
References
Agrawal, Ajay, Christian Catalini, and Avi Goldfarb. 2010. Entrepreneurial
Finance and the Flat-World Hypothesis: Evidence from Crowd-Funding
Entrepreneurs in the Arts. NET Institute Working Paper No. 10-08.
———. 2014. Some Simple Economics of Crowdfunding. Innovation Policy
and the Economy 14: 63–97.
Armour, John, and Luca Enriques. 2017. The Promise and Perils of
Crowdfunding. Between Corporate Finance and Consumer Contracts.
Modern Law Review (forthcoming).
Belleflamme, Paul, Thomas Lambert, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2014.
Crowdfunding: Tapping the Right Crowd. Journal of Business Venturing 29:
585–609.
Belleflamme, Paul, Nessrine Omrani, and Martin Peitz. 2015. The Economics
of Crowdfunding Platforms. Information Economics and Policy 33: 11–28.
Black, Bernard S. 2001. The Legal and Institutional Preconditions for Strong
Securities Markets. UCLA Law Review 48: 781–855.
Coffee, John C. 2006. Gatekeepers: The Professions and Corporate Governance.
Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.
Colombo, Massimo G., Chiara Franzoni, and Cristina Rossi-Lamastra. 2015.
Internal Social Capital and the Attraction of Early Contributions in
Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39: 75–100.
Cumming, Douglas J., Lars Hornuf, Moein Karami, and Denis Schweizer.
2016. Disentangling Crowdfunding from Fraudfunding. Social Science
Research Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2828919. Accessed 20 Feb
2017.
276 J. Armour and L. Enriques
Luca Enriques is the Allen & Overy Professor of Corporate Law at the Faculty
of Law of Oxford University and a Fellow of the ECGI. He is a coauthor of The
Anatomy of Corporate Law and of Principles of Financial Regulation. He has pub-
lished several articles in major European and US reviews and journals, including
the Journal of Economic Perspectives, the Cornell Law Review, and the Harvard
Business Law Review. He has held visiting positions at the University of
Cambridge, IDC Hertzliya, Harvard Law School, and other universities and he
has been commissioner at the Italian S.E.C. (Consob) between 2007 and 2012.
Index1
C E
Capital Markets Union (CMU), Entrepreneur, ix, x, 12–24, 31, 32,
219–221, 245n1, 247n11 34, 36, 45, 46, 58–69, 71–72,
Capital Requirements Directive 73n5, 74n9, 74n10, 74n14,
(CRD), 228–229 75n18, 79–97, 103–125, 144,
Capital Requirements Regulation 151, 152, 154, 169, 171–174,
(CRR), 228 258–260, 264, 269
Charity, 3, 4, 16, 20, 154 Equity crowdfunding, x, 5, 13, 33,
Community benefit, 58, 60–63, 72, 48, 49, 74n16, 92, 106,
74n10 108–111, 113, 114, 139, 148,
See also Reward 231
Companisto, x, 45, 67, 242, 250n53 See also Crowdinvesting
Compliance, 106, 205, 206, 208, European Securities and Markets
225, 256, 265, 268, 271 Authority (ESMA), 246n5,
Crowdcube, x, 32, 44, 48, 64, 266, 275n43
67–71, 91, 92, 110, 112, 243,
250n60
Crowdinvesting, vii, ix, 2, 15, 58, F
85, 185, 221, 255–275 Facebook, 4, 22, 24, 57, 109
See also Equity crowdfunding Failure, 20, 22, 30, 59, 60, 82, 84,
92, 93, 111, 133, 135–139,
144–148, 172, 222
D Financial Conduct Authority (FCA),
Data protection, 229 231, 232, 236, 241,
Disclosure, 22, 66, 95, 112, 152, 249n34–249n36, 249n40,
185–187, 190, 192, 195–204, 250n56, 266, 272n4, 272n12
206, 207, 210, 211, 223, 232, Financial Services and Markets Act
237, 245, 257, 260, 261, 263, (FSMA), 230–232, 236, 266
265, 267, 270, 271, 273n30 Fintech, 103–125
Donation, 4, 151, 154, 168 Fraud, 3, 23, 59, 79–95, 97n7,
Donation-based crowdfunding, x, 2, 138, 139, 174, 188, 204,
4, 6, 14–16, 18, 30, 35, 36, 205, 209, 210, 241, 268,
110, 170, 185, 188, 221 272n2, 272n3
Due diligence, 23, 30, 33, 65–67, 71, Funding Circle, xi
72, 109, 110, 206, 241, 269 Funding dynamics, 18
Dynamics, 18, 20, 45, 65, 89, 109, See also Dynamics
112, 124, 151–176, 240, 271 Funding gap, 2, 12, 14, 15, 23, 32,
See also Funding dynamics 49, 105
Index
281
G J
Germany, x, 14, 45, 49, 69, 74n16, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act
79, 91, 92, 148, 230, (JOBS Act), x, 91, 114, 141,
233–237, 240–242, 244 144, 174, 188, 192, 256, 267,
Governance, 35, 108, 260, 269, 273n18, 274n42
263–264
K
H Keep-it-all, 19, 45, 73n5, 112,
Herding behavior, 15, 19, 23, 171, 176n7
174, 175, 204 Kickstarter, viii, x, 3, 5, 15, 16,
36, 46, 48, 50n4, 57,
63–65, 74n14, 81, 82,
I 86, 87, 94, 97n8, 97n12,
Indiegogo, x, 15, 19, 87, 112, 133, 135–146, 148,
176n6, 176n7 149n1, 152–157, 159,
Information asymmetry, 11, 13, 23, 160, 163–170, 172–175,
29, 31, 32, 35, 44, 59, 62, 64, 176n2, 176n7
67, 71–73, 75n18, 80–81, 84,
93, 95, 104, 110, 222, 257,
264 L
Information cascade, 45, 67, 112, Lender, 5, 30, 32, 34, 35, 60, 65,
171 82–85, 88–91, 93, 105–109,
Initial Coin Offerings (ICO), 2 116, 117, 124, 125, 188
Initial public offering (IPO), 13, 34, Lending Club, 1, 16, 90, 187
44, 45, 47, 48, 50n2, 250n54,
256–258, 261, 263
Intermediary, 2, 12, 34, 44, 85, M
96n1, 105, 186, 190–196, Marketplace lending, 1, 90,
201, 203–207, 209, 210, 222, 103–125
225, 230, 231, 235, 238, 263, Markets in Financial Instruments
266–269, 274 Directive (MiFID), 224–232,
Intrastate regulation, 186, 187, 234–236, 240, 244, 245,
206–209 255, 256, 266, 270, 272n7,
Investment limit, 193–195, 205, 272n9
207, 210–211, 233, 242 Moral hazard, 13, 32, 48, 59, 66, 68,
Investor, ix, 3, 11, 30, 58, 79, 107, 81–85
144, 151, 185, 219, 255 MyMicroInvest, 69, 70
282 Index
V
T Venture capital (VC), 11, 13–15, 19,
Two-sided markets, 3, 239 21, 49, 50n4, 58, 68, 69, 71,
107, 109, 114, 118, 120, 122,
123, 125, 144, 151, 232,
U 241–243, 245, 250n54,
United Kingdom (UK), x, 32, 34, 257–260, 264, 272n2
49, 66, 91, 97n8, 117,
230–233, 235–237,
240–243, 245, 257, W
264–271, 274n43 Wisdom of the crowd, 3, 15, 65,
United States (US), x, 3, 15, 48, 70, 109, 204, 241–242, 250n54,
79, 81, 89, 91, 94, 105, 114, 250n55