Tuesday, 16 February 2016

Why are the Press so afraid of Crowdcube?


This is typical of the sort of press that equity crowdfunding gets -

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/12158403/Why-angel-investors-shouldnt-be-lone-wolves.html

There is no analysis and no independent research - just PRing.

Interesting that Lang is so very confident that the FCA will not ramp up regulation. As we have said for years, the FCA is in their pocket and will remain there unless there is a change of Government.

It is also interesting , although slightly sad, to see Westlake trying to belittle the failures the platform has had. Unfortunately, caught in the powerful PRing headlights, Rebecca BC is unable to ask the serious questions.

She writes here that only 19 Crowdcube pitches have failed so far and that this represnts only 6% of the total funded on the platfrom since 2011. She chooses to ignore or is too stupid to work out that if you view the Crowdcube successes since 2011 when they started, the number of pitches completed has risen dramatically from very few in 2011 and 2012 to in excess of 100pa from 2014 onwards. So probably 80% of her quoted 300 total figure only funded in the last 2 years. It takes time to spend £250k unless the pitch was a crooked one! God knows you would expect better from The Telegraph.

The failures are not the issue, its the nature of them and the fact that many many companies funded by this platfrom are currently treading water waiting to close or just keep their heads above water for eternity. No where near to the fantasy projections the Crowdcube experts sanctioned to allow the equity investments and with no hope whatsoever of returning investors principal sums let alone any ROI.

Can we not do any better than this?  


8 comments:

  1. Yes but with the EIS scheme the investor doesn't really lose out to much, it's the tax payer. Again!

    ReplyDelete
  2. What regulation would you like to see Crowdfunding subject to?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have said here before that new regulation is not the answer - we just need to change the attitude of the platforms. Maybe a central body which holds all of the pitch information so that investors have access would help.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Would that be a taxpayer paid for central body or an industry paid for body?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would suggest an industry paid for body - although the Government might see the benefit in not issuing so many EIS and SEIS tax rebates for companies that have folded - costing HMRC large sums in unpaid tax and NI and leaving a trail of unpaid creditors. It is a far more complex situation than the platforms would have us believe!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wouldn't an industry paid for regulator be toothless?

    ReplyDelete