due diligence

DreamFunded – Crowdfunding the Dream – Poorly

Capital Markets, Investors, Issuers , , , , ,

One of my pet peeves about the crowdfunding industry is that the so-called professionals take Pollyanna views of bad acts and bad actors. They ignore felons and felonies. When someone screws over investors, they make excuses or worse, simply ignore it.

When the SEC brought its very first action against a crowdfunded offering, Ascenergy, I wrote an article about it. I called out how the lack of due diligence would be a problem for the industry. That was in 2015.  A lot of people told me then that the crowdfunding industry would get its act together.

In 2016 when FINRA brought its first action closing down crowdfunding portal UFunding, I wrote an article pointing out the need for better compliance for crowdfunding portals. The crowdfunding industry gave a concerted yawn.

I have written several articles about companies that were raising money on crowdfunding platforms that looked and smelled like scams.  No one else seems willing to do so. The idea of protecting investors from scams and scam artists seems to be an anathema to the crowdfunding industry.

So I really was not that surprised when someone sent me a disciplinary complaint that FINRA had lodged against one of the better known Reg. CF crowdfunding portals last April.  Even though the industry publications had published every press release and puff piece about this portal while it was operating, I could not find even a mention of the FINRA complaint in the crowdfunding media, let alone a serious discussion about what this platform had done wrong. Perhaps I missed it.

It is not like FINRA’s complaint was not noteworthy. The portal, DreamFunded, was owned by Manny Fernandez a serial angel investor, CNBC celebrity, White House invitee and noted author who has appeared on many TV shows and podcasts and in article after article about crowdfunding. If you are going to run any business having a celebrity out front is usually an asset.  But that does not mean that a celebrity can run the business.

Mr. Fernandez was able to assemble a large group of well credentialed advisors for his portal, some of whom were angels and VCs, but all of whom apparently lacked experience in the business that the portal was set up to do, sell securities to investors.  No competent securities attorney was involved even though selling securities is a highly regulated business.

The crowdfunding industry is supposed to follow those regulations but quite often does not.  FINRA’s complaint against DreamFunded and Mr. Fernandez lays out a road map exactly on how not to run a crowdfunding portal. And, again, the industry has ignored it.

At the heart of the complaint is the fact that companies that were selling securities on the platform were lying to investors or making unsupported claims about their business. That is securities fraud, plain and simple.  Every crowdfunding platform or portal is supposed to take steps to see that it does not happen.  DreamFunded listed fraudulent offerings on its portal even when the fraud was obvious. And worse, Fernandez affirmatively told lies to investors himself to help at least one of those companies scam investors.

DreamFunded operated as a funding portal beginning in July 2016, shortly after Reg. CF became effective, until November 2017 when FINRA apparently began to ask questions about its operation. During that time, it managed to list only 15 companies. How many of those offerings actually raised the funds they were seeking is not disclosed. FINRA takes specific issue with three of the offerings.

The first was a social networking company that had no assets, revenue, or operating history.  Notwithstanding, it claimed a $1 million valuation without providing any support or basis for that valuation. Valuation of pre-revenue start-ups is a significant problem in crowdfunding but you will not find a discussion about it at any of the industry conferences.

The company also claimed that it was in a “$9B market,” that it could achieve a “$900MM+ market cap” and that it projected 100 million active users by its fifth year of operation.  The company claimed that its exit strategy was to be acquired at a sales target of $500 million, which would provide a significant return to investors. The company then listed numerous well-established internet and technology companies as potential “strategic acquisition partners” with no basis or support for doing so.

The company closed its offering early without notifying investors as it was required to do.   “DreamFunded, through Fernandez, transferred the investor funds raised through DreamFunded’s portal to the personal checking account of the company’s CEO. Communications from the CEO available to DreamFunded and Fernandez at that time indicated that the relevant checking account had a negative account balance and was being charged overdraft fees.” No competent securities lawyer would have allowed that to happen but apparently consulting with an attorney who understood this business was not in Mr. Fernandez’ playbook.

The second of those offerings involved a health and wellness company, which claimed assets of less than $5,000 and prior-year (2016) revenue of $12,250. Elsewhere it also claimed assets of $2.3 million, which it attributed almost entirely to an online content library, though it provided no support or basis for this valuation.

Moreover, the company’s “business plan” projected 2017 revenue of $500,000 and 2018 revenue of $2 million but provided no basis or support for these projections.  According to FINRA, the company made unrealistic comparisons between itself and established companies and falsely implied that it was endorsed by a leading entertainment and lifestyle celebrity.

DreamFunded stated on its website that it followed the Angel Capital Association’s “strict due diligence guidelines,” the purpose of which was to “mitigate investment risk by gaining an understanding of a company and its market.” DreamFunded also claimed that the firm’s “due diligence and deal flow screening team screened each company that applied to be featured on the DreamFunded platform.”

DreamFunded and Fernandez did not follow the Angel Capital Association’s due diligence guidelines. Likewise, DreamFunded did not have a due diligence and deal flow screening team. Its claims of due diligence and deal flow screening were false and unwarranted and were designed to mislead investors into a false sense of security regarding the level of due diligence conducted with respect to the offerings featured on the DreamFunded portal.

There is a horrible lack of real due diligence in the crowdfunding industry but that is really not the problem here.  In plain English, the problem here, in my opinion, is Mr. Fernandez’ lack of honesty and integrity. The problem is that Mr. Fernandez apparently has a problem telling investors the truth.

Fernandez was a guest on a cable television network program that purported to match inventors with investors. On the program, Fernandez claimed to have invested $1 million for 30 percent ownership in a third company which subsequently conducted an offering through DreamFunded’s funding portal. Fernandez had not, in fact, made any investment in the company. His statement that he had made an investment was a lie and it seems that it was intended to help that company successfully complete its offering on the platform.

Despite the fact that he lied to investors, I am confident that Fernandez could have settled this complaint with FINRA and would have been permitted to continue to operate DreamFunded provided he cleaned up his act. There are larger FINRA member firms which have done far worse that FINRA has fined but whose memberships they have not revoked.  But Mr. Fernandez’ duplicity did not end with lying to investors, it looks like he lied to FINRA as well.

From the FINRA complaint:

“On January 5 and January 19, 2018, DreamFunded and Fernandez provided limited document productions in response to only a subset of the requests contained in the Rule 8210 request. For example, they did not produce financial records, bank account statements and investor agreements responsive to the request. Without such documents, FINRA staff was unable to fully investigate whether Fernandez and/or DreamFunded violated additional rules in connection with their fundraising efforts conducted ostensibly on behalf of DreamFunded. 

The January 19 production was accompanied by a doctor’s note representing that Fernandez was ill and unable to work between January 17 and January 20, 2018. In light of the doctor’s note, FINRA staff granted DreamFunded and Fernandez yet another extension of time, until January 29, 2018, to provide a complete response to the Rule 8210 request.

On January 25, 2018, new counsel informed FINRA staff that he too would no longer be representing DreamFunded or Fernandez. The following day, Fernandez sent FINRA staff a second doctor’s note, this one dated January 23, 2018, which stated that Fernandez would be unable to resume a normal workload until February 5, 2018. The note did not identify any illness that Fernandez was suffering from or otherwise specify the reason for his alleged inability to work. Moreover, during the time period when Fernandez claimed he was incapacitated, his social media posts indicate that he traveled out of town to enjoy, among other things, a film festival in Salt Lake City and a concert in Las Vegas.”

In truth, Mr. Fernandez did not want to maintain his membership in FINRA.  At the first whiff of the investigation he filed the paperwork to withdraw his membership and just walked away.

What he left behind were perhaps thousands of investors who were defrauded and a number of start-ups and small companies that may be sued by those investors.  These are investors who gave crowdfunding a try and who are unlikely to give it a try again. As I said, the crowdfunding industry has refused to condemn this fraud and in my opinion is shooting itself in the foot by ignoring it.

Operating a crowdfunding platform can be a very lucrative business. There is no shortage of small companies looking for funding. Several of the Reg. CF portals charge 7% of the money that a company raises and take a carried interest in the companies which can be very valuable if one actually takes off.  I can tell you from experience that a good portal should be able to raise $2-$3 million a month or more.  Paired with a Reg. D platform side by side, a good team could demonstrate that the JOBS Act can deliver everything it promised.

I have actually worked in the securities industry; this is my home turf.  If I had a backer, I would open a crowdfunding portal tomorrow because a well run portal can make a lot of money. (This is a serious request. I am actually looking for a backer who wants to make more than reasonable ROI. Send me an e-mail if you want to fund a crowdfunding portal run by a serious team of professionals.)

As for Mr. Fernandez, like a lot of people who failed at crowdfunding he has apparently moved on to greener pastures. He currently speaks at crypto currency conferences and undoubtedly holding himself out as a financial “professional”.

The crowdfunding industry is busy lobbying Congress asking it to change the rules to make it easier for more small investors to participate in this marketplace. Perish the thought that they should spend any time or effort cleaning their own house first. Lobbying for more investors without real compliance with the existing rules and protecting the investors they already have is really a waste of time.

BrightCOIN- The Legally Compliant ICO?

Capital Markets, Issuers, Law , , , ,

I recently read an article citing a study that concluded that as many as 81% of initial coin offerings (ICOs) are scams. Several people contested that number but it cannot be too far off. If you have more than a cursory interest in crypto currency and ICOs it is hard to miss all of the discussion about ICO scams and what to do about them.

There is a general consensus among many in the ICO community that the ICOs need to stop kidding themselves that they are not securities and begin to seriously comply with US securities laws.  In crypto industry parlance, there is an expectation that ICOs have begun to evolve into STOs (securities token offerings).

A company issuing a securities token will need to register the offering with the SEC or seek an exemption from registration such as Regulation D.  Most STOs will be sold under Reg. D,in part because the SEC has yet to approve a registered offering and does not seem to be in any hurry to do so. US securities laws require that investors be given full disclosure of the facts that they need to make an intelligent decision whether or not to invest.

Around the same time, I came across a discussion on LinkedIn about an ICO for a company called BrightCOIN. The company is raising between $1 and $40 million to expand its tech platform which enables companies to launch their ICO in a “legally compliant” manner.

I read the white paper which is anything but legally complaint and I said so on LinkedIn. This got some brush back by the company’s CEO who commented, among other things that the company had a great lawyer who had helped prepare the white paper.  The CEO claims to be a Y Combinator alumnus with several successful start-ups under his belt. So, of course, he should have an excellent lawyer.

I offered to explain why I thought that lawyer needed to go back to law school and the CEO scheduled two appointments with me so the lawyer could tell me that he was right and I was wrong. They cancelled both appointments at the last minute.

The ICO for BrightCOIN is intended to be a Reg. D offering. I would have thought that since it was selling a service and a platform where other companies can make “legally compliant” offerings, BrightCOIN would have taken pains to make its own offering “legally complaint”. They missed by a mile.

The BrightCOIN offering document is in what is now being called a “white paper format”.  If you look at a lot of ICOs, a great many use this format. I do not know where it originated, but it does not generally make the disclosures that are required for a Reg. D offering in the format that the SEC expects. Using this format is an invitation to the SEC, state regulators and class action lawyers to come after you.

A Reg.D offering is also called a private placement and the offering document is called a private placement memorandum (PPM). There is a reason that most PPMs look alike. Back in the 1980s and 1990s regulators in several states required hands on review of every offering. I personally spent hours on the phone with the staff at these various state agencies going over specific language in Reg. D offerings. They usually wanted additional disclaimers; more risk disclosures; the words “this is a speculative investment” in the cover page in bold.

Congress eventually took away the states’ ability to comment on these offerings; but a lot of lawyers, including me, appreciate that much of what they wanted amounted to good practice. Disclosures are made for the benefit of the company that is raising the money. They are a prophylactic against legal action claiming fraud and misrepresentation.

BrightCOIN calls itself the Kickstarter for ICOs.  It is essentially a crowdfunding platform for ICOs including those private placements offered under Reg. D and registered offerings filed under Reg. A+.  BrightCOIN charges no upfront fees and will provide everything that a company needs to prepare and launch an ICO including “audited documentation”.

Of course Kickstarter does not handle any securities offerings. They operate in the world of “rewards based crowdfunding”, not securities crowdfunding, so the comparison to Kickstarter that BrightCOIN makes in its ICO white paper is meaningless.

Elsewhere BrightCOIN claims that it will become the “next Goldman Sachs” and compares itself to Goldman, Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan.  The white paper included the logos for those companies, all of which I suspect are trademarked.

Did Merrill Lynch give permission for its trademark to be used in this offering? Does Goldman Sachs even know that BrightCOIN exists?  Is there any way to read this hyperbole and not consider it to be misleading?

BrightCOIN claims that its tech platform is valuable because an entrepreneur considering launching their own Reg. A+ or Reg. D offering in the form of a token might spend as much as $500,000 to have the tech built.  By “tech” it appears to be speaking about the crowdfunding platform that they are offering.

The last time I saw a bid to build a crowdfunding platform from scratch (November 2017) the cost was $50,000 and that had some unique CRM capabilities built in. I made a few calls and to add a token capability to that would cost no more than another $50,000 and probably a lot less. Where BrightCOIN gets that $500,000 number is anyone’s guess.

In any event there is no reason to create the crowdfunding technology from scratch. If you want to open your own crowdfunding platform there are several companies that offer white label products for a small upfront fee and even smaller monthly charge. At least one that I know of comes with AML/KYC capability attached.

For any offering of securities to be “compliant” it must present information in such a way that it is balanced to point that it is not misleading. The BrightCOIN white paper is full of interesting and unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Around the world, it appears that 10% of the funds that have been invested in ICOs have been hacked. BrightCOIN claims its platform is “100% hack proof”.  I have spoken with large, mainstream financial institutions that spend a lot of money making their platforms “hack-resistant” but I do not know a single attorney who would put the phrase “100% hack proof” in a securities offering document.  The truth is no one knows if a platform is hack proof until it happens.

The white paper discusses how BrightCOIN can be used to “tokenize” assets like real estate making those assets more accessible to small investors who will be able to trade those tokens on a global basis. The white paper notes (in bold type) that there are over $200 trillion worth of assets that can be tokenized.  In the context it is presented, that statement is akin to me saying that there are 1 million single women in California implying that I will always have a date on Saturday night.

BrightCOIN claims their platform is fully functional and that they are already in business. Do they disclose how many offerings they have done and how much money those offerings have raised? They do not. They also claim that they offer consulting services to help a company prepare and market its ICO. Do they identify the people who perform these services? No.

BrightCOIN estimates that it may be able to list and sell 20 ICOs per month and might be able to take in $6.5 million per month in “success fees” if it does. The lawyer who they claim prepared this offering and who was supposed to call me and explain it to me should have told them that unless the platform is a licensed broker/dealer “success fees” are forbidden.  No where does the white paper suggest that BrightCOIN intends to become a licensed broker/dealer.

People always ask me how is it that I can spot these scams when other people cannot.  In most cases, like here, they do not pass the simple “smell test”. The founder, in my opinion, should simply stop this offering until it is actually compliant. If not people at Y Combinator should pull him aside and ask that he stop using their name.

In my opinion, the attorney, if he actually wrote this offering, which I doubt, should go back to chasing ambulances.  When you prepare an offering of securities, it is expected that people will call up and ask some questions as part of their due diligence investigation. Any attorney, who agrees to field those questions, cancels two phone calls and makes no attempt to reschedule them, should refund the client’s money.

The entire ICO market has been one con after another. Telling investors the truth is not that difficult but it seems to be the one thing that the ICOs just cannot seem to do.

 

Fake Business News

Capital Markets , ,

I think I first heard that we were entering the “Information Age” in the 1990s. The internet was just coming on-line. It promised that every book ever written would be available without a trip to the library. It promised that I could view every painting in every museum in the world without ever getting on an airplane.

In just two decades we have become inundated with information that is simply false. I am not talking about political “fake news” or “fake facts” spewed by politicians. No one in their right mind expects politicians to be truthful.

The internet has become a prime source of financial information and anyone can add to the growing library, even if they have no idea what they are talking about.  The world is full of information about finance that is pure fantasy.

For a great many years I got my business news daily from the Wall Street Journal. When I moved to San Francisco in the1980’s I started reading the San Jose Mercury News because it had the best tech reporters around.

I admit that I am somewhat of an information junkie especially as it regards business, the economy and the financial markets.  I currently watch the national news on PBS or CNN. I have been known to watch Bloomberg TV especially the shows focused on European and Asian markets. I read scientific and tech journals and law review articles. I am an old dog trying to learn new tricks. I want to keep up with what is going on in finance, law and technology.

That is one of the reasons that I like LinkedIn.  I have connected with people all over the world and through them I get articles about many things that are going on in the global marketplace that I would not otherwise read.  But not every one of those articles has any value at all.

Some of the articles are written by people who call themselves strategists, influencers, gurus, visionaries, evangelists and futurists.  Many seem to be self-appointed experts without credentials or experience.  Some just regurgitate stupidity because they cannot discern good information from bad information or ask intelligent questions about what they are reading.

Is it unfair to expect that someone who holds themselves out as an expert in finance have an MBA or have worked in finance?  Is it unfair to expect someone commenting on a fairly complex legal issue to have graduated from law school?

This seems to have carried over to the mainstream financial press. There are “experts” contributing columns to Forbes and Fortune who could not find their way out of a paper bag. They lack context, perspective and expertise.  So much is the need for content that quality has gone out the window.  The desire for “views” and “likes” is more important than the quality of thought that goes into the writing.

This has also migrated over to the conference circuit. When I go to a conference, I want to learn something valuable from people who know what they are talking about. I want to hear speakers who have been in the trenches; those who have walked the walk.

Many conferences refuse to pay for the best speakers opting instead for those who will speak for free and pay their own way in exchange for “exposure”.  Some conferences charge speakers to appear. This eliminates many of the best academics and usually people from big companies who do not need the exposure and certainly are not going to pay for it.

There has always been some amount of fake news about some businesses. Tobacco companies said that smoking did not cause cancer; coal and oil companies deny global warming.  You would expect a salesperson or CEO to say that their company’s product is the best or their service the fastest and that is not troubling. But there were always rules.

For any company with investors the dissemination of financial information is regulated. Every press release and often every advertisement is usually vetted by  the company’s lawyers to assure accuracy and compliance.

When a public company published financial information it was presumed that the information was accurate. There would be auditors looking over managements’ shoulders in any event.  There are quarterly phone calls with analysts who ask questions. If management gets a reputation for being too optimistic on a recurring basis, people know about it and begin to discount what they are saying.

If you worked for any large company, when you made a statement in public you always represented that company. You were expected to maintain a professional demeanor, to go out of your way not be controversial or say something that might make the company look bad.  You were always expected not say something that was stupid or inaccurate. That is still true in many cases but it is far from universal and it seems to be less and less true as time goes on.

This becomes a serious problem when a small company is trying to obtain funding from investors.  Investors are entitled to a full and fair disclosure of the actual facts.  Most of the Wall Street firms take care to verify the facts that they are passing on to investors but this has become a significant problem on the fringes of finance like Crowdfunding and investors are getting ripped off every day.

I speak with people every week who want to raise funds for their business. I appreciate that many of the people who contact me have done some research first. But just because you heard something at a Ted Talk or read an article in Inc. does not make it real.

One of the core premises in the Crowdfunding market is that the investors can fend for themselves or that the crowd will be able to separate good investments from bad ones. That is simply not true, has never been true and is unlikely to become true.  The vast majority of investors have no idea what questions to ask and if they do, they have no ability to verify whether the answers they get from the company are true.

This “fake” news often shows up in the company’s sales projections. Projections in an offering are always rosy but the projections need to have some basis in fact. I have asked people who are Crowdfunding their offering how they arrived at their sales projections and many have no idea if their product is priced correctly or what their competition is offering.

I try to be pretty careful about what I write on this blog. I limit my articles to areas which I know fairly well, finance, law, investments and economics. I do a fair amount of research for any article. When I write articles for this blog, all of which are read over by a colleague before I publish them, I always ask myself “would I be willing to say that to a judge?”

I have been taught to be a critical thinker. I think that the best lawyers are. I was taught to question facts and assumptions. As a lawyer I try to understand the underlying transaction and the expectations of the parties whether I am writing the paperwork or litigating over someone else’s.  It carries over to this blog and other articles that I write.

When I started this blog I said that I was constantly amazed by the vast amount of patently foolish investment advice in the marketplace and promised to call out financial foolishness whenever I see it.  I never expected that so much of that false information would present itself or that so many people would accept that information without question.

So far I used the blog to point out the obvious facts that 1) robo-investment advisors, in part because they are looking backwards not forwards, are virtually useless; 2) investing in a cannabis related company has the extra risk of investing in a business that is patently illegal; 3) the Crowdfunding industry needs to act like responsible intermediaries because the offerings are either bad investments or fraudulent and 4) crypto-currency has limited utility as a method of finance in part because it is a very expensive way to raise money.

You should certainly be aware that there are a great many articles out there that see the world very differently on each of these subjects. The more time I spend reading what is out there, the more I know that I have my work cut out for me.  The simple truth is that markets need accurate information in order to operate efficiently.

 

ShiftPixy – A Reg. A+ Question Mark?

Investors, Issuers , ,

 I frequently get into discussions with proponents of Regulation A+ who believe small investors should be encouraged to invest in start-ups.  The proponents argue that small investors are being deprived of the opportunity to invest in new companies that may turn into the next Facebook.  Why, these proponents ask, should these “opportunities” only be available to Wall Street fat cats and the wealthiest 1% of the population?

The proponents of Reg. A+ shine the spotlight on those companies that have made successful offerings. That is a function of the sales and marketing effort. They fail to discuss the fact that just because an offering is successful does not mean that the company itself is a good investment.

Proponents of Reg. A+ and especially those who suggest that start-ups are suitable investments for small investors have convinced themselves that these small investors have the skills necessary to evaluate investments.  They constantly tell me that small investors can judge a company and separate the good investments from the not-so-good ones.

In the mainstream markets the task of judging the potential for success of a private company that is about to go public is left to very highly paid investment bankers and research analysts.  It takes a great many hours of hard work and in the end these highly paid professionals do not always get it right.

Simply put, evaluating a new company as an investment is a lot like sizing up a doughnut.  You are attracted to the sweet frosting which is the reward, but you really need to focus on the hole. The hole is what is left out. No company can succeed if key components are absent.

Whenever you evaluate a start-up as an investment the essential question is always the same; given the information presented, can the management make it happen?  Can they execute their business plan with the talent on their team and the money that they are going to raise?

This brings us to a company called ShiftPixy, Inc. which is currently making a Reg. A+ offering of 2 million shares that will be priced at between $6 and $8 per share.  Although the company is only 2 years old, it shows sales of $65 million in the last six months and may have gross sales of $125 million in 2017. There is even a research report from Zacks which suggests that the shares could be worth $12.60 in 2018. Not bad for a start-up. There is a lot of tasty frosting on this doughnut.

According to the registration statement the company is “a leading provider of employment law compliance solutions for businesses and workers in an environment in which shift or other part-time/temporary positions, commonly called ‘gigs’ are performed.”

Essentially, the company provides shift workers, currently in the restaurant and hospitality industries.  Customers move their workers over to be employed by ShiftPixy which then acts as a staffing agency for the customer. By pooling the employees of many smaller companies, ShiftPixy can administrate the human resource management function with economies of scale.

“In return for providing insurance, payroll processing, benefits, and compliance services these enterprises pay ShiftPixy a fee based on their payroll that is much less than the cost of doing these functions in house.”

The registration statement says: “A significant problem for employers in the Gig Economy involves compliance with regulations imposed by federal, state and local governments, including requirements associated with worker’s compensation insurance, and other traditional employment compliance issues, including the employer mandate provisions of the Affordable Care Act.”

I agree that this is a significant problem and any company that can solve a significant problem is worthy of attention.  Government regulations and the attendant paperwork can be expensive and strict compliance is a requirement at every level. A company that can provide employees to other companies while retaining the burden of benefits and paperwork would seem to have a good chance of success.

But can they?  The move to the “gig” economy is being fueled by the employer’s desire to reduce the cost of employees.  According the financial reports in the registration statement, ShiftPixy had deployed fewer than 1800 employees to other companies through the end of February 2017.  How much of an extra fee per employee do they charge?  How much of an extra fee will employers be willing to pay?

The financial reports in the registration statement are not audited. This is not a requirement for a Tier 1 Reg. A+ offering and it is one of my pet peeves.  I have seen too many questionable financial statements over the years.  Proponents of selling Reg. A+ shares to smaller investors necessarily assume that those investors are adept at reading and analyzing a financial statement even as accounting and MBA students struggle to learn how to do it properly.

How does ShiftPixy’s gross margin of compare with competing firms?  Do the smaller investors in this offering know enough to ask that question? Do they know how to find the answer?

For this offering, let’s stick with the more simplistic: can the management make it happen?

In this case the company has two founders; Scott Absher and J. Stephen Holmes. Mr. Absher is the current CEO. The only other executive officer is a newly appointed CFO.  There is a single outside director from another industry.  Since February 2010 Mr. Absher has also been President of Struxurety, a business insurance advisory company.  Neither Mr. Absher, the CFO, outside director or anyone else at the company seems to have any connection to the staffing industry.

There are several well known staffing companies from whom an executive or two might have been acquired. That does not seem to be a priority and it is the primary reason why I have trouble answering the question “can management make it happen?” in the affirmative.

The other founder, Mr. Holmes is not an officer or employee of the company. He is an independent contractor focusing upon building a sales network and providing consulting in relation to worker’s compensation programs as well as Affordable Care Act health insurance programs that the company will offer.  The registration statement notes that he is not involved in any part of the accounting or taxpaying and IRS return filing areas of ShiftPixy’s operations.

I suspect the reason for that disclosure is Mr. Holmes was convicted “for acts related to making false statements in relation to two quarterly IRS Form 941 Employer Federal Quarterly tax returns, one in 1996 and the second 1997, for a company for which he was an officer at the time.” That disclosure is in the registration statement. It does not disclose that Mr. Holmes was sentenced to 15 months of incarceration and apparently served at least part of it.

In order to find out the actual disposition of the case, I had to do some additional research. If you are evaluating any investment, you always need to look at facts outside of the offering paperwork in order to give what you are reading proper context.  That is what is meant by looking at the hole in the doughnut.

I am not here to sling mud. I, for one, think everyone who serves their time is entitled to a second chance. Mr. Holmes, because he owns over 12 million shares of the company will remain a “control person” of the company. He is going to be building up the sales force, not dealing with the paperwork involving taxes or employees. Being able to do that paperwork is this company’s critical task.

That brings us back to Mr. Absher, the CEO, who apparently has also had some issues with government required paperwork.  The registration statement discloses that: “On June 25, 2013, the Alabama Securities Commission issued a Cease and Desist Order (the “Order”) against Scott W. Absher and other named persons and entities, requiring that they cease and desist from further offers or sales of any security in the State of Alabama. The Order asserts, regarding Mr. Absher, that he was the president of a Company that issued unregistered securities to certain Alabama residents, that he was the owner of a company that was seeking investments, and that in March 2011 he spoke to an Alabama resident who was an investor in one of the named entities. The Order concludes that Mr. Absher and others caused the offer or sale of unregistered securities through unregistered agents.

Per the registration statement: “While Mr. Absher disputes many of the factual statements and specifically that he was an owner or officer of any of the entities involved in the sale of the unregistered securities to Alabama residents or that he authorized any person to solicit investments for his company, in the interest of allowing the matter to become resolved, he did not provide a response.”

If Mr. Absher was not an owner or officer of the company in question, he likely could have contested it by filing an affidavit with the State of Alabama.  In my experience, intentionally taking a default, usually indicates that the allegations are true and not worth the effort of fighting. By allowing this order to be entered these facts are deemed to be true.  Saying that he disputes them now has no legal effect and, to me, raises a “red flag”.

There is no prohibition against selling unregistered securities in Alabama (or anywhere else) as long as you file a form with the state, pay the filing fee and make the proper disclosures.  Given that the state of Alabama says that some of that did not happen, it seems difficult for me to imagine that Mr. Absher is well suited for the difficult world of employment law compliance.

I claim no expertise in employment law. I do know that it can be complex and that some aspects of it vary location to location. San Francisco, for example, prohibits employment discrimination and harassment based on the employee’s height and weight. That cannot be the law everywhere.

I would have expected to find an experienced employment lawyer, or more than one on the payroll of this company.  They do not disclose that they have one, nor do they seem intent on hiring one after the offering although “employment law compliance solutions” is what they sell.

Much of the current focus of ShiftPixy is in the restaurant and hospitality industry. Reporting and collecting taxes on tips paid to employees in those industries is another burden.  The IRS requires that an employer must ensure that the total tip income reported by employees during any pay period is, at a minimum, equal to 8% of the total receipts for that period.

ShiftPixy has responsibility to file the paperwork because they are the employer but they have no access to the cash register to see if the information they are reporting is correct or in line with that requirement.  The financial reports also note that there has already been a $280,000 reversal of a charge for workman’s compensation expenses that were “misclassified”. So to me this company has not demonstrated that it can solve the problem that it claims to solve.

ShiftPixy is a staffing/HR company that seems to lack any employees with significant expertise in this often complex field. I would have expected to have seen several people with this expertise in senior management and there is no mention of the need or intent to hire any at the culmination of the offering.

The company sells employment law compliance without employment lawyers and accounting services where everyone important to the company has prior problems with government paperwork.  There are other staffing companies and there is nothing here that screams “we are better.”

Any start-up that is going to compete in an established industry needs to distinguish itself.  To me, this company distinguishes itself by the size of the hole in the doughnut. I think that it specifically lacks the people who can get the job done.

It would seem to have been in Mr. Asher and Mr. Holmes’ best interest to fill this company with knowledgeable employees.  Each of the two founders owns in excess of 12 million shares. If the offering is completed at $7 per share it will increase their net worth by $90 million each. If the share price goes to over $12 in a year as Zacks suggests, by over $150 million each.  With that much on the table I find it surprising that the company seems to be so careless about hiring people with appropriate skills.

Finally, I noted that the attorney who prepared the registration statement was given rights to buy 200,000 founder’s shares at par value $.0001. No other legal fees were charged.

There is nothing illegal about this. Some securities lawyers accept stock in lieu of cash; personally I do not.  I think that it creates the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In a money center like New York or San Francisco, a lawyer preparing a Reg. A+ offering might charge $150,000.  If this lawyer’s gamble pays off and the share value does top $12 per share, he might walk off with more than $2.5 million.  He will be on his yacht while I am still writing blog articles.

Of course if the disclosures later prove to be somehow deficient and a regulator comes in and investigates, an allegation that the lawyer cut corners to get the offering sold may be hard to avoid.

In my opinion what this company lacks is the internal talent to perform the complex tasks that it is selling. It is talent that its more established competitors certainly have and without which I do not think this company can succeed.

The talent at this company is so thin and the payday so concentrated, there is certainly enough here for me to have considered that this offering may be nothing more or less than two people with checkered pasts trying to put one over on unsuspecting investors.  I am more skeptical than most people, but skepticism is what people who evaluate start-ups are supposed to have.

 

 

Regulatory Compliance in Crowdfunding

Capital Markets, Issuers, Law , , , ,

The more that I blog or comment about the foolishness in the Crowdfunding industry the more people seem to want to shoot the messenger. Of late, several prominent people in the industry have taken umbrage at my comments; a few have gotten personal. Obviously, I have hit a nerve.

I have never been a particular fan of regulation.  I do, however, appreciate that regulations keep the food supply safe, make the air and water cleaner and force people to buckle up their children into their cars that saves many young lives every year.

I also appreciate that the US capital markets are heavily regulated which keeps many of the scoundrels out. It also helps keep investor confidence in the market high and facilitates the formation and intermediation of capital upon which the entire economy relies. Many people see Wall Street as a den of thieves and want more regulation.  The Crowdfunding industry wants less.

The Crowdfunding industry seems to universally hate regulation. A loud cheer went up from the industry when a federal appellate court recently shot down an attempt by state securities regulators to review Crowdfunded offerings.  I doubt a single one of the cheering throng ever had a private placement reviewed by a state regulator. If they had, they might think differently.

Back in the 1980’s many states required private offerings to be reviewed. You would file the offering, pay the fee and usually get back a letter with comments. It was pretty clear from the comments that some knowledgeable attorney working for the state had actually read the document. You could just make the suggested corrections or get that attorney on the phone to discuss them. I never found the process to be adversarial.

To the contrary, I always took some comfort knowing that a seasoned professional had reviewed the document and passed on it. If one of the offerings had later been questioned by an unhappy investor, I would have taken comfort in being able to tell a judge that I had reviewed the offering with regulators in half a dozen states.

At this writing, only ten firms have registered with FINRA to become Crowdfunding portals under Title III of the Jobs Act. A portal will be able to offer Crowdfunded securities to non-accredited investors. It is something that a great many people in the Crowdfunding industry wanted. More firms will certainly take the plunge and register with FINRA to become portals as time goes on.

The Crowdfunding industry sees a need to offer these speculative investments to mom and pop investors. Everyone understands that most Crowdfunded startups will fail. Notwithstanding, the industry continues to stress the “opportunity” for mom and pop to invest in the next Amazon or Facebook.

To be fair, most of the people in the Crowdfunding industry are content to offer investments only to accredited investors on platforms that comply with Title II of the Jobs Act. Many appreciate that hundreds of billions of dollars worth of private placements are successfully sold by the mainstream financial industry every year and follow the well trodden path to success.

Let’s be clear about the fact that owning a Crowdfunding platform or portal can be a lucrative business. Issuers in the mainstream Reg. D private placement market often pay a 10% commission, most of which goes to the individual stock broker who makes the sale. Many Crowdfunding platforms charge a similar listing fee for each offering, all of which goes to the house.

There are a number of people in the Crowdfunding industry who are convinced that regulatory burdens are keeping Crowdfunding from reaching its full potential. They want Congress or the SEC to ease the regulatory scheme for Crowdfunded offerings. The primary concern is that compliance costs too much. The obvious retort is that non-compliance is likely to cost more.

The securities laws, both state and federal, deal primarily with the issuance and trading of securities. They are designed to provide transparency and stability to the capital formation process that is central to our entire economy. If you were to boil all of the laws and regulations down to a single word, that word would be “disclosure”.

FINRA has its own rules which govern the day to day operations of its member firms. A Crowdfunding portal will have no need to concern itself with most of FINRA’s rules. The portal is not trading securities, issuing research reports or handling transactions in options.

Three specific FINRA rules will get the most attention; the rule regarding investor suitability; the rule regarding communications with the public; and the rules regarding the offering and sale of private placements.

FINRA’s suitability rule restricts investment recommendations to those within the customer’s risk tolerance. Every customer who purchases a security on a Crowdfunding portal is buying a speculative investment. Every customer agrees that they understand they can lose every dollar they are investing and that they can afford to sustain the loss. Under the Crowdfunding rules the amount of money that a non-accredited investors can invest is limited. Compliance with the suitability rule is cheap and easy.

FINRA likewise has a fairly comprehensive set of guidelines regarding advertising materials and other communications with the public.  In most cases a portal will use a “tombstone” advertisement which is also cheap and easy.

Other marketing materials for each offering of securities will need to provide accurate information and a balanced presentation of what the investment provides and does not provide.  This applies to the videos with which the Crowdfunding industry seems enamored. If a video is used in conjunction with any offering the video must be accurate, balanced and otherwise comply with the advertising rules.  Again, compliance with these rules is cheap and relatively easy.

The most expensive rules with which a portal or platform will need to comply deals with the sale of private placements. The rules mandate a “reasonable” investigation of private placement offerings. FINRA issued specific guidelines for the offering and sale of private placements in 2010.

Those guidelines (FINRA Notice to Members 10-22) provide: “While BDs are not expected to have the same knowledge as an issuer or its management, firms are required to exercise a “high degree of care” in investigating and “independently” verifying an issuer’s representations and claims. Indeed, when an issuer seeks to finance a new speculative venture, BDs “must be particularly careful in verifying the issuer’s obviously self-serving statements.” The Notice goes on to make suggestions for how due diligence investigations are to be conducted in various circumstances and for various types of offerings.  It highlights the need to identify “red flags” and to resolve them.

The Notice also references several securities anti-fraud statutes, judicial opinions and enforcement actions. There is really nothing new here. I got my training in due diligence in the 1970s and attended my first conference on due diligence in the early 1980s. Not that much has changed.

The small segment of the FINRA brokerage firms that sell private placements to retail investors has a history of conducting due diligence very poorly.  In most cases, it is because they do not want to spend what it costs to do it right even though they may receive a 1% fee, from the sponsor, to do their own and independent due diligence.

Approximately 90 small FINRA firms sold interests in various real estate offerings made by a company called DBSI. DBSI was operated as a classic Ponzi scheme with previous investors being paid from new investment not operations or profits. When the court appointed receiver sued those firms for a return of the commissions that they had illegally obtained, 50 of the firms went out of business.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts sued Securities America, one of the larger FINRA firms selling private placements over another Ponzi scheme called Medical Capital. Securities America apparently had a due diligence report that raised a number of questions and red flags about Medical Capital and chose to ignore the report. Securities America apparently sold $967 million worth of securities in this Ponzi scheme to retail customers. Medical Capital sold $2.2 billion worth overall. Adequate due diligence would have stopped Medical Capital in its tracks.

Over the years, I have met a number of due diligence professionals who are serious about their job and who do it well. The best bring some judgment and a healthy amount of skepticism to their work. They understand what a “red flag” looks like.

I have also personally cross-examined due diligence officers and industry experts who worked at FINRA firms and outside companies many times.  If they are on the witness stand, it is because I have alleged in the complaint that the loss suffered by the investor could have been avoided. I would argue that if the firm had adequately investigated the offering, they would not have sold it.

Within the first 10 questions I usually ask about their training in due diligence.  Most of the people who do not conduct due diligence investigations correctly were never trained to do so. That fact seems to be true in the Crowdfunding industry as well.

It is also true that due diligence investigations for many offerings are not cheap. That is the primary reason that Crowdfunders do not like to be reminded that they are required to do it. If a company approaches a platform on Monday and the due diligence report is ready on Wednesday, the odds are that the investigation was inadequate.

I wrote a blog article last fall when the SEC brought its first enforcement action against a Crowdfunded company, Ascenergy. The article was reprinted in several Crowdfunding publications. I do not believe that the Crowdfunding industry wants to offer the public fraudulent offerings. I think that most people in the industry unfortunately do not know how to spot one.

I also wrote a blog article about Elio Motors.  I chronicled a number of red flags that I saw when the shares were being offered. Those included the fact that the firm had no patentable product and was raising less money than it needed to deliver one by a factor of 20.  Elio had apparently been taking orders and promising delivery before it made its offering and continues to take orders and deposits even though it has no way to deliver the product.  Notwithstanding, many people in the Crowdfunding industry herald Elio Motors as a success because it was one of the first to raise funds under the new Reg. A+.

The very first call I received about the article was from a class action attorney who saw what I saw.  I suspect that the attorney had someone buy some shares in Elio so that he will be first in line to file a class action when Elio goes under. You can bet that the officers, directors, lawyers and Crowdfunding platforms that participated in the offering will all get sued when the time comes.

Some people in the industry seem to think that if they do not register with FINRA these rules do not apply to them.  Actually, the rules are what is known as a “codification of reasonable conduct” which was a phrase the SEC used to use for rules that were proposed but not finalized. If you sell private offerings on your platform that turn out to be fraudulent, you can explain to the judge why you ignored these simple rules that would have avoided the fraud and protected the investors.

Some people in the Crowdfunding industry despise regulation because they believe that the inherent unfairness of the capital markets that keeps otherwise worthy entrepreneurs from becoming billionaires.  I could glibly remind you that life isn’t fair but the truth is there is no data to support this particular unfairness.

There have always been ways for entrepreneurs and small businesses to get funded.  Before Crowdfunding, entrepreneurs worked two jobs or hustled family and friends for startup cash. The SBA has pumped billions of dollars directly to this market for decades. We managed to get the light bulb, radio and the personal computer into the marketplace before Crowdfunding.  There is far more venture capital money around today than ever before.

There are certainly many professionals in this industry who are doing it right. But there are also many who write blogs, give interviews and put on conferences that do not.  This is the group that keeps chanting, “Regulation is killing Crowdfunding”.  Respectfully, foolish amateurs are killing Crowdfunding with a desire to change the rules rather than play by them. There is much too much hype and much too little substance in this industry.

The fulcrum in the Crowdfunding industry is the desire to fund new businesses. There is an amazing lack of concern for the investors, without whom the industry will wither and die.

As a matter of full disclosure, I am currently counseling people actively involved in the Crowdfunding business. I have been advising a group of realistic executives who want to remove the risk from investors in this market. It is not that difficult. They have spoken to a number of existing platforms about this but have gotten no takers. There does not seem to be a serious interest in protecting the investors at any level of the Crowdfunding industry.

I am also counseling established real estate and business brokers who want to add Crowdfunding to their arsenal of capital raising tools. These are two groups that appreciate the value of raising money efficiently and who are beginning to understand how they can leverage Crowdfunding to make money. To no one’s surprise, most are professionals who have been around the block once or twice. They understand that regulations need to be complied with rather than complained about.

I do not go out of my way to seek out negative aspects of the Crowdfunding industry about which to blog or comment. Many of my negative articles were the result of articles by other bloggers. One lawyer in particular who blogs regularly about Crowdfunding made favorable comments about both Elio Motors and Med-X which in my opinion are scams.

The same blogger spoke highly about two vendors to the Crowdfunding industry who offer a lot for very little but who did not impress me as people who could deliver anything of value when I interviewed them. I would be happy to send my clients to a good vendor if the vendor can supply what the clients need. In both of these particular cases, the vendors were too inexpensive to be able to provide what was actually required. Crowdfunders hate to spend their own money to obtain investors’ money.

I fully intend to continue to call out foolishness in the marketplace whenever and wherever I see it.  I think that is especially fair if I see someone who does not want to play by the rules and who wants your money anyway.

 

 

 

FINRA Arbitration- Where Winning Is Not Everything

Law , ,

The Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA) has issued a troubling report to the effect that customers who receive monetary awards in FINRA arbitration forums frequently cannot collect.

Using data from 2013, PIABA demonstrated that more than $62 million in awards made to public customers by FINRA arbitrators in that year went unpaid. That amounts to 1 out of 3 cases where investors went through the arbitration process and won, or nearly $1 of every $4 awarded to investors in all of the arbitration hearings that took place that year.

This is a problem that has been ongoing for many years. FINRA has done little over that time to keep track of unpaid awards and has been reluctant to take any remedial steps. In theory, an award made to a customer by a FINRA panel is due within 30 days. After that it becomes a charge against the firm’s net capital and may lead to disciplinary charges and the firm’s expulsion from FINRA. The latter, of course, hinders collection rather than helping it.

Obviously it is the larger awards rather than the smaller ones that do not get paid. Just as obviously, if the customer dealt with one of the larger firms such as, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley or Charles Schwab, even a large arbitration award is rarely going to be a problem.

Because it is the smaller firms that often opt to go out of business rather than pay a substantial award, PIABA has offered a number of potential solutions including an increase in the minimum requirement for net capital, mandatory liability insurance, broadened SIPC coverage and an industry-wide pool to cover unpaid awards.

I cannot see Merrill Lynch and the larger firms agreeing to fund a pool to cover customers at other firms that they would just as soon have as their own.  And just to be clear, most error and omissions policies carried by FINRA firms specifically exclude actions based upon fraud.

The $62 million in unpaid awards for 2013 is skewed by a single $19 million award that went unpaid and which illustrates the actual problem. The firm that did not pay the award, Western Financial Planning (WFP) actually had insurance, just not enough for its business model.

WFP did not decide to close up shop after the large arbitration award or because of it. It was put out of business by the SEC. A receiver was appointed and assets were managed and sold. Not enough was recovered to pay general creditors like the recipients of the arbitration awards (there were more than a few).

The record does however reflect that WFP sold private placements almost exclusively. Several of the private placements were large Ponzi schemes that resulted in billions of dollars of customer losses causing dozens of small FINRA member firms to close their doors. The only reason that these Ponzi schemes were sold to anyone is that the FINRA firms who sold them did not even attempt to conduct legitimate due diligence investigations to detect the fraud.

Years ago I worked for a law firm that was preparing both public and private real estate offerings. We carried professional liability insurance. The cost was scaled to the dollar amount of offerings that we prepared each year. The more money raised by offerings we prepared, the greater amount of coverage we needed and the premium we were charged went up.

The insurance company sent a representative to our offices. He handed out a multi-page detailed list of documents. “We hope you never have to call upon us to defend you”, he said, “but if you do, this is list of documents about the issue that we would hope to find in your files.” Anyone who thinks that a due diligence investigation is anything other than a way for the issuers, lawyers and brokers to CYA does not understand it.

FINRA has a realistic requirement for due diligence investigations of private offerings that requires member firms to independently verify all of the representations being given to investors.  I had several due diligence officers from smaller firms on the witness stand after the 2008 real estate crash. Almost all just took what the issuer was telling them as gospel. None conducted an independent investigation. You could rarely find a title report or title insurance in their files. None had attended the closing for the property where adjustments are frequently made.

The next crash will assuredly result in arbitrations based upon losses from oil and gas private placements. Where the argument can be made that an office building is an office building, due diligence in the oil and gas industry is very different.

Over the years, I worked on offerings for shallow oil wells in Pennsylvania, deep wells in West Texas, gas wells in Louisiana and at least one shale oil project in Colorado. The due diligence investigation required to verify the facts can differ project by project and state by state. One of the few things that they have in common is they can require multiple experts to conduct an adequate investigation which can obviously run up the cost.

The chance of a small FINRA firm doing an adequate due diligence investigation of an oil and gas offering is slim. I am available as a consulting expert witness for both arbitrations and class actions and I expect that I will be busy.

The problem of unpaid arbitration awards is very much centered in the Reg. D private offering market. It is from investments in the Reg. D market that customers take the huge losses that are the subject of many FINRA arbitrations. Many of the largest Ponzi schemes are sold through private offerings for no other reason than crooks do not want government scrutiny on their offerings.

These offerings are most often sold to retail customers by small firms that specialize in private offerings because the commission on each sale may be many times what it would be on a sale of a similar dollar amount of British Petroleum or ExxonMobil. A broker selling $1 million worth of private placements might take home as much as $90,000 in commissions.

In a registered offering, due diligence is performed by the lead underwriter on behalf of the other firms in the selling group. The issuer pays the lead underwriter for the due diligence process up front before the issue comes to market. In the Reg. D market, each member of the selling group frequently performs their own due diligence and is reimbursed after the fact based upon a fixed percentage of the monies that each firm raises.

This business model where the firms do not get paid for due diligence if they reject the offering and then only get paid based upon how much of an offering that they sell is at the root of the problem. For a large firm doing registered offerings due diligence is a profit center with positive cash flow. For small firms in the Reg. D market it can be an out of pocket cost with questionable reimbursement. Therein lays the problem and the solution.

FINRA might consider requiring a lead underwriter for all Reg. D offerings that mimics the investment banking function for registered offerings. As this is a potentially very profitable enterprise, it is reasonable to believe that some firms would be happy to step up. These firms and only these firms would need enhanced insurance coverage which would be folded into their cost of operations and reflected in the fees that they charge the issuers.

Asking each of the small firms selling Reg. D offerings to purchase insurance against offering statement fraud and adding to the cost of what is already an unprofitable part of their business is not going to gain traction at FINRA. A way to shift the risk profitably to a well compensated lead underwriter might do the trick.

The benefit of loss avoidance in the financial markets which is certainly part of FINRA’s charter should take precedence over insuring recovery costs for the few people who deal with the wrong firms.  It should surprise no one that many people in the brokerage industry do not particularly care for lawyers who make their livings filing customer arbitration claims. The PIABA study, while important, is not likely to stir the industry into action.

Arbitration claims based upon the sale of these offerings to unsuitable customers will still occur, but the aggregate losses will be far less and the number of Ponzi schemes foisted upon the public will likely be dramatically reduced. That is good for everyone.

I do have sympathy for the frustration suffered by the PIABA lawyers but the issue of collection is not limited to securities claims or arbitrations. Thousands of people are injured every year by uninsured drunk drivers .I would argue that it would be easier to substantially reduce the number of Ponzi schemes offered through FINRA firms than getting all the drunk drivers off the road.

 

 

 

Med-X – Crowdfunding, cannabis and chicanery

Investors, Issuers, Law , , ,

As a college student during the 1960s, I was exposed to marijuana and had friends who were out and out stoners. As a young lawyer I represented a wholesale head shop company that Time Magazine referred to as “the Dunhill of the industry”. Through them I met many entrepreneurs who had profited in the wholesale and retail paraphernalia industry.

Being a cancer patient I am familiar with medical marijuana. I have read the literature and discussed it with my doctors. I know many people who have used marijuana as part of their recovery from cancer and other illness.

This article is not about the pros and cons of legalizing pot. It is about Crowdfunding, the cannabis industry and a questionable investment.

Sales of marijuana in states where it is legal are expected to top $5 billion this year. Still, I cannot see the loan committee of a major bank or any Wall Street firm step up to finance the cannabis industry in any major way. Even though its use is legal in an increasing number of states, the cultivation, distribution or sale of marijuana is still a federal crime and banks and brokerage firms are regulated by federal agencies.

It is not surprising then, that the cannabis industry has found Crowdfunding to be a source of new capital to fund its growth. Rewards based Crowdfunding campaigns for new vaporizers and similar products are easy to find.

What surprised me was that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently approved a $15 million offering for a cannabis related company under the new Reg A +. The offering for a Southern California based company, Med-X, became effective in early February.

The company has no sales or current business to speak of. The company states that it will use the money from investors to: “research and develop, through state of the art compound identification and extraction techniques, and market and sell medically beneficial supplements made from the oils synthesized from the cannabis plant.”

The Company’s planned compound identification and extraction research and development operation will be conducted primarily at the Company’s existing 600 square foot indoor cultivation center in Chatsworth, California, where controlled quantities of high quality cannabis are being grown, harvested and stored for research and medical use to the extent permitted by California law.

The company has several physicians on its Board of Directors. However, none has disclosed any published research paper on cannabis and none, apparently, works fulltime at the company’s 20’x30’ cultivation center to direct that research. Cannabis is apparently being grown, although the equipment needed to conduct the promised research will not be purchased until the offering is funded. In any event, the research is for future products.

In the meantime the company will use some of the investors’ money “to acquire, create and publish high quality cannabis industry media content through the Company’s media platform, (a website) to generate revenue from advertisers as well as through the sale of industry related products.”

If this were styled as a media company I would not question it. But the website is only a few months old, has no revenue and again the company lacks personnel with a media background to run it.

The company’s other revenue generator will be sales of a product called NatureCide® to cannabis cultivators throughout the world. NatureCide® is an insecticide and pest repellant. This product is owned, manufactured and distributed by a company called Pacific Shore Holdings, Inc. an affiliated company that is controlled by the same person who controls Med-X, Mathew Mills.

Med-X acquired an exclusive license from Pacific Shores Holdings to market NatureCide® products to the cannabis industry in exchange for 10,000,000 shares of Med-X stock. An exclusive license can be valuable, however, in this case the products are readily available on Amazon.com making the value of the exclusive license questionable.

Pacific Shores Holdings is a classic penny stock. Mr. Mills was sanctioned, twice, first in Pennsylvania in 2011 and later in California in 2013 for selling shares in Pacific Shores Holdings to investors he had no business selling shares to. The structure employed here, with one penny stock company acquiring a large block of stock in another pursuant to a licensing agreement is also a classic penny stock tactic.

Like any Crowdfunded offering, shares of Med-X are being sold by the company directly to the public. In theory investors should be able to make an informed evaluation of the company before they invest their money. But most investors cannot.

I expect that many people will line up to send their money to invest in this company’s shares. It certainly will not be because this company represents a good investment.

More likely, if you will forgive the pun, the buzz about this offering will be about its asserted link to the cannabis industry. The minimum investment is $420. (No kidding).

Stop to consider that its main product, NatureCide®, was pre-existing. Its only connection to the cannabis industry is the statement that it can be used by cannabis growers in the same way that people growing virtually anything else can use it.

Mr. Mills was apparently content to sell shares of Pacific Shores Holdings without adequate advice from a securities lawyer. He now proposes to conduct cannabis research without a cannabis researcher on staff and publish a website without an experienced website publisher.

Remember, I want the Crowdfunding industry to succeed. To do so it will need to offer investors the opportunity to invest in companies that at least have a likelihood of success. I do not believe that investors will find that here.

Instead, Med-X is poised to give both the evolving Crowdfunding and cannabis industries a black eye and to leave many investors holding the bag. The cannabis industry will survive.

If Med-X turns out to be a $15 million scam, (and there are others) investors may begin to realize that there are better places to invest their money than a Crowdfunding portal.

FINRA looks at Wall Street’s Corporate Culture – It should look at its own.

Capital Markets, Investors , , , , ,

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has announced that as part of its 2016 member firm audits it will look into what it calls the firm’s culture of compliance and supervision. The idea is laudable until you put it into context.

Registered representatives (stockbrokers) are routinely incentivized to open more accounts, bring in more money and make more trades. Many successful stockbrokers gain their clients’ trust by presenting themselves as financial advisers when they are not. They are salespeople not analysts or advisers.

That is the culture of the industry. It is demonstrable without an audit.

As someone who has brought arbitration claims against hundreds of stockbrokers, I can tell you that the miscreants among registered representatives are a small minority. Most stockbrokers do not get out of bed thinking “who can I screw today”. More frequently problems arise from advice they are not qualified to give or even more often from financial products that should not be sold in the first place.

The most conflicted advice that is routinely given by FINRA Broker/Dealer firms is for customers to stay in the market no matter what. If the market crashes, which it periodically does, registered representatives routinely tell customers that they did not see it coming and then “don’t worry, the market always comes back.”

Ask yourself: if your stockbroker did not see the market crash coming, how do they know that the market will come back?

My own adviser (an independent Registered Investment Advisor) has been bearish since last summer. After a long bull market he called the collapse of oil prices a “shot across the bow” for the markets and started selling positions and accumulating cash. He has raised more cash of late because he uses stop losses. He believes that protecting a client’s portfolio is part of his job. If your adviser thinks differently or does not use stop losses, send me an e-mail and I will gladly refer you to mine. (I receive no fee for any referral).

A FINRA audit is often performed by an inexperienced auditor (not a CPA) who is thinking about spending a few years at FINRA and then getting a more lucrative job in the industry. Rarely, if ever, do FINRA auditors ask the hard questions.

Trillions of dollars worth of transactions are placed by FINRA firms every year that are perfectly legitimate and need little scrutiny. FINRA would do better to spend time and energy reviewing those transactions that yield the most problems.

Hundreds of FINRA firms and thousands of registered representatives specialize in selling private placements to non-institutional customers. Private placements pay higher commissions than most other financial products and are therefore always a concern for potential abuse. Private placement losses are a multi-hundred billion dollar problem that affects many seniors and retirees, many of whom should never have been offered these investments in the first place.

FINRA has explicit rules about how firms should perform due diligence on private offerings. Failure to conduct a due diligence investigation on private offerings has been a leading cause of investor losses and the reason that a significant number of FINRA firms went out of business when the market corrected in 2008.

Private placements are sold with shiny marketing brochures that are supposed to be reviewed by compliance departments but frequently are not. Do FINRA auditors routinely review the marketing materials for private placements at the firms that they audit to see if they are appropriately reviewed and not misleading? They do not.

FINRA would do well to examine its own culture.

It has never been my practice to file complaints with FINRA’s enforcement branch, in part because they are consistently ineffectual. Some time back, I did file a complaint on behalf of an 80 year old client who had been sold a particularly ugly private placement for a building in the mid-West.

The sponsor, who was also the master tenant responsible to make payments to the investors claimed to be a college graduate who had previously owned a seat on one of commodity exchanges. He also claimed to have been a successful real estate developer.

In fact, the sponsor had never graduated from college, never owned a seat on any commodity exchange and his only prior development had filed for bankruptcy protection leaving many sub-contractors unpaid. I submit that no competent due diligence officer who actually investigated this offering would have approved it. That did not stop dozens of FINRA firms from selling this and other private placements offered by the same sponsor.

The investors ultimately lost the building to foreclosure because the roof leaked badly and needed expensive repairs. The due diligence officer at the FINRA firms that sold this private placement had never seen an inspection report on the building and it is doubtful that a building inspection was performed before it was syndicated to investors. The sales brochure that every investor received described this as a great building and a great investment.

The FINRA enforcement officer that looked into the complaint had never performed a due diligence investigation himself nor was he trained in any way as to what a reasonable due diligence investigation might entail. I know this because I spoke with him more than once. He pronounced the due diligence investigation on this offering to have been fine and on his recommendation FINRA took no action against the member firm.

I took the claim to arbitration and the panel rescinded the transaction giving the customer all of his money back with interest. It certainly helped that the registered representative who had sold the offering to the customer testified that he would not have made the sale if he had known that the firms’ due diligence had been so minimal. If the arbitrators and the registered representative could see that the due diligence was inadequate, why could FINRA’s own enforcement staff not see the obvious?

In another case involving a complex, highly leveraged derivative I asked the branch office manager who had approved the trade to explain the investment to the arbitration panel. After he had embarrassed himself with a clearly incorrect explanation the claim settled. I doubt that many FINRA auditors could have adequately understood this particular financial product well enough to ask questions about it.

Regulatory compliance in the financial services industry is not rocket science. Every supervisor should be able to spot a bad trade if it hits their desk. Compliance does take time and can be expensive.

If the firm has one compliance officer for thousands of salespeople or one due diligence officer reviewing dozens of offerings every month FINRA does not need to delve into the corporate culture. It is a safe bet that adequate compliance is not happening.

I know that more than a few regulators and compliance professionals read my blog. I would appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Elio Motors- A Crowdfunding Clunker?

Capital Markets, Investors, Issuers , , , ,

A colleague asked me to look into the securities offering of Elio Motors in Phoenix, Arizona. The company is one of the first to register shares to be sold under the new Regulation A.

Reg. A allows smaller companies to raise up to $50 million without the use of an underwriter. Elio is selling its shares directly to investors through a Crowdfunding platform called StartEngine.

Elio is attempting to raise $25 million making it one of the largest direct to investor financings to date. Many people in and around the Crowdfunding industry are anticipating the offering’s success.

Elio claims to be a designer, developer and manufacturer of highly efficient, low cost automobiles. The company intends to offer a 3 wheeled, gas powered vehicle that will get 84 MPG and cost roughly $6800.

It certainly sounds good and from the pictures that accompany the offering the vehicles look pretty good as well. The company says that it hopes to be delivering its vehicles to consumers by the end of this year.

Unfortunately, that seems highly unlikely. The company currently has only a few drive-able early prototypes of its vehicles. It does not have a full production prototype, a final design, a built-out manufacturing facility or manufacturing processes. Even with this financing, the company will still need another quarter of a billion dollars to get its manufacturing facility into production.

I reviewed the prospectus and made a note of a number of “red flags” – items that seemed a little off base to me. A number of things caught my eye.

First, the company is insolvent and will continue to be insolvent even after investors put in $25 million. Investors will pay $12 per share and each share will have a negative book value and no liquidity for a long time to come.

Roughly $10 million is owed and due to an affiliate of a large shareholder within the next 6 months. That loan is already over due and subject to a forbearance agreement. If the agreement is not renewed roughly 1/2 of the proceeds of this offering will revert to the lender.

The company hopes to obtain a $165 million loan under a federal government program intended to help existing auto manufacturers expand their businesses. If unsuccessful in obtaining this loan Elio will need to find that much and more, elsewhere.

The government program was intended to help Ford and GM when they were having financial difficulty back in 2008/2009.The program is specifically designed to have low upfront borrowing costs. Elio is paying a lobbyist $1 million to help them to get funding under the program in addition to the lobbyist presently on staff. Perhaps the company does not believe that it could obtain the loan if the government agency judged the company solely on its merits.

There does not appear to be a single dollar of professional venture capital in this company. The company says this is because the venture capital industry moved away from investing in new vehicle startups. Personally, I believe it was because the venture capital industry spotted Elio as a loser or worse, a scam.

There are no patents. Despite years and millions of dollars worth of designs and modifications Elio does not have anything that it deems to be worth patenting. That always begs the question of whether or not their designs infringe on anyone else’s patents.

Perhaps the most disconcerting issue is that the company currently funds itself by taking vehicle deposits from consumers. The company has taken in more than $20 million in deposits from in excess of 45,000 people promising to deliver vehicles for which it does not yet have a final design and still needs up to a quarter of a billion dollars to produce.

The sales projections seem very rich. In order to get its retail price to $6,800 the company is projecting 250,000 units sold annually, meaning sales would be about $1.7 billion. With competition from other larger automotive manufacturers this number even if attainable would seem difficult to sustain.

No one apparently conducted a real due diligence review. StartEngine is not a FINRA firm and cannot be expected to conduct a due diligence review that is up to FINRA standards. The name of the law firm that prepared the offering is not disclosed. Experience suggests that this prospectus is not the product of one of the large Wall Street law firms.

Interestingly, Elio will pay a FINRA firm, FundAmerica Securities, to conduct due diligence on the investors to make certain that they comply with the SEC’s rules regarding how much they can purchase. FundAmerica Securities will receive up to about $950,000 for this service. (For the record, I would have cheerfully performed this administrative task for about ½ the cost).

No similar fee is being paid to anyone to verify the statements in the prospectus and to make certain that all appropriate disclosures have been made. Due diligence can be expensive and the amount spent, if material, would likely be disclosed.

If fully subscribed, this offering will cost Elio about $2.4 million which is about what it would have cost if the offering had been done in the traditional way by a FINRA firm using salespeople. The offering would have been subjected to real due diligence and if it passed more likely than not would have sold out before the end of last year.

I suspect that the “crowd” will buy up all of the shares that Elio is selling, not because the crowd knows what it is doing, but because most people would not know an investment scam if it bit them on the butt.

As I said, a lot of people in the Crowdfunding industry are waiting for Elio to sell its shares as an indication of how the Crowdfunding industry has progressed. The industry would be better served if got behind companies that offered investors a better chance of success.

SEC v. Ascenergy; Crowdfunding’s First Black Eye

Capital Markets, Investors, Uncategorized , , , , , ,

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has brought its first fraud enforcement action that occurred on a Crowdfunding portal  http://Ascenergy LLC et al. (Release No. LR-23394; October 28, 2015).  The Commission alleges that a Texas oil company called Ascenergy raised $5 million from 90 investors on at least four Crowdfunding portals including crowdfunding.com, equitynet.com, fundable.com and angel.com.

Ascenergy claimed to be raising funds to drill oil wells on leases that it had evaluated and secured. The investors were defrauded because Ascenergy had not secured any leases. The person whom the company claimed had evaluated the leases had not done so, did not work for the company and had not agreed to allow his name or resume to be used by Ascenergy to raise money.

Ascenergy used false and misleading facts and omissions to create a false legitimacy which the portals and the public readily accepted. The Commission noted that Ascenergy’s website contained false claims of partnerships or associations with several legitimate companies whose logos appeared on Ascenergy’s website, also without permission.

Investors were told that investing in Ascenergy was “low risk” and that its shares were “liquid” when they were neither. The vast bulk of the money raised was spent on what the SEC calls ”personal expenses” of the person who thought up this scam and who might have gotten away with it.

Scams like this are common in the mainstream Regulation D private placement market. It is more likely that the due diligence process at a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) member firm would not have passed Ascenergy along to investors. No FINRA firm would likely have allowed Ascenergy to call its offering “low risk” or “liquid”.

The SEC’s complaint charges Ascenergy with fraud under the same sections of the federal securities laws that the SEC has been citing for decades. The SEC has made it clear that it expects Crowdfunding portals to actively seek to keep scams off their websites. The SEC has been just as clear that the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws absolutely apply to Crowdfunding transactions.

The final Crowdfunding rules encourage and almost mandate portals to become members of FINRA. FINRA has established guidelines for due diligence investigations for private placement offerings. The FINRA due diligence standards seem reasonable to adequately keep scam artists away from public investors.

As scams go Ascenergy was not particularly novel or complex. FINRA firms have conducted thousands of due diligence investigations of oil drilling programs over the years. No due diligence investigation properly done by a FINRA member firm would have let Ascenergy claim to have secured leases without verification.

The portals generally do not conduct anything close to this type of due diligence investigation. The investigations can be costly and most portals elect not to spend the money. Very few of the Crowdfunding portals even attempt to conduct a substantive investigation sufficient to catch the “bad actors” let alone the “bad” deals. But do the portals assume the risk?

If you were one of the 90 investors who purchased Ascenergy on one of the four portals listed above, send the portal an e-mail and ask for your money back. Tell them that you have been defrauded because the portal failed to do its homework. Please copy me on the correspondence. I am curious to see how much denial the Crowdfunding industry is in.

Let me predict the future. The next SEC enforcement action will not mention the Crowdfunding portals in passing. The next SEC enforcement action (or the one after that) will find the portals being named as defendants and subjected to significant fines. The SEC has no real budget for Crowdfunding enforcement. In my opinion the SEC’s Enforcement Division is more likely than not to make an example out of an offending portal to send a clear message to the Crowdfunding industry that they must actively attempt to keep fraudulent offerings off their websites. That is, if the industry did not get the message the Enforcement Division delivered in its complaint against Ascenergy.

If any of the portals or their advisers disagrees I would like to hear from them as well. The literature surrounding Crowdfunding is rife with experts who have little or no experience actually preparing securities offerings or raising money from investors. I have seen many articles by “good” lawyers suggesting that a due diligence investigation is an unnecessary cost or that a superficial investigation is sufficient for a small Crowdfunded offering.

The problems that the SEC found with the Ascenergy offerings should not have occurred. Investors should not have had their $5 million stolen. The four portals that facilitated Ascenergy’s fraud owe at least an apology to the investors who got scammed.

Some people in the Crowdfunding industry have already suggested that Ascenergy is an isolated case. As I have written elsewhere, there are a great many portals that are currently offering securities for companies that are obviously not telling investors the whole story. Perhaps it is a little easier for me to spot an investment scam because I have seen so many, but that is exactly the expertise that the portals need and lack.

The Crowdfunding industry projects $40 billion in Crowdfunded offerings next year. The bulk of these offerings will be executed by buyers, sellers and portals that are mostly novices in an uncharted and unregulated market. If you wanted to commit securities fraud, what better opportunity could you find?

The Crowdfunding industry is justifiably jubilant about its prospects for success. Small companies have good reason to cheer this large infusion of new capital. But are the investors jubilant? Certainly not the 90 people who put up $5 million for the securities sold by Ascenergy.

I would advise crowdfunding.com, equitynet.com, fundable.com and angel.com to carefully consider their position should any defrauded customer correspond or a member of the financial press come knocking. A public pronouncement that due diligence is unnecessary or that a cursory investigation is sufficient will likely be used against you in a court of law.

The crowdfunding industry has very few investors who are loyal to one portal over another. It should be obvious to the industry that exposing investors to scams like this will not build loyalty, but will send investors back to their stockbrokers at mainstream brokerage firms.