Tag Archives: crowdfunding

chit funds, crowdfunding and p2p banking (I)

April 18, 2012 By in Banks, Current Market Thoughts, emerging markets, Industry Analysis, P2P lending Tags: , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

chit funds in emerging markets

I began to look at smaller Asian markets as an investor in 1985.  It was there that I encountered the informal self-help savings and lending associations that are typical in developing economies.  My introduction came through chit funds in Thailand and Taiwan, but these structures exist throughout the developing world.

what they are

the simplest

In their simplest form, the associations are groups of friends of neighbors who contribute a specified amount of money to a pool on a regular basis.  The funds pooled each time the group meet are lent to a single participant, determined either by the implied interest rate bid or on a rotating basis.

more complex

At a higher level of organization, groups come to a designated place at a specific time–like by having a meal at a certain restaurant on Saturday–and offer to third parties the money they’re willing to lend.  They may signal their intent simply by piling their money in the center of their table.  Prospective borrowers move from table to table to negotiate loan terms.

the pinnacle

For the largest such chit funds, agents for the fund do the collection and forward the money to the fund’s central headquarters.  Lenders don’t have any direct contact with the borrowers.

why chit funds?

There are a number of motivations, normally all based on the idea that the formal banking system doesn’t function well. For instance:

1.  There may not be any local banks.

2.  Banks may offer very low interest rates to depositors.

3.  Banks may decide to lend only to large companies.

4.  Potential depositors may worry about bank solvency–the possibility that they’ll lose their money in a bankruptcy or nationalization.

5.  People may not want to reveal the extent of their wealth, or the extent of their taxable income.

the US equivalent

Interestingly enough, this emerging world form of microfinancing is beginning to make a strong showing in the US.  It’s taking two forms:

–Congress recently passed the JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business) Act.  JOBS greatly simplifies the procedures for a small company to make an offering of equity.  For companies with less that $1 billion in annual sales, JOBS does away with the requirement that they present audited financials to potential investors (not a stellar idea, in my opinion).  JOBS also defines the maximum amount that low-income investors can put into a given offering.  By so doing, it legitimizes the efforts at equity crowdfunding (see my post) now underway in the US.

–John Mack, former head of Morgan Stanley, recently joined the Lending Club, a P2P (peer to peer) lender.  P2P lending is chit funds come back to life, but on the internet instead of in your local restaurant.  You can go to the websites of P2P firms like Prosper and Lending Club and select the borrowers you wish to lend to by yourself.  Or you can hire a financial advisor to do this for you.

why now?

To start with the obvious, the technology needed to run P2P or equity crowdfunding is readily available.

Interest rates have been low for a long enough period of time–with little relief in sight–that more conventional means for savers to obtain high returns have been exhausted.  Not only that, but getting a return above 2% in Treasury bonds requires committing money for a very long time, exposing the lender to the risk of loss as/when rates eventually begin to rise.

I see the JOBS ACT as an attack (maybe as the first step in a prolonged attack) by Washington on the current IPO practices of Wall Street investment banks.  Conventional IPO costs in the US are very high by world standards, and a private individual stands about the same chance of getting an IPO allocation as a snowball in northern hemisphere July.

The naming of the JOBS Act suggests that Washington wants to be seen as doing something to create jobs.  What a commentary if this is the best they can do.

My first reaction to P2P is that it may be a true innovation, like money market funds and junk bonds were in their day.  P2P could end up being a very big business–unlike JOBS, which I see, in its present form, as gimmicky and filled with opportunities for fraud.

That’s it for today.  Tomorrow:  historic problems with P2P lending, including a word on Bernie Madoff.

raising capital–traditional IPO, venture capital, crowdfunding (I): a traditional IPO

December 7, 2011 By in Industry Analysis, Investment firms, preliminary and final prospectuses, securities markets, stock market Tags: , , , , , , , 2 Comments

I want to write about what I think are the implications of the new legislation circulating in Congress to permit greater use of crowdfunding by start-up companies raising money.  But to do this I think I should outline the way corporate equity capital is typically raised today.

going public through a traditional IPO

This is still the best way to raise LARGE amounts of money for expansion.  That’s not the only reason for going public, however.

One of the many clichés on Wall Street is that small companies should raise equity capital when they can (in other words, when investors would kill to acquire shares in a hot new concept), not when they absolutely need to.  Better to have cash you don’t have a present use for than to find the equity market closed to IPOs in a recession.

A public listing will probably be seen by potential business partners as a sign of company maturity and stability.

A public listing allows a company to pay employees in stock and stock options rather than cash.  For techy start-ups, it’s the possibility of making a fortune on stock options by being in on the ground floor of the next Google or LinkedIn that lets the fledgling firms attract top-notch talent.

the IPO process

Anyway, let’s say a firm decides to go public through a traditional IPO.  What happens next? The firm contacts an investment bank.  It may be that the company’s CFO already has connections on Wall Street.  It may be that brokerage house securities analysts (who in many ways are marketing agents for the bank) have already been calling on the firm for a while and the company selects the firm the most influential of them works for.  Investment bankers may have made marketing pitches as well.

The investment bank performs several functions:

1.  it helps the firm gather the materials it needs to file a registration statement with the SEC

2.  it performs its own investigation that allows it to vouch for the company with its clients

3.  it forms an underwriting group and a selling syndicate to market the issue.  The salespeople will already have the necessary national and state licenses to sell equities; the firms will already have established that the securities are suitable investments for the clients they sell them to.

4.  it prepares a preliminary prospectus (called a red herring in the US because the fact it isn’t final is highlighted in red print) to circulate within its client network and obtains informal indications of interest

5.  it arranges a sales campaign that may include meetings between management and potential buyers

6.  it recommends the final issue size and price.

Until the past few years–when the big brokerage houses laid off most of their experienced analysts–the investment bank would also commit itself to have continuing analyst coverage of the firm.

there are lots more ins and outs, but that’s the basic process.

plusses

The traditional IPO route gives a firm access to the investment bank’s distribution network.

It also gets the company a lot of publicity.

In normal equity offerings, the underwriters buy all the stock from the issuer and take the (usually negligible) risk of selling the issue to investors.  At the very least, the issuing company gets a specified price on a given date.

minuses

The traditional IPO is expensive.  The investment bank may charge as much as 10% of the issue for its services.

In pricing the issue, the investment bank’s loyalty is divided.   The issuer wants a high offering price, so it gets the most money.  The bank’s biggest customers, on the other hand, want a low offering price so the stock will go up a lot on opening day.

Many small companies are below the minimum size that will interest an investment bank.

 

That’s it for today.  More tomorrow.