house Bill H.R. 79
Should it be Easier for Startups to Pitch Their Plans to Angel Investors?
Argument in favor
For startups to grow and create jobs they need access to capital early in the process. This bill would accomplish that by making it easier for them to connect with investors through a commonsense, bipartisan reform.
01/09/2017
I think the biggest thing is making conduits for funding more well known and transparent. Developments of these types shouldn't only be limited to high cost of living areas of the country, easier access and easier ability to enter the pipeline for potential funding could help activate economic development in many more corners of our country.
···
01/11/2017
Small businesses are a strong part of our nation and can use all the help they can get
Argument opposed
This bill muddies the waters surrounding the SEC’s definition of accredited investors, and as a result it diminishes important investor protections. Plus the SEC already allows an exemption for certain pitch events.
···
01/10/2017
There is no clear justification for or against this proposed legislation, either from the perspectives of the investor, the entrepreneur, or the general public. The problem to be solved is not clearly identified, described or quantified. It is hard to asses the impact the proposed legislation would have on the problem if it exist.
01/09/2017
There are already rules - and exemptions - for Angel Investors. Loosening regulations concerning any type of investments, especially when ROI's (returns on investments) are involved, serves to bypass the SEC & IRS. It's bad enough that unregulated monies flow into our political process & news organizations. Do you want US businesses taken over by foreign interests as well?
01/12/2017
I feel like the "Main Street Growth" tag is a bit of a gimmick here. The law specifies that this is for companies with market capitalization of $1B or less in the small business trends reference listed. This isn't a bill designed to help someone start a chimney cleaning business or a new dry cleaning shop in town. It feels more like a loophole bill. I would agree that startups that have the potential to create jobs should be supported, but startups by nature are risky so if the risk hasn't been fully disclosed to investors and proper due diligence isn't being pursued and the start up fails, who does that help?
I think the biggest thing is making conduits for funding more well known and transparent. Developments of these types shouldn't only be limited to high cost of living areas of the country, easier access and easier ability to enter the pipeline for potential funding could help activate economic development in many more corners of our country.
There is no clear justification for or against this proposed legislation, either from the perspectives of the investor, the entrepreneur, or the general public. The problem to be solved is not clearly identified, described or quantified. It is hard to asses the impact the proposed legislation would have on the problem if it exist.
There are already rules - and exemptions - for Angel Investors. Loosening regulations concerning any type of investments, especially when ROI's (returns on investments) are involved, serves to bypass the SEC & IRS. It's bad enough that unregulated monies flow into our political process & news organizations. Do you want US businesses taken over by foreign interests as well?
I feel like the "Main Street Growth" tag is a bit of a gimmick here. The law specifies that this is for companies with market capitalization of $1B or less in the small business trends reference listed. This isn't a bill designed to help someone start a chimney cleaning business or a new dry cleaning shop in town. It feels more like a loophole bill. I would agree that startups that have the potential to create jobs should be supported, but startups by nature are risky so if the risk hasn't been fully disclosed to investors and proper due diligence isn't being pursued and the start up fails, who does that help?
Good start. Long-term this entire regulation should be abolished.
Small businesses are a strong part of our nation and can use all the help they can get
One of the major concerns of this bill is protections for the investor, and I feel as if some of that concern is misplaced. Many people who invest in startups already have large amounts of disposable income so I see little need to worry too much about them. I'd much rather make it easier for more small businesses to compete with larger corporations who can already leverage their outside investors.
I work at a startup myself and understand the challenges many startups face. Additionally, it makes it more fair for people who may not be considered "accredited" investors to participate in opportunities that would previously be closed off to them.
The current regime works very well. No need to fix what isn't broken, especially when this could compromise the prophylactic, shareholder-protective effect of Regulation D.
Anything that creates jobs that creates value for customers should not have restrictions; this even less so. Getting started is the hardest part; let those willing to risk their funds on friends and family to do so.
Free up the opportunities. Free up communication between start-ups and potential investors. If the best argument against this is "investor protection," to that I say that it's not your job to protect me from myself. If there is a problem with the ability of start-ups and investors to get connected and to communicate, I'd love to try solving it with more freedom instead of less.
This should not be your focus right now please vote no on this bill.
In principle, democratizing financial opportunity is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, as written, this also opens the door for significant fraud. Companies that would like to raise capital from a widened pool of angels (aka less experienced investors & people with less disposable income) should also be held to higher disclosure standards. That way, a new class of investors are given the information needed to make an informed decision.
We need more entrepreneurs if these start up business are restricted then the door needs to be opened and access available. Small business have it rough, I'm for helping the small business.
Businesses should be able to arrange for funding in whatever manner facilitates their interests legally.
This bill needs better defined mechanisms, and seems like it could easily be misapplied to circumvent SEC rules.
Consumer protection is important, so I am against this as written, but not in spirit. I am a big fan of another change where the SEC's opened up crowdsourcing for equity. It will probably need tweaking as time goes on, because it will be hard to open this door without letting fraud in with it which is why it was so hard to pass in the first place. However, if I can put in 25$ to buy a share of stock in a mom and pop startup bakery for example, it could be the biggest boom to small business growth the world has ever seen in the long term perspective.