More

SEC May Make It Easier (For Some) To Buy Into The Next Facebook

First Posted: 04/11/11 05:51 PM ET Updated: 06/11/11 06:12 AM ET

Sec
SEC Chair Mary Shapiro considers allowing more people to invest in private companies like Facebook

NEW YORK -- It may soon become a lot easier for startups to raise capital -- and avoid the regulatory scrutiny and costs associated with going public.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is weighing changes to limits on the number of shareholders a private company can have before being obligated to open its books to the public. That's according to a letter from SEC Chair Mary Shapiro to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) seen by the Wall Street Journal.

Currently, private companies are limited to a maximum of 499 shareholders before being subject to stricter financial reporting requirements. Private share sales, however, are often limited to so-called "accredited investors," or those with a net worth of $1 million. Shares of privately held companies can also be traded on private stock exchanges like SecondMarket and SharesPost, which are also only open to accredited investors.

Lifting limits on the number of shareholders private companies can have could lead more companies to stay private for longer. Critics say this will mean less information for investors and would only allow high-net worth investors to buy in to the next Facebook or Zynga, two of the most valuable social media startups in the world.

"If you're starting a small private company in the United States, the only people you can solicit for money are these so-called accredited investors," said Mike McGrath, CEO of real estate start-up Nelbee. The shareholder limits are strangling small businesses started by people without extensive connections to high-net-worth individuals, he added.

"So far, we've been able to bootstrap on our own. But, unless you're hooked into that world, it makes it much more difficult -- which is where the inequities come in," said McGrath. "It doesn't make sense for all the small business owners that are starting out and have people out there -- with the expertise, ready to invest -- that just don't qualify under all these arcane rules."

Investors and startup founders say current regulations weigh heavily on fledgling private companies. While companies don't have to hold an initial public offering (IPO) when they exceed the 499 shareholder cap, they do have to file regulatory documents with the SEC.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, for example, was passed into law in 2002 in the wake of accounting scandals at firms like Enron and WorldCom, and designed to protect shareholders. But critics of the act have long bemoaned its disclosure requirements, arguing that going public is now too expensive.

Fewer regulatory hurdles and more access to private capital would increase innovation, says Carrie Merritt, who works with startups as the director of public relations at Silicon Valley Bank. "Policies that ease the administrative burden on tech and life science start-up companies enable them to continue to innovate and attract the capital they need to grow," she wrote in an email to The Huffington Post.

However, changing the rules may allow large private companies to keep investors in the dark, said Lawrence Goldstein, founder of investment firm Santa Monica Partners. "It's an outrage to call a company like Facebook -- which is worth billions -- a tiny, private company, and change the rules just to protect them," he said.

Goldstein was referring to the social-networking giant's Goldman Sachs debacle, which New Yorker scribe John Cassidy said made a "a mockery" of the SEC. Facebook was on course to raise to raise $1.5 billion from private shareholders when Goldman Sachs offered to let wealthy clients buy into a special fund, which would own shares in the social networking giant.

Despite potentially having thousands of investors, the Facebook fund counts as one shareholder. After intense media scrutiny, Goldman Sachs decided to limit buy-ins to the fund to clients outside the U.S.

The National Venture Capital Association is generally supportive of the SEC's tentative move, but noted that IPOs are still investors' ultimate goal. "That's where the most economic benefit is realized: for the U.S., for venture capitalists and for innovation," said Emily Mendell, a group spokesperson, pointing to a NVCA study which found that 90 percent of job growth at companies happens after they go public. "That's also when a venture capitalist can exit a company, so they an invest in other companies, which is the ultimate goal," she added.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
NEW YORK -- It may soon become a lot easier for startups to raise capital -- and avoid the regulatory scrutiny and costs associated with going public. The Securities and Exchange Commission is wei...
NEW YORK -- It may soon become a lot easier for startups to raise capital -- and avoid the regulatory scrutiny and costs associated with going public. The Securities and Exchange Commission is wei...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jabailo
(Participant) Texeme.Construct()
12:50 AM on 04/17/2011
So where does it end? 500...5000...50000? If a company has 500 high worth investors, say 100 million each, what else does it need? At that point it should be generating enough revenue to sustain and enough profit to pay back investors or give them dividends.

I'm not really sure what "opening it up" does except in the case where you want to build a pyramid scheme and gradually sell off something to larger and larger pools of people.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:46 AM on 04/13/2011
Heh. "A fool and his money." (Translation: Don't be a fool.)

If a company is actually "good enough to invest your money in," then it does not have to limit the number of people who would actually be interested in investing in it. It doesn't have to hide behind anything at all; doesn't have to close its books.

There is really only one reason why a company would sell itself as a "secret, exclusive" "investment opportunity." And that would be when it does not believe that an impartial investor would actually be willing to have anything to do with them. Sure, "Mr. Mumbabwi Abastupido" has $30 million in cash waiting to be wired to your bank-account as soon as you kindly send him the number. Be sure to do that, just as soon as you are done with this "exclusive opportunity ..."
02:56 PM on 04/15/2011
You are so right! This is how the scam works. Facebook can't really be valued since there is no way to measure it's contribution to the real economy. Goldman Sachs gets to pull a number out of thin air, say $30 billion. Only special clients of Goldman will be able to get in on the deal and Goldman pockets about $300 million in fees. Meanwhile excitement builds over the stock, everyone wants it worse than beanie babies. The special clients get to split up their shares and sell them off to the frenzied rubes at a tidy profit. A few years latter Facebook turns out to be Myspace and is practically worthless. Billions of dollars get sucked out of productive investments and into a ponzi scheme. China continues to make products and create jobs while the U.S. shuffles around ever shrinking amounts of money.
09:26 PM on 04/12/2011
crook
09:11 PM on 04/11/2011
Its easy, just give me the money and be down with it
http://www.myrandomvideo.com/give-me-the-2/
photo
irochfpst
no right turn
07:28 PM on 04/11/2011
can someone make goldman sachs go away. they are incredibly corrupt.
08:56 PM on 04/11/2011
Mr Obama LOVES them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cccoyote
Welcome to Citizens United, formerly the USA
07:21 PM on 04/11/2011
Love the financial reform that was all smoke and mirrors.

First Goldman and friends deem social sites with no tangible value are worth billions.
Now, the race to get the new game into the casino.

Tech Bubble Part II is a go.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jabailo
(Participant) Texeme.Construct()
07:13 PM on 04/11/2011
The only reason these startups are "high value" is that they expect to get a lot of suckers to put money on the table in the form of their 401k mutual funds.

Then, the top feeders pull out, and leave Joe America 30% poorer.

If these guys want to play poker with each other...go ahead...open up the tables....but leave the little guy alone!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnb123
All I ask..just be reasonable....do things my way
06:44 PM on 04/11/2011
"Fewer regulatory hurdles and more access to private capital would increase innovation, says Carrie Merritt, who works with startups as the director of public relations at Silicon Valley Bank"
 
Just like subprime loans, derivative, collateralized debt obligations.....the next crash wiil be even bigger and better.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:32 PM on 04/11/2011
...buying FK shares can get you trolled on your own wall (street)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JackHoffman
Pundit
06:29 PM on 04/11/2011
And the rich get even richer. The little guy never gets a shot at the same price the 'wealthy investor' does. By the time guys like me see a share price its usually a multiple of the original. The 2% formula at work.
photo
Lobo912
The GOP is in breach of America's social contract.
06:42 PM on 04/11/2011
But they'll tell you everybody has an equal opportunity in this country. Another capitalism fail.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RickMoss
06:28 PM on 04/11/2011
Why not - it's the American way.


FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
OsiXs (Revolution 2.0)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chemguy
Liberal, but not Democrat
06:18 PM on 04/11/2011
Alternate headline:
SEC makes it easier for fly-by-night startups to swindle wanna-be investors.
06:09 PM on 04/11/2011
I would love to make some money off all the Facebook suckers out there.