Recent conversations we have had with the top players in Equity Crowdfunding, show convergence. Crowdcube must change or go?
Everyone says it privately. So we thought we'd share their views with you, the Crowd. No names just some real facts. It matters because as the largest and betst known UK ECF platform, what happens to Crowdcube will have serious consequences for the sector as a whole.
The descriptions vary from 'a shambles' to things far far worse. But they all agree - the Crowdcube ECF model doesnt work and if something isnt done about it, ECF will suffer, possibly even die.
They all have the same positive outlook for ECF generally. But the Crowdcube pile em high, sell em cheap model, with little follow up and no platform engagement after funding, is simply not sustainable. The trail of carnage is building.
They all agree that we need far more company and platform engagement, more pre and aftercare, more skin in the game. The simple truth is you cannot dangle start ups in front of an audience of cash rich, semi ignorant, semi arrogant, tax rebate junkies like some hypnotic rib rave and expect them to make sensible business decisions. They do, incredibly, believe the PR and figures they are fed.
The answer has to be for the platform's to take a stake in the businesses, backed by their expert panel who have some input into the businesses' futures and have properly reviewed their plans. So now the interests of the platform and the investors and the companies are all aligned. All of this can be controlled by access to EIS and SEIS reliefs. Crowdcube essentially set up investors with promises of massive tax reliefs and PR about Zuckerman in 3. They then take the cash, peel off their commission and let the companies do whatever they like with the rest.
The nature of the beast is such that no one can emphatically prove this one way or t'other; right now. We have evidence that strongly suggests it is the case; other platforms and sector commentators, agree. But until Crowdcube's businesses have nearly all collapsed, many leaving in their wake, liquidised SME creditors, corruption and fraud or just plain stupidity, we can have no definitive answer. By then, it's too bloody late.
September is a hot month for Crowdcube - over 100 of its 'successes' are due to file accounts; many for the first time, so the accounts will show how they are really doing. Our bet is that over the July - September period for 2017, filed accounts will show that very very few of the 130 companies that will have filed, will have come even close to the projections used to value their companies and sell their equity. That is not a good trend but it is consistent with all the evidence we have from 2011 onwards. Nothing has changed.
To date the figure that represents the gap between the projected P&L and the delivered P&L for the last year of filed accounts, stands at over £150m. That's in just one year - add say 2 or 3 years misses together and its goes off the scale. Of the 214 companies that have filed accounts for the relevant period since CC funding, 193 have missed their projections(including a number of companies that have gone bust). 41 of these have missed by more than £1m for the last 12 month period since funding - one of these is Crowdcube. Only 9 have genuinely met them. That's a miss rate of around 95%. These projections are verified by Crowdcube 'experts'; Crowdcube is sanction by the FCA. Is it any wonder that experts have such a bad name now.
We asked Crowdcube to discuss this but never received a reply. If you are reading this, then please help us all out by letting a discussion take place. That would certainly be democratic and open - it might change some opinions. We'd be happy to provide our evidence for you to look at and comment on??
September is a hot month for Crowdcube - over 100 of its 'successes' are due to file accounts; many for the first time, so the accounts will show how they are really doing. Our bet is that over the July - September period for 2017, filed accounts will show that very very few of the 130 companies that will have filed, will have come even close to the projections used to value their companies and sell their equity. That is not a good trend but it is consistent with all the evidence we have from 2011 onwards. Nothing has changed.
To date the figure that represents the gap between the projected P&L and the delivered P&L for the last year of filed accounts, stands at over £150m. That's in just one year - add say 2 or 3 years misses together and its goes off the scale. Of the 214 companies that have filed accounts for the relevant period since CC funding, 193 have missed their projections(including a number of companies that have gone bust). 41 of these have missed by more than £1m for the last 12 month period since funding - one of these is Crowdcube. Only 9 have genuinely met them. That's a miss rate of around 95%. These projections are verified by Crowdcube 'experts'; Crowdcube is sanction by the FCA. Is it any wonder that experts have such a bad name now.
We asked Crowdcube to discuss this but never received a reply. If you are reading this, then please help us all out by letting a discussion take place. That would certainly be democratic and open - it might change some opinions. We'd be happy to provide our evidence for you to look at and comment on??
Very interesting post and I'm guessing an even more interesting discussion will take place.
ReplyDeleteWould they be able to change? Corporate culture is notoriously hard to change and Crowdcube has operated in the same way for years as I found out a bit too late. Getting better at covering their tracks doesn't count as a culture change.
Precisely because Crowdcube has been operating in the same way for years, only investors that cant be asked to do some googling about Crowdcube will invest via Crowdcube. I failed to do some googling for a bit of time and that has already cost me money, but in a way, it's my fault - the information is certainly out there. So why bother with preventing those investors losing their shirt? They should have done a bit more digging as it doesn't take long to find things that have been controversial to say the least.
For those investors that think Crowdcube has changed since their early days, well, they have... they got much better at covering their tracks. If you are willing to use a company that has shown to have absolutely no respect for my and your money, then it's your problem. I've lost a bit of money through Crowdcube, but nothing too much - it's not losing it that annoys me, it's the feeling of having been sold something they knew wasn't good to be sold and hid the information from me.
I still invest and use my EIS quite a lot, via funds and platforms, but I know which one I'm not using since starting to follow this blog quite some time ago...
I have small amounts spread across 22 companies since sept 14 and so far 2 failures - one CC and one SR - so agree, the signs don't look good but it is too early to know for sure.
ReplyDeleteIn the mantime, perhaps you should run a 'target met pool' for the ~130 that are due.
I will go for 2
For the last couple of years I've also refused to invest via Crowdcube. Their DD is dire. My favourite example is the lack of follow up on Stakis Nurseries who seem to be able to file accounts and spend money but nothing else.
ReplyDeletehttp://fantasyequitycrowdfunding.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/crowdcubes-stakis-daycare-nurseries.html
Seedrs don't always get a response as shown by the Shaken mess that remains unresolved but at least they try.
http://fantasyequitycrowdfunding.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/shaken-fiasco-gives-shareholders-hard.html
When you refer to the opinions of the top players in crowdfunding, how many of these are competitors of Crowdcube? Perhaps in the interest of clarity you could be a bit more upfront about who these people are, so that your readers can assess whether they may have a vested interest in the demise of Crowdcube.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any analysis which reflects the superior performance of investments in other platforms as compared to Crowdcube? All the evidence you provide here relates to the poor performance of Crowdcube investments. But if your contention is that the problem is with the platform itself and not the investment class as a whole, you need to provide evidence that alternative platforms are performing significantly better. As far as I'm aware there have been very few successes on any platform, so I'd expect it is difficult at this stage to draw such a conclusion.
Regarding the "skin in the game" idea, I think this has to be implemented in the right way to be effective. Seedrs have a system where they take a percentage of the gains their investors make if an investment is successful. If the investment fails they still get their fees and HMRC and the investor face the losses. The idea of having skin in the game is that you lose money if things go badly, which isn't the case for Seedrs. It's the difference between an investment manager receiving a performance fee versus another investing his own wealth in his fund. Both have exposure to their funds performance but only the second has skin in the game. The first manager effectively has an option on his fund, which perversely encourages him to increase volatility by taking more risk.
CrowdCube is a broker. I wouldn't expect any other type of broker to have to take a stake or any other type of interest in the company - in fact, that could lead to conflicts. My advice is to turn up to their events and meet the CEOs in person. I have never invested without doing that, and most of my holdings (over a dozen)appear to be growing healthily. None have gone bust, although a small one did get bought out in a share swap. Standard stuff for this stage of company - I wouldn't expect more than 10% to succeed, but after four years, nearly 90% are doing OK - and creating jobs. Ask me again in 2025 ;-)
ReplyDeleteAlways glad to hear of satisfied investors. Caat comment as dont know the companies you invested in. Would you be able to give me names privately at rob@ecfsolutions.co.uk as im struggling to find 12 or even half that number that are 'doing well'. Can I assume the share swop was Big Sofa where CC investors were handed a loss before the company successfully IPO'd?
DeleteNo that was UP Investments. Companies doing well? The Good Egg have people queuing out the door every day, and are about to open their second site. Chirp.io are doing huge deals with all sorts of companies all the time, and are very much a leader in data over sound. Taste Cocktails have changed focus towards ilovegin.com, and are now a leading name in alcohol subs with a growing subscriber base (their nearest competitor, Shaken, went bust less than a year after raising on Seedrs). Adzuna are currently hiring for a number of positions... Of course, a lot of these are still investing in growth, so a short termist might question their current numbers, but again, ask me in 2025. Monzo are a great example of that. I noticed someone on here referring to them as a very expensive business plan. I wish my "business plan" had 200k customers in two years! Most business plans would allow for a lot more marketing spend too.
DeleteChirp's CEO just left - why was that? They seem to have rasied more capital as planned and are roughly on track. Good Egg - too early to tell. Taste - too early. Adzuna again too early but certainly not tracking their projections. Agree about the long term wait. We would expect some companies to do well and providing investors have not been diluted out, then these might produce some return. But for the total dross that CC punt it seems we are getting very few nuggets. We wrote about UP here - http://fantasyequitycrowdfunding.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/crowdcubes-up-investments-manages-sale.html - think we can agree that this really went bust!
DeleteI quite agree. It's far too easy and, ultimately, unsustainable for start-up and early stage companies to raise money and then effectively disappear into the sunset with little or no communication or accountability.
ReplyDeleteAs an investor, I am interested in the tax-influenced risk/reward dynamic, but I primarily invest in a company because I think there may be an interesting proposition with the product/market and/or management. Accordingly, I want to be kept informed in terms of progress.
I have stopped investing via Crowdcude in the past 12 months and only look at opportunities via the Seedrs platform as they take portfolio management far more seriously and have a nominee structure too.
Maybe there needs to be something in the Articles/Investment Agreement that stipulates quarterly reporting as a minimum? There needs to be some sanction against the principals themselves
Cheers!
pile em high, sell em cheap ???? Are u joking ...this is CC,,,pile em high, pr it to the heavens and sell at ridiculous valuations - surely you have got your expression wrong
ReplyDelete