Overlooked in the mockery of the GOP House taking some innocuous-seeming bills about small business capital formation and wrapping them up into a package to call them the JOBS Act is that the underlying bills themselves are really not good at all. It’s an effort to exempt a bunch of companies from reporting requirements and weaken investor protections. It’s a financial industry deregulation bill. Jesse Eisinger lays it out.
John Coffee, a Columbia Law professor, has hailed the bill as “the boiler room legalization act.” And rightly so. Boiler room operations were one of the unsung job creators of the 1990s, producing some of America’s greatest penny stocks and boom times for yacht makers and coke dealers [...]
Since the technology stock blowup, the accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, investors have been needlessly wary of putting their savings into fledgling companies offered by Wall Street banks.
The JOBS bill fixes that. Taking advantage of the revolutionary possibilities of the Internet, the bill loosens decades-old investor protections so that companies can directly advertise to those who would like to be separated from their money. It does that by giving broad exemptions for start-ups that want to “crowdfund” by raising small amounts of money over the Internet. I.P.O. pitches next to “Lose Your Belly!” ads. Sounds like a great idea!
Nigeria shouldn’t be the only country to benefit from the web. Right here in America, the elderly are increasingly attractive to a variety of entrepreneurial spirits. If JOBS becomes the law, such innovators could flourish.
That has it about right. Arthur Levitt, one of the last decent regulators at the SEC, called it “the most investor-unfriendly act I’ve seen in 25 years in that it favors corporate America at the expense of individual investors.” But consumer and investor advocacy groups got a very late start in raising awareness, and some powerful people in Congress – think Chuck Schumer – want to see this pass. Probably the only way to stop it at this point is to wrap it up in a separate controversy about the Export-Import Bank:
The Export-Import Bank — a self-financing agency that helps to facilitate the sale of American goods overseas — needs Congressional reauthorization by the end of May. It is also close to hitting its $100 billion lending cap, hobbling its ability to offer new loans, and has asked Congress to raise its financing limit.
With those two issues at hand, Congress is arguing over the bank’s future, with some Republicans floating a proposal that might end up abolishing the bank, and Senate Democrats hoping to force its expansion and reauthorization by attaching it to jobs legislation.
On Wednesday, Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, introduced an amendment to keep the bank running through 2015 and to increase its loan limit to $140 billion. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, is cosponsoring the amendment. The Senate is tying the amendment to the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS Act, a bill containing a bevy of measures to aid small businesses. The JOBS Act passed the House last week with broad bipartisan support and has won plaudits from the White House.
“Allowing the Ex-Im Bank to expire would be a crippling blow to our export economy,” Ms. Cantwell said Wednesday. “Extending the Ex-Im bank will provide certainty for American businesses and help support more private sector job growth.”
But some House Republicans are resisting, arguing the Senate should pass the JOBS Act as it is, and that Congress should then turn to reauthorizing — and reforming — the small financing institution.
Schumer has nominally backed Cantwell’s Ex-Im Bank reauthorization, which has its own benefits for the financial industry. And so far, there doesn’t seem to be any sign that Senate Democrats will back down. I’m rooting for acrimony. Let the Senate pass the JOBS Act with this Ex-Im Bank rider, and let the House take it out, and they can trade barbs about it for years. That’s literally the only viable path to maintaining some investor protections here.




9 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I guess that schumer is totally owned by the financial corpses.
Yep just sent chuckie dncc letter back with no money and a note that I’m not voting for the lesser of 2 evils anymore voting Green.
Don’t forget: if they cheat you, it was an accident, the kind of thing that happens, not intentional, so no suing for you, stupid investor.
No, by voting Green, you’re voting Republican.
The Green Party candidates have been so successful at electing Republicans, and the Republicans know it, that the Republicans have even cynically run homeless people as Green candidates in order to win themselves:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07candidates.html
The Green Party is nothing but a spoiler party: which is why their primary funding in a number of races is the GOP.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/more-gop-green-party-ties-found-788963.html
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/texas-political-news/democrats-suspect-new-gop-tie-to-green-party/
Green candidates are also Republican operatives who conveniently revert back to Republican, once elected:
http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2011/06/07/elected-green-in-arkansas-switches-to-republican-party/
So that makes you, jo6pac, either a dupe, or a Republican operative.
I’ll take dupe for $100.00 thank you
Yeah, this won’t provide jobs, just a huge opportunity for fraud…which always leads to fewer jobs.
Hardly a day goes by that “We the people” aren’t takin’ one in the rear…..
NOBODY on OUR side.
‘Cept David, and Jon, and FDL et al, of course.
The crowdfunding part of the legislation deserves a more nuanced treatment than you have given it. I don’t like the House version very much for a variety of reasons, in particular the lack of required intermediaries.
The bill addresses a real problem — current regulations make it very hard for new, small businesses to raise capital. Banks generally won’t lend to them because their probability of failure is high, and unless they are trying to become the next FB/Google/Tesla/PayPal/Twitter, most VCs aren’t interested. That leaves individual investors. There are only two kinds of people who can invest in such a business — people who are very closely connected to the business (family, close friends, business partners) and qualified investor. A qualified investor is a person whose wealth or income puts them in approximately top 1.5% of the wealth & income distribution. The assumption is that someone with that kind of money is more sophisticated than most and can also afford to lose.
And unless you are already wealthy yourself, it’s unlikely you personally know anyone who qualifies, and it’s equally unlikely your personal network includes anyone who does and is interested in investing in your business. It’s also not likely you know anyone with enough free capital to make a difference if they join your business.
Over time, this tends to increase economic inequality, because it strongly favors large businesses or businesses that would like to become large. Mom and pop operations have limited access to capital, and are therefore far more vulnerable to the predations of national or international competitors.
I think the limitations on both the quantity of money raised and the amount any single individual may put invest in crowdfunding ($1 million, 10% of their income) should prevent the experiment from getting out of hand and posing a systemic threat or putting anyone out on the street.
I have some personal experience with Kickstarter as a contributor to a few projects and a consultant on the production side of one that did very well. It’s hugely popular in my circles right now — nearly everyone has donated to a project, and it seems that half the people I know have done one, are doing one, are planning one, or are doing work for someone that raised a bunch of money through one.
That experience is why it troubles me that the House bill does not require intermediaries. Kickstarter, to pound on the example I have direct knowledge of, appears to do a good job of policing fraud on its site. Their interest in their reputation and their continued existence as a profitable business in the age of social media keeps them in line.
Fraud attempts been rare, and the site users and administrators have done a very good job of detecting fraud attempts that slip through their initial screening. It turns out that lots of diverse eyeballs tend to do a pretty good job at detecting fraud.
In conclusion, I support crowdfunding, but details matter enormously and I think the lack of required intermediaries is a massive hole in the House bill as it is written. More transparency is also necessary, but it needs to be carefully structured so as not to impose an undue regulatory burden.