That isn't necessarily true. Just because small businesses can freely solicit investment doesn't mean that actually raising it will be easier.
People seem to be making the assumption that there's this huge untapped market of rich people (read: accredited investors) who are not actively investing in businesses today simply because they haven't seen an ad or received an email inviting them to get in on the ground floor of a great opportunity.
I don't see much evidence that this is the case, and based on my experience, the reality, for better or worse, is that you're either tapped into funding channels (or can work your way into them) or you're not. This doesn't mean that no money will be raised in the fashion you describe, but the notion that there's going to be a flood of wealthy individuals writing checks to people and companies they just met is absurd.
As far as the specific situation you described, $200,000 is a modest amount. If you had a wealthy individual, or group of individuals, truly interested in owning a bar, it's far more likely that they'd purchase it themselves and hire an experienced person to run it. What incentive would they have to give any equity ownership and control to a group that couldn't "even come close" to putting up $200,000 themselves? "Accredited investor" doesn't necessarily mean "intelligent investor" but a lot of the comments around this general solicitation change assume that there's an abundance of accredited investors who are, for lack of a better description, utter fools.
This discussion around the lifting of the ban on general solicitation also seems to assume that this will most greatly affect startups/Silicon Valley and small business, when in fact this will almost certainly most greatly benefit Wall Street and the financial establishment.
As for my bar, let me re-phrase, just for accuracy: We couldn't come close on our own without liquidating existing investments. It didn't make mathematical sense to do so (returns were higher on existing than expected returns on the bar). From our perspective, it was an expensive hobby, not a money making investment (for us).
On the other hand, if we could raise, let's say $50K from investment, $50K converted from other investments (our own money), and $25K from family, then cover the remaining $75K through bank loan collateralized by the building (the building is valued at $125k)... Yup, that would have been easier.
My missed opportunity to take a huge equity stake in Facebook for $20,000 aside, what you're referring to is the quality of deal flow of an existing investment firm. There is no shortage of investors already actively involved in funding startups who wish they could have invested in a particular company.
That's not what we're talking about though. Your prior comment suggested that the lifting of the ban on general solicitation will make it easier for small businesses that cannot realistically raise capital today to do so.
There's a huge difference between a startup that is already working the angel and VC networks and a group of guys who want to buy a bar as a hobby and, perhaps not surprisingly, have no contacts eager to pony up even $50,000 so that the founders can keep most of their money in investments that are producing better returns than the bar would.
In other words, you're confirming one of my original observations: a lot of folks seem to believe that general solicitation will enable startups and small businesses that are less-than-compelling investments to raise money from stupid rich people.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if somebody somewhere has a list of accredited investors over the age of 80 who are likely to have Alzheimer's, that is not going to happen in significantly larger numbers as a result of this change.
There is an entire industry dedicated to this based out of New York. It gets hungry guys in early 20s to wake at 8am and begin cold calling high net-worth individuals offering them "investment opportunities". This industry flourished before the Internet and is depicted in movies like Boiler Room. The internet ate up a lot of their business because people no longer needed to be on walstreet to get data from walstreet. However, I can see these guys jump on this opportunity and begin shilling startups to the relatively high net-worth but naive retirees wanting to invest in the next facebook.
Had they know about it. Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about. Sure there's a difference between a startup that is already working the angel and VC networks and a group of guys who want to buy a bar as a hobby, but there isn't much difference between the bar and a bakery who want to expand, or an established bar who wants to open a new location, or the two guys who want to turn recycled junk into interesting furniture. None of these are looking for large investments, and none have access to VC and angel networks. Though the risk is high, there may be investor who are willing to take the gamble.
Lifting the ban provides a channel, where one doesn't currently exist, for these organizations to reach potential investors. Likewise, it provides a channel for interested investors to find out about opportunities they would otherwise not know about.
I didn't imply that lifting the ban would make funding automatic. Nor, do I expect, does anyone actually believe that it would (though you seem to think that's what people are saying). What it does do is allow the two ends to connect when there's mutual interest.
What this does is open a channel of communication. It's a way for small businesses to reach investors. That doesn't imply that the small business is going to get funding (or even a conversation with an investor) any more that getting on Shark Tank implies that Mark Cuban is going to invest in your fancy new shoelace company. On the other hand, there may be an investor out there, somewhere, who just happens to have an aglet company in his portfolio that would make your shoelaces a billion dollar company.
You don't put together a Reg D offering without competent legal counsel, and competent legal counsel costs money. So before you and your buddies can even test the fundraising waters through general solicitation, you'll have to make an investment of your own and that could easily run into the five figures.
I remember reading when the Jobs Act was first floated that non-accredited investors could invest as well but were capped at how much they could invest in a given year based on their income.
That is an entirely different can of worms, but there too, I think there is a general overestimation of how easy it will be for the average small business or startup to raise capital.
Not really. We, here on HN, tend to frame things around tech startups, but there's a larger world out there that incubators don't (and often can't) address. Consider this (real life) example:
Recently a local pub came up for sale. The asking price was $200,000. The purchase would include all current equipment and supplies, existing vendor contracts (subject to state transferability rules on the alcohol contracts), and local liquor license (the state license isn't transferable). It also included the building which housed 3 occupied (at the time) apartments.
The question, of course, is how to raise the $200K. Standard business loans were out (not an established business). There's SBA, but the loan amount we were looking for was a bit high for SBA. Friends and family, of course, but we wouldn't even come close.
In the end, we had to pass (though funding was only a part of the decision to pass). Here's kicker: If we could have spread the net wider, we may have had a chance to raise the money (with less effort), and been able to go ahead with the purchase.
While this is one story, I see these kinds of things al the time. A few years back, a founder looking to start a paintball facility got nailed by this (he was advertising the investment opportunity). It ended up shutting down the project.
The point is, outside of the technology world, getting investment funding for small businesses is very hard. This rule change makes it much easier.