Value proposition as a framework for value co-creation in crowd-funding ecosystem

The present paper suggests that crowd-funding in the arts and cultural sector occurs within a complex service ecosystem, where six categories of value propositions frame eight value co-creation processes, namely through ideation, evaluation, design, testing, launch, financing and authorship. Managerial contributions include the development of a crowd-funding service ecosystem model for arts managers, which offers not only a method of financing or economic value, but which also offers opportunities for strengthening bonds with customers and other stakeholders. Our paper is innovative in that we integrate value propositions categories with the micro – meso and macro contexts and analyse the different kind of co-creation are framed in the crowdfunding contextUniversidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech

Pattern Recognition: Industry seeking regulation – the case of crowdfunding. Bruges Political Research Papers 79/2020

At first it seems counterintuitive that an industry would seek regulation over itself, but from the point of view of crowdfunding, it was a logical step. Crowdfunding, as part of FinTech, is changing and challenging traditional financial institutions. The fragmentation of the EU market by national legislation on crowdfunding hindered its growth, and although FinTech is a diffuse interest, crowdfunding, as a pragmatic diffuse interest, formed legitimacy coalitions with the regulators. Utilizing Trumbull’s framework on pragmatic diffuse interest, my aim is to demonstrate through this case study that the industry lobby had influenced the agenda-setting and the policy-shaping, but only to the extent that there wasn’t conflicting interest from consumer groups. This is in line with previous finding on financial industry lobbying and some preliminary findings emerge, although as the proposal is still in first reading stage, the end results and conclusions remains to be see

Connectivity, confidentiality and confidence: Key issues in the provision of online pro bono activities

The provision of pro bono activities for law students has become an established feature of the undergraduate legal education landscape in Law Schools in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and beyond, providing the experiential elements of clinical legal education programmes. Pro bono activities conducted online, or utilising and enhanced by technologies in other ways (for example, through the development of a mobile phone application providing legal guidance), are increasingly becoming a part of this offering, reflecting wider shifts within legal practice and society and an increasing recognition of the importance of digital literacy skills. This paper will situate these forms of online and technologically-enhanced pro bono activities both within the wider context of contemporary clinical legal education and also as a part of broader professional and societal shifts. It will explore a variety of innovative approaches being taken internationally, including work done by The Open University’s Open Justice Centre in the UK, before moving on to focus on a number of key challenges and opportunities which may arise through the increasing provision of these new forms of pro bono activities by Law Schools. These include the potential and pitfalls of the technology involved, issues with confidentiality (particularly in the context of online legal advice) and the issue of how to foster trust in the online environment. The paper will conclude with a number of suggestions for areas requiring further research and discussion to enable contemporary clinicians to fully utilise the potential of online and technologically-enhanced pro bono activities

Competition in financial services

In the financial services sector, the failure of a single institution can have a compounding effect on the sector, and on national and global economies. In particular, there is systemic risk from inter-institution lending, and this effect is more complex in Australia due to the small number of major players. In retail banking in Australia, following a similar practice in most developed countries, if an unsecured creditor is a retail depositor, their deposit is insured by the government. That is, if a retail bank fails, the Federal Government will make the depositors whole. The regulatory system, particularly the prudential regulatory system, is designed to protect depositors’ and borrowers’ interests, and this protects the interest of the government. The effect is that regulatory policy on banking has prioritised stability in consideration of the sovereign risk associated with the risk of retail bank failure. However, this approach also creates a policy dilemma. The dilemma concerns the extent to which the retail banking sector can attain the benefits of the vigorous rivalry from effective and efficient competition, without unduly risking stability and the potential of a devastating call on the public purse. Specifically, in the context of effective and efficient competition, there is limited competitiveness in retail banking in Australia. This is reflected in the static state of market share between the four major banks, and very slow and marginal improvements gains even by strong second tier competitors. Furthermore, the retail banking sector’s capacity for product and service innovation is limited. Although the absence of vigorous rivalry is conducive to stability within the retail banking sector, it is likely to detract from the welfare of retail banking consumers. Furthermore, the level of innovation may not be as high as is feasible and barriers, including prudential regulatory barriers to entry or expansion, mean that the extent of rivalry is unlikely to change without some form of promotion of competition. The paper consequently makes a four-point recommendation for the removal of the ‘four pillars’ policy:  The four major banks are protected by an implicit government guarantee that impacts market operation with little observable benefit to consumers, and may be a source of consumer disutility.  The four pillars policy has prompted increased vertical integration within the sector, particularly in the area of mortgage products.  There are sufficient merger protections provided by Part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).  Competition and contestability arise when there are reasonably low barriers to entry and exit from the sector. It is not clear that low barriers to entry exist in Australia, and evidence to support this view comes from the failure of international banks to gain a significant toehold in the retail banking sector in Australia. One deterrent to entry is the regulatory focus on the four pillars. The authors recognise that this position is at odds with the view of the Financial System Inquiry. However, the rationale in the report of the Inquiry was to prevent mergers, and the current competition law achieves this objective. The paper recommends two specific policies to promote competition in retail banking without the structural intervention that would otherwise be required to improve the intensity of competition in the retail banking sector:  Introduce bank account number portability. This would use ‘know your customer’ and central database systems in a similar form to those that have been used for mobile number portability in Australia for the last decade and a half.  Introduce customer access to data held by banks to allow third parties to compare bank offerings across all banks.  Significantly, these two recommendations are consistent with the productivity proposals issued by the UK Government in July 2015. The research paper also examines crowd equity funding as a disruptive force in the banking sector, and recommends that crowd equity funding be permitted with the following safeguards:  ASIC should take an active role in monitoring crowd equity funding and be willing to sue in case of fraudulent action.  Any intermediary online platform should have a financial services licence with limited duty of care.  There should be a cap for business raisings through crowd equity funding of $2 million in a 12-month period.  Crowd equity funding is a social phenomenon. Through its use of social media, it has attracted people who have previously never been interested in investing in companies. Instead of being feared, this interest should be nurtured through the promotion of investors’ financial education

Intrastate Crowdfunding in Alaska: Is There Security in Following the Crowd?

This Note analyzes the potential of crowdfunding for the State of Alaska. Crowdfunding can open up new sources of revenue for small businesses while simultaneously providing an avenue for Alaskans to invest in their own communities. The potential, however, must be weighed against the risk of fraud, poorly run businesses, and the lack of protection for investors. It is the responsibility of the Alaska legislature, the State’s securities administrators, and the Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure that investors are adequately protected. This Note discusses Alaska’s crowdfunding legislation, the Alaska Intrastate Crowdfunding Exemption, and recommends changes to the legislation that account for the risks involved in crowdfunding while still capturing its potential

Sharing economy vs sharing cultures? Designing for social, economic and environmental good

This paper explores the story behind a crowdfunding service as an example of sharing technology. Research in a small neighborhood of London showed how locally-developed initiatives can differ in tone, scale, ambition and practice to those getting attention in the so-called sharing economy. In local accounts, we see an emphasis on organizing together to create shared spaces for collaborative use of resources and joint ownership of projects and places. Whereas, many global business models feature significant elements of renting, leasing and hiring and focus only on resource management, sometimes at the expense of community growth. The service we discuss is based in the area we studied and has a collective model of sharing, but hopes to be part of the new global movement. We use this hybridity to problematize issues of culture, place and scalability in developing sharing resources and addressing sustainability concerns. We relate this to the motivation, rhetoric and design choices of other local sharing enterprises and other global sharing economy initiatives, arguing, in conclusion, that there is no sharing economy, but a variety of new cultures being fostered

Financial system inquiry: final report

Executive summary This report responds to the objective in the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference to best position Australia’s financial system to meet Australia’s evolving needs and support economic growth. It offers a blueprint for an efficient and resilient financial system over the next 10 to 20 years, characterised by the fair treatment of users.   The Inquiry has made 44 recommendations relating to the Australian financial system. These recommendations reflect the Inquiry’s judgement and are based on evidence received by the Inquiry. The Inquiry’s test has been one of public interest: the interests of individuals, businesses, the economy, taxpayers and Government.   Australia’s financial system has performed well since the Wallis Inquiry and has many strong characteristics. It also has a number of weaknesses: taxation and regulatory settings distort the flow of funding to the real economy; it remains susceptible to financial shocks; superannuation is not delivering retirement incomes efficiently; unfair consumer outcomes remain prevalent; and policy settings do not focus on the benefits of competition and innovation. As a result, the system is prone to calls for more regulation.   To put these issues in context, the Overview first deals with the characteristics of Australia’s economy. It then describes the characteristics of and prerequisites for a well-functioning financial system and the Inquiry’s philosophy of financial regulation.   The Inquiry focuses on seven themes in this report (summarised in Guide to the Financial System Inquiry Final Report).   The Overview deals with the general themes of funding the Australian economy and competition.   The Inquiry has also made recommendations on five specific themes, which comprise the next chapters of this report: Strengthen the economy by making the financial system more resilient. Lift the value of the superannuation system and retirement incomes. Drive economic growth and productivity through settings that promote innovation. Enhance confidence and trust by creating an environment in which financial firms treat customers fairly. Enhance regulator independence and accountability and minimise the need for future regulation. These recommendations seek to improve efficiency, resilience and fair treatment in the Australian financial system, allowing it to achieve its potential in supporting economic growth and enhancing standards of living for current and future generations.   Financial system inquiry committee   Mr David Murray AO (Chair) Mr David Murray AO (Sydney) was most recently the inaugural Chairman of the Australian Government’s Future Fund Board of Guardians between 2006 and 2012. Mr Murray was previously the Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia between 1992 and 2005. In this time, Mr. Murray oversaw the transformation of the Commonwealth Bank from a partly privatised bank to an integrated financial services company. In 2001, he was awarded the Centenary Medal for service to Australian society in banking and corporate governance, and in 2007 he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for his service to the finance sector, both domestically and globally, and service to the community.   Professor Kevin Davis Professor Kevin Davis (Melbourne) is currently a Professor of Finance at the University of Melbourne, Research Director at the Australian Centre for Financial Studies and a Professor of Finance at Monash University. Professor Davis is also a part-time member of the Australian Competition Tribunal and Co-Chair of the Australia–New Zealand Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee.   Mr Craig Dunn Mr Craig Dunn (Sydney) was most recently Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of AMP. Mr Dunn led AMP through the global financial crisis and has extensive experience in the financial sector. He was a member of the Australian Government\u27s Financial Sector Advisory Council and the Australian Financial Centre Forum, and an executive member of the Australia Japan Business Co-operation Committee. Mr Dunn is a director of the Australian Government’s Financial Literacy Board.   Ms Carolyn Hewson AO Ms Carolyn Hewson AO (Adelaide) served as an investment banker at Schroders Australia for 15 years. Ms Hewson has over 30 years’ experience in the finance sector and currently serves on the boards of BHP Billiton Ltd and Stockland. Ms Hewson was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for her services to the YWCA and to business. Ms Hewson has served on both the boards of Westpac and AMP and retired from the board of BT Investment Management Ltd and as the Chair of the Westpac Foundation upon her appointment to the Financial System Inquiry Committee.   Dr Brian McNamee AO Dr Brian McNamee AO (Melbourne) served as the Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of CSL Limited from 1990 to 30 June 2013. During that time, CSL transitioned from a Government-owned enterprise to a global company with a market capitalisation of approximately $30 billion. He has extensive experience in the biotech and global healthcare industries. Dr McNamee was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for his service to business and commerce. &nbsp

Equity crowdfunding, shareholder structures, and firm performance

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.Research question/issue: This paper provides a first-time glimpse into the postcampaign financial and innovative performance of equity-crowdfunded (ECF) and matched nonequity-crowdfunded (NECF) firms. We further investigate how direct and nominee shareholder structures in ECF firms are associated with firm performance. Research findings/insights: We find that ECF firms have 8.5 times higher failure rates than matched NECF firms. However, 3.4 times more ECF firms have patent applications than matched NECF firms. Within the group of ECF firms, we find that ECF firms financed through a nominee structure make smaller losses, whereas ECF firms financed through a direct shareholder structure have more new patent applications, including foreign patent applications. Theoretical/academic implications: Our findings suggest that there are important adverse selection issues on equity crowdfunding platforms, although these platforms also serve as a catalyst for innovative activities. Moreover, our findings suggest that there is a more complex relationship between dispersed versus concentrated crowd shareholders and firm performance than currently assumed in the literature. Practitioner/policy implications: For policy makers and crowdfunding platforms, investor protection against adverse selection will be important to ensure the sustainability of equity crowdfunding markets. For entrepreneurs and crowd investors, our study highlights how equity crowdfunding and the adopted shareholder structure relate to short-term firm performance.Research Foundation—Flander

An Annotated Bibliography of Recent Literature on Current Developments in Philanthropy

As philanthropic organizations play an increasingly important role in societies around the world, the research on philanthropy – from giving and volunteering practices to regulatory frameworks to digital innovations – has also evolved in recent decades. It is important to develop a thorough overview of the relevant scientific discourses and literature on current developments in philanthropy. This will allow researchers and practitioners to enhance the understanding of philanthropy and to improve its practice worldwide. This report provides new insights on current developments and important changes in the global philanthropic landscape, including trends in global philanthropy and its interaction with other sectors of society

The Frontiers of Peer-to-Peer Lending: Thinking About a New Regulatory Approach

The growth of online alternative lending presents several advantages for both those seeking credit and those with excess capital to lend. Over the past decade, several different models of peer-to-peer lending have emerged in the US and U.K. Each of these models has developed in response to the different regulatory system it faces, which has led to the models’ different risk and reward profiles. However, the current regulatory framework for regulating peer-to-peer lending, especially in the U.S., leaves much to be desired. The inadequate regulatory regime not only hampers the potential for growth and further innovation in the industry, but also creates risks for consumers, lenders, and, as the sector grows, entire markets. There is no clear or easy answer as to the optimal regulatory regime, but regulators should at least consider the basic functions of peer-to-peer lending and how to address risks with a more comprehensive and sensible model for regulation