StarZero All shows Try the podcast clipper →

Jul 1, 2017 · 19m · top-founders

707: Government Gives Him Power to Let Non-Accredited Investors Invest

Nathan Latka · 8m spoken Manny Fernandez · 7m spoken
0:00 / 0:00

gold bands on the timeline = statements, start to end. Hover to read, click to jump. CC turns on captions

In this episode of The Top, host Nathan Latka interviews angel investor Manny Fernandez about his transition from real estate into tech syndication and the launch of Dream Funded, a pioneering equity crowdfunding platform operating under Title III of the JOBS Act.

How this conversation actually went

Every chapter scored 0–10 on four independent dynamics. Hover any point for the reasoning behind the score. Nathan holds 51.7% of the talking time here. How this is scored →

Nathan as informed peer 4.6 Guest teaching 2.4 Guest disagreement 2.0 Nathan pushing back 3.9
05100:0010:001:09–4:40 · Nathan as informed peer 5/10 Manny Fernandez's Background and Early Real Estate Roots Nathan probes Manny's transition from real estate flipping to angel investing, immediately clarifying Manny's use of 'our' to uncover the structure of SF Angels. Manny explains the difference between $250k LP fund minimums and pooled angel groups.4:40–7:18 · Nathan as informed peer 5/10 Investment Structures, Return Expectations, and Tech Upside Nathan inquires into SPVs, syndicate structures, and why Manny would pursue high-risk tech investing over dependable real estate cash flow. Manny outlines the asymmetric upside of early-stage tech investing.7:18–10:54 · Nathan as informed peer 6/10 Portfolio Allocation and Risk Management for Angels Nathan repeatedly refuses Manny's vague answers regarding personal portfolio allocation percentages, forcing Manny to finally offer a concrete 2-5% recommendation. Manny then details his specific regulatory background with Title III of the JOBS Act.10:56–13:12 · Nathan as informed peer 7/10 Crowdfunding Campaign Dynamics and SEC Form C Disclosures Nathan live-audits a campaign on Dream Funded and challenges Manny on why campaign funding minimums are buried in SEC Form C filings rather than clearly displayed for retail investors. Manny acknowledges Nathan's point.13:12–15:38 · Nathan as informed peer 5/10 Dream Funded Monetization, Capital Raised, and Operations Nathan breaks down Dream Funded's monetization (5% cash and 2% equity) and presses Manny to clarify whether the $35 million raised includes non-accredited capital. Manny transparently outlines their launch timeline and team size.15:38–18:58 · Nathan as informed peer 4/10 Crowdfunding Exposure Versus Institutional Capital Offers Nathan poses a hypothetical about institutional VCs poaching deals mid-campaign, which Manny confirms happens. They complete the standard rapid-fire Famous Five section with light banter.18:59–19:41 · Nathan as informed peer 0/10 Episode Summary and Preview of Upcoming Show Nathan delivers a solo outro summarizing Manny's background with Dream Funded and previews the next day's episode.1:09–4:40 · Guest teaching 3/10 Manny Fernandez's Background and Early Real Estate Roots Nathan probes Manny's transition from real estate flipping to angel investing, immediately clarifying Manny's use of 'our' to uncover the structure of SF Angels. Manny explains the difference between $250k LP fund minimums and pooled angel groups.4:40–7:18 · Guest teaching 2/10 Investment Structures, Return Expectations, and Tech Upside Nathan inquires into SPVs, syndicate structures, and why Manny would pursue high-risk tech investing over dependable real estate cash flow. Manny outlines the asymmetric upside of early-stage tech investing.7:18–10:54 · Guest teaching 4/10 Portfolio Allocation and Risk Management for Angels Nathan repeatedly refuses Manny's vague answers regarding personal portfolio allocation percentages, forcing Manny to finally offer a concrete 2-5% recommendation. Manny then details his specific regulatory background with Title III of the JOBS Act.10:56–13:12 · Guest teaching 4/10 Crowdfunding Campaign Dynamics and SEC Form C Disclosures Nathan live-audits a campaign on Dream Funded and challenges Manny on why campaign funding minimums are buried in SEC Form C filings rather than clearly displayed for retail investors. Manny acknowledges Nathan's point.13:12–15:38 · Guest teaching 2/10 Dream Funded Monetization, Capital Raised, and Operations Nathan breaks down Dream Funded's monetization (5% cash and 2% equity) and presses Manny to clarify whether the $35 million raised includes non-accredited capital. Manny transparently outlines their launch timeline and team size.15:38–18:58 · Guest teaching 2/10 Crowdfunding Exposure Versus Institutional Capital Offers Nathan poses a hypothetical about institutional VCs poaching deals mid-campaign, which Manny confirms happens. They complete the standard rapid-fire Famous Five section with light banter.18:59–19:41 · Guest teaching 0/10 Episode Summary and Preview of Upcoming Show Nathan delivers a solo outro summarizing Manny's background with Dream Funded and previews the next day's episode.1:09–4:40 · Guest disagreement 2/10 Manny Fernandez's Background and Early Real Estate Roots Nathan probes Manny's transition from real estate flipping to angel investing, immediately clarifying Manny's use of 'our' to uncover the structure of SF Angels. Manny explains the difference between $250k LP fund minimums and pooled angel groups.4:40–7:18 · Guest disagreement 2/10 Investment Structures, Return Expectations, and Tech Upside Nathan inquires into SPVs, syndicate structures, and why Manny would pursue high-risk tech investing over dependable real estate cash flow. Manny outlines the asymmetric upside of early-stage tech investing.7:18–10:54 · Guest disagreement 4/10 Portfolio Allocation and Risk Management for Angels Nathan repeatedly refuses Manny's vague answers regarding personal portfolio allocation percentages, forcing Manny to finally offer a concrete 2-5% recommendation. Manny then details his specific regulatory background with Title III of the JOBS Act.10:56–13:12 · Guest disagreement 3/10 Crowdfunding Campaign Dynamics and SEC Form C Disclosures Nathan live-audits a campaign on Dream Funded and challenges Manny on why campaign funding minimums are buried in SEC Form C filings rather than clearly displayed for retail investors. Manny acknowledges Nathan's point.13:12–15:38 · Guest disagreement 1/10 Dream Funded Monetization, Capital Raised, and Operations Nathan breaks down Dream Funded's monetization (5% cash and 2% equity) and presses Manny to clarify whether the $35 million raised includes non-accredited capital. Manny transparently outlines their launch timeline and team size.15:38–18:58 · Guest disagreement 2/10 Crowdfunding Exposure Versus Institutional Capital Offers Nathan poses a hypothetical about institutional VCs poaching deals mid-campaign, which Manny confirms happens. They complete the standard rapid-fire Famous Five section with light banter.18:59–19:41 · Guest disagreement 0/10 Episode Summary and Preview of Upcoming Show Nathan delivers a solo outro summarizing Manny's background with Dream Funded and previews the next day's episode.1:09–4:40 · Nathan pushing back 4/10 Manny Fernandez's Background and Early Real Estate Roots Nathan probes Manny's transition from real estate flipping to angel investing, immediately clarifying Manny's use of 'our' to uncover the structure of SF Angels. Manny explains the difference between $250k LP fund minimums and pooled angel groups.4:40–7:18 · Nathan pushing back 4/10 Investment Structures, Return Expectations, and Tech Upside Nathan inquires into SPVs, syndicate structures, and why Manny would pursue high-risk tech investing over dependable real estate cash flow. Manny outlines the asymmetric upside of early-stage tech investing.7:18–10:54 · Nathan pushing back 7/10 Portfolio Allocation and Risk Management for Angels Nathan repeatedly refuses Manny's vague answers regarding personal portfolio allocation percentages, forcing Manny to finally offer a concrete 2-5% recommendation. Manny then details his specific regulatory background with Title III of the JOBS Act.10:56–13:12 · Nathan pushing back 6/10 Crowdfunding Campaign Dynamics and SEC Form C Disclosures Nathan live-audits a campaign on Dream Funded and challenges Manny on why campaign funding minimums are buried in SEC Form C filings rather than clearly displayed for retail investors. Manny acknowledges Nathan's point.13:12–15:38 · Nathan pushing back 3/10 Dream Funded Monetization, Capital Raised, and Operations Nathan breaks down Dream Funded's monetization (5% cash and 2% equity) and presses Manny to clarify whether the $35 million raised includes non-accredited capital. Manny transparently outlines their launch timeline and team size.15:38–18:58 · Nathan pushing back 3/10 Crowdfunding Exposure Versus Institutional Capital Offers Nathan poses a hypothetical about institutional VCs poaching deals mid-campaign, which Manny confirms happens. They complete the standard rapid-fire Famous Five section with light banter.18:59–19:41 · Nathan pushing back 0/10 Episode Summary and Preview of Upcoming Show Nathan delivers a solo outro summarizing Manny's background with Dream Funded and previews the next day's episode.

speaking balance: gold is Nathan, purple is the guest (3 minute bins)

0:00 · Nathan 68% · guest 32%0:00 · Nathan 68% · guest 32%3:00 · Nathan 41.7% · guest 58.3%3:00 · Nathan 41.7% · guest 58.3%6:00 · Nathan 39.8% · guest 60.2%6:00 · Nathan 39.8% · guest 60.2%9:00 · Nathan 49.6% · guest 50.4%9:00 · Nathan 49.6% · guest 50.4%12:00 · Nathan 45.8% · guest 54.2%12:00 · Nathan 45.8% · guest 54.2%15:00 · Nathan 59.4% · guest 40.6%15:00 · Nathan 59.4% · guest 40.6%18:00 · Nathan 61.7% · guest 38.3%18:00 · Nathan 61.7% · guest 38.3%
Sharpest disagreement ▶ 8:15 Manny resists revealing his personal investment exposure

Manny repeatedly dismisses Nathan's attempt to pin him down to a specific percentage allocation, insisting financial capacity is purely subjective.

 Hardest push from Nathan ▶ 8:20 Nathan rejects generalized advice and demands personal data

Nathan cuts through Manny's generic evasion by stating he wants Manny's actual numbers rather than an industry average.

 Biggest teaching moment ▶ 10:29 Manny explains his SEC Title III JOBS Act background

Manny explains why his platform secured early approval by noting he was cited directly in the SEC's Title III regulatory rule drafting.

 Nathan holds their own ▶ 12:14 Nathan exposes usability hurdles for non-accredited investors

Nathan challenges the platform's user experience by showing unsophisticated retail investors will not know to read an SEC Form C to find campaign closing thresholds.
the scores for every segment, with the reasoning behind each
ChapterTopicNathan as informed peerGuest teachingGuest disagreementNathan pushing backWhy
Manny Fernandez's Background and Early Real Estate Roots 5324 Nathan probes Manny's transition from real estate flipping to angel investing, immediately clarifying Manny's use of 'our' to uncover the structure of SF Angels. Manny explains the difference between $250k LP fund minimums and pooled angel groups.
Investment Structures, Return Expectations, and Tech Upside 5224 Nathan inquires into SPVs, syndicate structures, and why Manny would pursue high-risk tech investing over dependable real estate cash flow. Manny outlines the asymmetric upside of early-stage tech investing.
Portfolio Allocation and Risk Management for Angels 6447 Nathan repeatedly refuses Manny's vague answers regarding personal portfolio allocation percentages, forcing Manny to finally offer a concrete 2-5% recommendation. Manny then details his specific regulatory background with Title III of the JOBS Act.
Crowdfunding Campaign Dynamics and SEC Form C Disclosures 7436 Nathan live-audits a campaign on Dream Funded and challenges Manny on why campaign funding minimums are buried in SEC Form C filings rather than clearly displayed for retail investors. Manny acknowledges Nathan's point.
Dream Funded Monetization, Capital Raised, and Operations 5213 Nathan breaks down Dream Funded's monetization (5% cash and 2% equity) and presses Manny to clarify whether the $35 million raised includes non-accredited capital. Manny transparently outlines their launch timeline and team size.
Crowdfunding Exposure Versus Institutional Capital Offers 4223 Nathan poses a hypothetical about institutional VCs poaching deals mid-campaign, which Manny confirms happens. They complete the standard rapid-fire Famous Five section with light banter.
Episode Summary and Preview of Upcoming Show 0000 Nathan delivers a solo outro summarizing Manny's background with Dream Funded and previews the next day's episode.

Statements from this episode (10)

Disclosure
SF Angels Group comprises 32 members focused on San Francisco startups
“I'm a founder of SF Angels Group. We're 32 members. We focus on primarily companies in San Francisco”
Manny Fernandez Jul 1, 2017 ▶ 2:58
Disclosure
Dream Funded users got TaskRabbit allocation via SF Angels syndicate
“An angel that's a member of SF Angels was a early investor in TaskRabbit. They were doing a next round, and I was invited to be a part of it. So I brought Dream Funded members to be an investor in the fund that we had set up specifically for it.”
Manny Fernandez Jul 1, 2017 ▶ 4:26
Insight
New angel investors should cap startup allocation at 5% of portfolio
“I think a person should, if they get involved in angel investing, should probably have a small percentage of their portfolio and start as a diversify, maybe two to five percent if they even want to have that dollar amount involved.”
Manny Fernandez Jul 1, 2017 ▶ 8:42
Assertion Partly supported
Dream Funded permits non-accredited investors to write $100 startup checks
“Dream Funded allows a everyday American to be able to invest as low as 100 dollars into a company they decide to invest in.”
Manny Fernandez Jul 1, 2017 ▶ 9:18
Assertion Contradicted
Dream Funded was first SF platform approved for non-accredited investors
“We're fortunate that we're the first platform in Silicon Valley in San Francisco to receive the approval to allow they call it non-accredited investors to invest.”
Manny Fernandez Jul 1, 2017 ▶ 9:35
Assertion Partly supported
Fernandez is personally cited in SEC's final Title III JOBS Act rules
“If you look at the final rules of Title III of the JOBS Act on the SEC site, there's some, I'm mentioning there a couple of times.”
Manny Fernandez Jul 1, 2017 ▶ 10:37
Disclosure
Dream Funded charges 5% cash and 2% equity on successful fundraises
“No, it's five percent upon closing. So we get five percent of what the closing of the round and two percent of the shares that the company is offering.”
Manny Fernandez Jul 1, 2017 ▶ 13:22
Assertion Not checkable as stated
More than 30 startups have successfully raised on Dream Funded
“Over 30.”
Manny Fernandez Jul 1, 2017 ▶ 13:50
Assertion Not checkable as stated
Dream Funded facilitated over $35 million in total startup investments
“From the both accredited and non-accredited investor side, over thirty-five million.”
Manny Fernandez Jul 1, 2017 ▶ 13:54
Assertion Not checkable as stated
One startup declined Dream Funded capital after landing major corporate investment
“There's a company that reached their target and received an investment from a big name company, and so they declined to use our platform.”
Manny Fernandez Jul 1, 2017 ▶ 16:04
Made with StarZero

Turn any episode into a week of clips.

This entire site, over 2,600 episodes transcribed, diarized, checked and made playable, runs on the StarZero media pipeline. Drop in your own episode and the podcast clipper finds the moments worth sharing, cuts them, captions them, and reframes them for every feed.

Try the podcast clipper Learn more