Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Crowdfunding platforms for renewable energy investments:
a critical analysis and overview of best practices in the EU
by
Wouter De Broeck
Dissertation for Master in Environmental Economics and Management
Supervised by Prof. Dra. Maria Isabel Rebelo Teixeira Soares
June, 2017
i
About the Author
Wouter De Broeck was born in 1972, in Belgium. He obtained a pre-Bologna master degree
from Ghent University in German and Dutch Linguistics and Literature in 1995 and a post-
graduate degree in Portuguese Literature and Language from the University of Porto. After
teaching German to Portuguese students, he started working as a journalist for several
Belgian newspapers, broadcast and newsmagazines. While working for the newspaper De
Tijd/L’Echo he developed he special interest for climate, energy and environment related
issues, interviewing top personalities as Lord Nicolas Stern (Stern report) or Michael
Braungart (cradle to cradle). The master in environmental economics and management
(MEGA) he chose to study, as well as the present thesis are building upon this interest. As a
journalist, a researcher or, perhaps in some other role, he will continue to pursue a better
understanding of how finance can shape a better environment for us all.
ii
Acknowledgements
A work of this dimension is never the work of one person alone. Therefore I would like to
thank all people who, in some way, contributed to it. In the first place that is Prof. Dra. Isabel
Soares, who not only accepted to supervise the thesis in spite of a heavy agenda, but gave
extremely valuable insights, resolved tons of doubts and questions and pushed me to submit
a paper for the 2017 ICEE conference (that was accepted). I want to thank her for all the
implicit and explicit motivation, as well as for her full availability to schedule meetings. I am
also very grateful to the 10 crowdfunding platforms that participated in the survey. In
particular I want to thank GoParity- founder Nuno Brito Jorge, who gave me the chance to
take part in the start-up phase of the first Portuguese crowdfunding platform for sustainable
investment, as well as Matthieu van Haperen (Ecrowd!) who shared the results of a
satisfaction inquiry that made possible our case study. A final and special thank you goes to
my wife and family, who supported me by being there and giving me the room to work.
iii
ABSTRACT
This master thesis takes a closer look at EU crowdfunding platforms that offer investment in
renewable energy sources (RES) projects. We focus on how they are exposed to and lead
with investor risk. Therefore we analyze the platforms’ business models and the resulting
risk types, as well as their assessment, mitigation and communication. Our research is based
on a review of the documents and information available on the platforms’ websites, on a
survey filled in by the platform’s representatives and a case study of a crowdfunding platform
in Spain.
The resulting overview of best practices shows that RES-crowdfunding activity thrives on
stable long term policy support schemes for small and medium scale projects, as well as on
comprehensive financial regulation that exempts crowdfunding from classic financial service
regulatory obligations. When we look at the offered financial instruments and underlying
RES-projects a considerable exposure to credit risk can be verified. Risk awareness among
platforms can be considered high, however confidence on the investor’s capability to deal
with risk is high as well. With a third mitigating and communicating risk beyond compliance
rules, attitude towards investor risk tends to an above standard compliance, even when not
fully covering risk exposure.
To our knowledge this is the first systematical overview of best practices in RES-
crowdfunding. Results can contribute to an improved risk management by platforms, policy
improvements in order to safeguard RES-crowdfunding as financing technique or integration
in classic energy financing. Future research needs to quantify investor risk exposure under
changing conditions, be it the phasing out of Feed-in-Tariffs or the considerable decrease of
solar PV investment costs.
JEL classification: G23, G31, G32, L31
KEYWORDS: crowdfunding, renewable energy, risk analysis
iv
INDEX
About the Author ................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... iii
Index of figures ..................................................................................................................... vi
Index of tables ...................................................................................................................... vi
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW (BACKGROUND&HYPOTHESIS) ............................... 4
2.1. Crowdfunding: background and types ................................................................ 4
2.2. RES-Crowdfunding: background and literature ................................................ 5
2.3. RES-crowdfunding: financial regulation and RES-policy ................................. 7
2.4. Why address investor risk? ................................................................................... 8
3. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 11
3.1. General .................................................................................................................. 11
3.2. EU-survey.............................................................................................................. 11
3.3. Sample selection ................................................................................................... 12
3.4. Analysis of documents and survey ...................................................................... 12
3.5. Case study and rating system .............................................................................. 13
4. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 15
4.1. The EU RES-crowdfunding market in numbers............................................... 15
4.2. The relation between regulatory environment and RES-crowdfunding
activity .............................................................................................................................. 20
4.2.1. RES-remuneration/policy support vs. RES-crowdfunding activity ................. 20
4.2.2. Financial regulation vs.RES crowdfunding activity ....................................... 23
4.2.3. Business model/amount of fees-RES-regulation ............................................. 27
4.3. Risk types surging from the business models used ........................................... 30
4.3.1. RES-regulation and risk .................................................................................. 30
4.3.2. Financial regulation and risk ......................................................................... 31
v
4.4. The platform’s attitude towards risk ................................................................. 33
4.4.1. Awareness ....................................................................................................... 33
4.4.2. Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 34
4.4.3. Communication ............................................................................................... 36
4.5. Perceived risk ....................................................................................................... 36
5. CASE STUDY ECROWD! ......................................................................................... 38
5.1. Platform and project description ........................................................................ 38
5.2. Investors profile .................................................................................................... 39
5.3. The platform’s attitude towards investor’s risk ................................................ 41
5.4. A rating system as the perfect compromise? ..................................................... 42
5.5. The rating system ................................................................................................. 43
6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ....................................................... 47
7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 51
7.1. Articles .................................................................................................................. 51
7.2. Legislation ............................................................................................................. 55
7.3. Websites ................................................................................................................ 55
8. ANNEXES .................................................................................................................... 58
vi
Index of figures
Figure 1. Number of active platforms per country ............................................................... 16
Figure 2. Volume of crowdfunded RES-projects per country .............................................. 17
Figure 3. RES-crowdfunding volume/total volume in Germany .......................................... 18
Figure 4. RES-crowdfunding volume per capita in the EU .................................................. 18
Figure 5. Average return of crowdfunded RES-projects ...................................................... 19
Figure 6. Average maturity of crowdfunded RES-projects .................................................. 21
Figure 7. Number of platforms/Type of RES-technology .................................................... 23
Figure 8. RES-technology/remuneration .............................................................................. 24
Figure 9. Type of investment/arrangement fee ..................................................................... 30
Figure 10. Type remuneration/arrangement fee ................................................................... 31
Figure 11. Amounts invested in Mar de Fulles ..................................................................... 41
Index of tables
Table 1. Remuneration feeding return of RES-projects/nº of platforms per country ........... 22
Table 2. The authorization of platform activity/Nº of platforms per country ....................... 27
Table 3. Remuneration feeding return/type of financial instruments/country ...................... 33
Table 4. Technical overview Mar de Fulles ......................................................................... 39
Table 5. Rating system applied to Mar de Fulles ................................................................. 45
Table 6: Score card rating system ......................................................................................... 47
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The European alternative finance industry (crowdfunding, peer-to-peer lending) has seen a
remarkable growth over the past years, with the latest industry report pointing to a transaction
volume of 5,431m € in 2015 and volume outside of the pioneering UK market exceeding
1,000m € for the first time (Zhang, Burton, Garvey, Lui, Wardrop and Ziegler, 2016).
The growth of alternative financing essentially has taken place in the aftermath of the
financial crisis and has been related to the credit shortage that especially affected SME’s as
well as to the loss of trust in traditional financial services and the banking industry ( De
Buysere, Gajda, Kleverlaan and Marom, 2012; Zhang et al. 2016). Crowdfunding has since
then presented itself as worthy alternative to finance companies, non-profits and projects
(Ordanini, Miceli, Pizzeti and Parasuraman, 2011; De Buysere et al., 2012; Agrawal, Catalini
and Goldfarb, 2013; Belleflamme, Lambert and Schwienbacher, 2014).
Over the same period renewable energy sources (RES) projects have been greatly affected
by a funding gap that had its origin in the financial crisis but was widened by the reduced
policy support (DIACORE, 2016; Engelken, Römer, Drescher, Welpe and Picot, 2016;
Vasileiadou, Huijben and Raven, 2016). As a consequence crowdfunding initiatives have
surged that couple potential support for renewables by the public (Stigka, Paravantis and
Mihalakakou, 2014; Yildiz 2014), the historical low interest on save accounts (Bruton,
Khavul, Siegel and Wright, 2015; Fleiß, Hatzl, Seebauer and Posch, 2017), and the need for
financing felt by RES-project promotors due to decreasing public support (DIACORE, 2016;
Engelken et al., 2016; Vasileiadou et al., 2016) and lacking private finance (Yildiz, 2014) or
the risk-return characteristics of smaller RES projects that do not fit traditional lending
conditions (CrowdfundRES, 2016b).
Crowdfunding as a way to finance RES-projects is a relatively new and small phenomenon
(Vasileiadou et al., 2016). As with other types of crowdfunding it takes place on established
online platforms that act as intermediary between project promotors and ‘a large audience
bringing together small amounts after an open call through the internet’ (Schwienbacher and
Larralde, 2010; De Buysere et al., 2012). The first known RES-crowdfunding platform in the
2
EU, De Windcentrale based in the Netherlands, only started in 2010. Total volume of RES-
projects funded via crowdfunding in Europe is estimated to have a volume between 2,5% and
10% of the above mentioned transaction volume in the alternative finance industry (Zhang
et al., 2016; Für-gründer.de, 2017). Published and peer reviewed academic research on RES-
crowdfunding is very scarce, with only three published papers and two conference papers on
crowdfunding for RES-projects (Yildiz, 2014; Zheng, Chakraborty, Sycara and Xu, 2015;
Lam and Law, 2016; Vasileiadou et al. 2016; Zhang, Campana, Yang and Yan, 2016).
Moreover, RES-investments via crowdfunding are not consequently included in official
statistics, pointing to a lack of systematized data (Christensen and Hain, 2017).
The prime goal of this work is a critical analysis of the experience of crowdfunding platforms
in the EU offering renewable energy projects. We do this by identifying the regulatory
context they work in and type of risk that is involved, as well as by looking in depth at the
way they assess, mitigate and communicate that risk. To our knowledge this research is the
first to give a systematic overview of best practices of RES-crowdfunding platforms in the
EU and their attitude towards investor risk. By reviewing best practices this study wants to
contribute to a better understanding of this particular branche of the RES-investment
landscape, the business models used by RES-crowdfunding platforms and the risks that stem
from the underlying mechanics of financing RES-project through the crowd. As the
investor’s role is pivotal in the crowdfunding model, we will analyze the investors profile,
the platforms’ business model and the resulting risk types, as well as its assessment,
mitigation and communication of these risks.
In order to identify the potential of RES-crowdfunding as well as possible improvements in
risk management, this work will focus on the ‘risk paradox’ that is inherent to it. Platforms
typically attract non-specialist investors (Vasileiadou et al. 2016; Zhao, Chen, Wang and
Chen, 2017) while the offered investments draw their revenue from highly complex RES-
projects, due to regulation and technical viability assessment (Lee and Zhong 2015;
CrowdfundRES, 2016b). Bearing in mind that trust of this investor community is a key asset
for scaling up business (CrowdfundRES, 2016b), mapping out risk management practices in
EU RES-crowdfunding can be a contribution to smarter risk assessment models and
3
communication tools. We will eventually illustrate this by complementing the findings of the
EU-overview with a case study of a project presented on Spanish RES-crowdfunding
platform. We then integrate these findings in a workable risk rating system that can bridge
the gap between investor knowledge and project complexity.
In this thesis we will (1) identify the risks that rise from the financial mechanics used by the
crowdfunding platforms that offer RES-projects by mapping them out for each business
model and (2) give an overview of how platforms assess, mitigate and communicate these
risks that ultimately can affect their investor community. Therefore we have to answer three
questions: (1) which are the business models used by RES-crowdfunding platforms in the
EU, (2) what is their exposure to risks leading to credit risk for the crowdfunding investor
and (3) how are platforms assessing/mitigating/communicating those risks? In order to so we
conducted a survey among representatives (C-level) of active RES-crowdfunding platforms
in the EU and an in depth document review of all available information on investor profile,
risk assessment and management. For the case study of the Mar de Fulles-project, funded via
the Spanish platform Ecrowd!, we used the data of a survey that was conducted by the
platform itself.
Apart from this introduction the thesis is organized as follows: Section 2 will present a review
of existing literature an give background on RES-crowdfunding activity in the EU, the
business models crowdfunding platforms use and the perceived risk of crowdfunders. Section
3 will lay out the methodology we use for breaking down those business models and for
conducting the survey on risk among the platforms’ representatives. Section 4 gives an
overview of the results of both document review and survey. Section 5 presents the case study
of the Mar de Fulles-project, funded via the Spanish platform Ecrowd! And in Section 6
conclusions and suggestions for future research are presented.
4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW (BACKGROUND&HYPOTHESIS)
2.1. Crowdfunding: background and types
Crowdfunding as a method to fund projects or ventures is not new, with Joseph Pulitzer’s
1885 funding of the pedestal for the statue of Liberty as the best known historic example of
‘an open call to a large audience to finance a certain project’ (Schwienbacher and Larralde,
2010; Ordanini et al., 2011; Belleflamme et al., 2014; Mollick, 2014). The most recent forms
of crowdfunding have surged first in the arts and creativity-based industries (Agrawal et al.,
2013), but soon opened to a wide variety of goals (Mollick, 2014) and proved to be a viable
source for entrepreneurial seed capital (Schwienbacher and Larralde, 2010). Their
remarkable success in great part is due to the networking capabilities the internet offers
(Ordanini et al. 2011; Agrawal et al., 2013; Belleflamme et al., 2014) and, more in particular,
the widespread use of social media (Harrison, 2013; Belleflamme et al., 2014).
Four types of crowdfunding generally are distinguished: the donation-based, reward-based,
equity-based and lending-based (Ordanini et al., 2011; Mollick, 2014; Vasileiadou et al.
2016). The European Commission in its latest report on Crowdfunding in the EU capital
markets union (2016) considers five different models of crowdfunding: the donation model
(i), which offers no kind of return nor reward to the funder, mainly used in charitable projects;
the reward model (ii), which offer a token or reward to the funder, but have no prospect of
earnings or returns; the invoice-trading model (iii), asset-based financing with businesses
selling “unpaid invoices or receivables, individually or in a bundle, to a pool of investors
through an online platform” (European Commission, 2016, p. 8.); the lending model (iv), in
which funders lend money to the project/venture promotor through a loan agreement; the
equity model (v), where project promotors or businesses use the platform to issue equity or
debt instruments (Harrison, 2013; European Commission, 2016; Vasileiadou et al., 2016).
Both lending an equity crowdfunding are defined by regulators as ‘investment crowdfunding’
(ESMA, 2014; ESMA, 2015; European Commission, 2016). Because of the expected
financial return and their similarity to other financial services, investment based
crowdfunding is regulated separately from donation an reward based crowdfunding (Lei
5
Nº102/2015 de 24 de Agosto; ESMA, 2015; FCA, 2014; FCA 2015; European Commission,
2016).
2.2. RES-Crowdfunding: background and literature
In majority platforms offering RES-projects rely on equity and debt they collect from the
crowd to finance the projects, i.e. investment based models (Lam and Law, 2016; Vasileiadou
et al., 2016). Basic mechanics of RES-crowdfunding resemble classic energy project
financing. The energy production of the funded RES-projects generates steady cash flows
coming from policy support schemes or energy saving costs. The cash flows pay back the
capital laid in plus a pre-announced and scheduled return. The platforms use a variety of
financial instruments such as loans, bonds or securities to materialize the financial return for
their investors (CrowdfundRES, 2016b). This variety reflects in the business models they
use; they range from equity sold as shares in a RES-project, that is run by a cooperative
structure (cf. De Windcentrale) to subordinated participatory loans with fixed rate annual
payments (most German RES-crowdfunding platforms).
Published and peer reviewed academic research on RES-crowdfunding is very scarce. We
found three published papers and two conference papers on crowdfunding for RES-projects
(Yildiz, 2014; Zheng et al., 2015; Lam and Law, 2016; Vasileiadou et al., 2016; Zhang et al.,
2016). The conference paper by Zhang (2016) dealing with crowdfunding for micro-grids
does not consider characteristics of the financing technique that is crowdfunding. As for
Zheng et al. (2015) an artificial intelligence approach is used to discover that crowdfunding
in community solar farms reduces the investment level for the farm owner, while it increases
overall RES-investment (Zheng et al., 2015).
Interesting field work has been done by the CrowdfundRES-project, a Horizon 2020 funded
investigation by the German renewable energy consultant WIP Renewable Energies. The
project so far has produced an extensive review of regulatory frameworks in all EU-countries
(CrowdfundRES, 2016a), a series of seven case-studies taken from 5 different
platforms(CrowdfundRES, 2016b), a presentation with draft policy recommendations
(CrowdfundRES, 2016c) and the proceedings of a policy workshop (Kohl, 2017). In its case
6
study report the authors define RES-crowdfunding as an innovative way of financing that
can partly fill the funding gap currently experienced by RES-developers, bringing them
closer to citizens (CrowdfundRES, 2016b).
Yildiz (2014) does not use the term ‘crowdfunding’ but focuses on the larger ‘citizen
participation’ – including cooperatives and closed-end funds – in German RES-project
financing. In particular the German FiT-scheme has played a major role in attracting citizen
investors. Other contributing factors; large energy companies see high transaction costs and
low equity return rates (4% to 6%) as a financial constraint for investing in small and medium
RES-projects, while local population accept the yield expectations and sees the investment
as a possibility to take part in local energy planning. The author also sees a variety of business
models and a variation of information, control and co-determination rights (Yildiz, 2014).
Lam and Law (2016) explore the potential of RES-crowdfunding through 8 case studies,
combining different crowdfunding models (donation, reward, debt and equity) with different
RES-technologies (grid integrated solar PV, off grid home solar PV, wind, biogas) in
different countries. According to the authors investment based crowdfunding models can
suitable for larger RES-projects, paving the path for institutional investors. Regarding risk
they point out possible online fraud and information asymmetry on project and promotor
(Lam and Law, 2016).
Vasileiadou (2016) conducts probably the most complete empirically research into
crowdfunding platforms offering renewable electricity projects. The scope is limited to four
case studies in the Netherlands, in order to conduct the investigation in a cohesive regulatory
environment. The author finds out RES crowdfunding has a low volume and has to be
considered a niche, although with some dynamics and potential for breakthrough.
Interestingly she concludes that platforms dedicated exclusively to renewable electricity,
using an investment based model, are performing the best. She also gives evidence of how
governmental market regulation and support mechanisms are shaping crowdfunding as a
business model (Vasileiadou et al., 2016).
7
2.3. RES-crowdfunding: financial regulation and RES-policy
According to Vasileiadou et al. (2016) the diversity in business models across the EU can be
seen as a consequence of the dispersed regulation that exists both on the level of RES-support
policy as on the level of crowdfunding and financial services regulation (CrowdfundRES,
2016a). Crowdfunding regulation is fragmented at EU-level, with more mature markets (UK,
France, Germany and the Netherlands) ruling crowdfunding specifically; actually 10 out of
28 EU-countries now have crowdfunding rules. The 18 other, mostly smaller markets, are
regulating crowdfunding under existing financial legislation ((De Buysere et al., 2012;
CrowdfundRES 2016a; CrowdfundRES, 2016c; Kohl 2017). Whereby financial regulation
on crowdfunding is evolving fast. Early 2016 the European Commission referred to ‘seven
EU member states who had adopted a bespoke regulatory frameworks for crowdfunding
activities, with requirements for issuers/borrowers, platforms and
investors/lenders’(European Commission, 2016), while in March 2017 the proceedings of
the European Policy Workshop of CrowdfundRES mentions 10 EU-countries that adopted
specific crowdfunding regulation. Of those six countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain,
Belgium, Lithuania) have put out regulation that exempts crowdfunding from investor
protection rules (Kohl, 2017).
European Market authorities consider investment based crowdfunding platforms de facto
financial service intermediaries (ESMA, 2014; EBA, 2015), offering a financial product with
an pre-announced return. As that return is based on the future cash flows of one (or more)
RES-projects, the investment can be considered an asset backed debt/equity investment.
Robustness and stability of cash flow’ therefore can be seen as a proxy for the liquidity,
financial and credit risk that weighs upon the investor (Lee and Zhong, 2015). Cash flow
robustness is determined by the policy and financial de-risking instruments that set out the
frame (in time and amount) for the RES-project revenues (Alafita and Pearce, 2014; Lee and
Zhong, 2015; O'Sullivan and Charles 2016).
RES-policy in the EU-member states has been rapidly changing over the past decade, with
several countries opting for radical policy changes, cutting back (France, Belgium) or
8
abolishing Feed-in-Tariffs (FiT) (UK, Germany) (Pyrgou, Kylili and Fokaides, 2016), in the
case of Spain even with retroactive effect (Sisodia, Soares and Ferreirra, 2016;
CrowdfundRES, 2016a; Kohl, 2017). Now the growing uncertainty over the future of de-
risking instruments and policy schemes is affecting future cash flows (Alafita and Pearce
2014, European Commission, 2014; Lee and Zhong 2015; Gatzert and Vogl, 2016; Sisodia
et al., 2016), this study will focus especially on patterns that lay bare the transfers from
policy, regulatory and market risk to the financial risk the crowdfunding investor is exposed
to.
2.4. Why address investor risk?
Apart from the unconsolidated financial regulation and the evolving RES-policy also the
pivotal position of the investor in crowdfunding makes it crucial to address investor’s risk in
the RES crowdfunding environment. According to Belleflamme et al. (2014) the relationship
between crowdfunder and promotor of the project/venture varies by the context and the
nature of the funding effort1. Motivation and perceived risk of the investor are strictly related
to the type of crowdfunding and the project/funding goal (Belleflamme et al., 2014; Mollick,
2014). As crowdfunding models offering financial return attract investors with financial
motivations, they show an increasing risk/return intensity (Lam and Law 2016; Vasileiadou
et al., 2016).
This leads to what we can call the ‘risk paradox’ in the RES-crowdfunding environment. The
RES-projects that serve as underlying asset for their investment are highly complex to
evaluate due to regulation and technical viability assessment (Vasileiadou et al., 2016;
CrowdfundRES, 2016b). At the same time crowdfunding platforms typically attract non-
specialist investors, thus creating an additional gap where low preparedness stands against
1 The terminology used to refer to the ‘crowdfunding investor’ confirms this changing relation; initially they
are considered all ‘consumer-investors’ (Ordanini et al. 2011), later, in regard to reward and donation they are
called ‘crowdfunders’(Agrawal et al., 2013; Belleflamme et al., 2014), ‘funders’ (Agrawal et al., 2013;
Mollick, 2014) or even ‘backers’ (Mollick, 2014; Zhao et al., 2017), but when discussing investment based
models the term ‘investors’ is preferred (Mollick, 2014; ESMA, 2015) , although in some cases ‘investors’
and ‘crowdfunders’ are used
as a synonym (Belleflamme et al. 2014, Vasileiadou, Huijben et al. 2016).
9
high complexity. Moreover there are indications that the financial, but also cause-related
motivation of RES-crowdfunding investors (Lam and Law 2016; Vasileiadou et al. 2016;
Zhao et al. 2017) may relate positively to perceived risk. This seems to be confirmed by
Yildiz (2014) who noticed that citizens take lower returns in change for a participative role
in local energy planning (Yildiz, 2014), as well as by Zhao (2017) who detects that perceived
risk is positively associated with funders intention in reward based crowdfunding (Zhao et
al., 2017). Salm, Hille and Wüstenhagen (2016) detect two groups of community renewable
energy investors with different risk-return expectations, describing them as ‘local patriots’
and ‘yield investors’. According to the authors investment decisions of retail RES-investors
are taken on simple bases as payback time or even ‘gut feeling’ (Salm et al., 2016). Also
Mollick (2014) points out that funders look primarily for signals of the quality of the project,
independent of the promised financial return. As a recent report of the only existing ratings
agency for equity crowdfunding projects, the UK based CrowdRating, states: “(investors) are
largely indifferent to valuation or the anticipated financial performance of the company that
is fundraising” (Rees-Mogg and Harris, 2016, p. 2).
Therefore the particular motivation and perceived risk of the RES-crowdfunding investor has
to be identified and weighed in against the crowdfunding platform’s business model, its
awareness, mitigation and communication of risk, in order to draw any conclusion on its
attitude towards investor risk. The risk we consider here is that of the investor losing his
money – all/part of the capital he lent/invested and/or all/part of the interest he was promised.
This so called ‘variability of future returns’ is considered a financial risk (Vlaev, Chater and
Stewart, 2009) and can be the result of other risk types occurring at different levels. We will
give particular attention to risks that are specific for RES-investments, such as; country risk,
social acceptance risk, administrative risk, financing risk, technical and management risk,
grid access risk, policy design risk, market design and regulatory risk, sudden policy change
risk (DIACORE, 2016; Gatzert and Kosub, 2016; Gatzert and Vogl, 2016).
This brings us to the following research questions and hypothesis: How do EU crowdfunding
platforms offering RES-projects to their investors lead with this ‘risk paradox’, i.e. how do
the business models they use relate to risk and how do they mitigate and communicate those
10
risks? Being a new way of financing or even a ‘new business model, a novel socio-technical
practice developed in a niche’ as stated by Vasileiadou et al. (2016), surged in the aftermath
of the financial crisis (Zhang et al., 2016), operating in a unconsolidated and fragmented
regulatory environment (CrowdfundRES, 2016a; Kohl, 2017) and appealing to non-specialist
investors with specific risk/return preferences (Yildiz, 2014; Lam and Law, 2016; Salm et
al., 2016; Vasileiadou et al., 2016), we expect RES-crowdfunding platforms to treat investor
risk with more caution – i.e. above regulatory standards.
11
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. General
In order to compare data in the fragmented regulatory environment where RES-
crowdfunding operates (cf. supra 2.3) we break down each business model in its respective
regulatory framework. The research methodology we use is an empirical qualitative field
study (Engelken et al., 2016) that consists of a document review and a survey among active
crowdfunding platforms in the EU offering RES projects. Complementary we conduct an
empirical case study (Engelken et al., 2016) of one specific project offered by the Spanish
platform Ecrowd!, based on the results of a survey that platform sent to the project investors.
3.2. EU-survey
The EU-survey is based on a dual approach, focusing on both underlying asset and the
financial instruments that are used. At RES-project level representatives are questioned about
impact and probability of 9 risk types affecting the project (DIACORE, 2016). In regard to
the financial instruments the survey questions the platform’s compliance (with the regulatory
framework in which it operates and according to the type of instruments offered), as well as
its attitude towards risk mitigation and communication. Also, representatives are asked to
profile the preparedness and perceived risk of the RES-crowdfunder. The survey consists of
6 sections:
(i) general information on the platform, start date, the transaction volume until
31/12/2016, type of crowdfunding, type of financial instruments offered,
(ii) questions on how the platforms perceive risk
(iii) questions on how they identify and assess risk
(iv) questions on how they mitigate risk,
(v) questions on how they describe the profile of their investors and
(vi) questions on how they communicate risk to their investors.
The multiple choice answers for (i) were drawn from the recent reports of the European
Commission (2016) and the insights of the European Securities and Market Authority
12
(ESMA) (ESMA, 2015; European Commission, 2016), for (ii) we relied on the scale
developed by Ecofys for the DIACORE project on risk in RES-investment and we recurred
to the opinion on lending based crowdfunding of the European Banking Authority (EBA)
(EBA, 2015; DIACORE, 2016), for (iv) we took the 4 regulatory situations the commission
report provides (European Commission, 2016), for (v) we sourced material from literature
mentioning crowdfunders’ motivations such as (Belleflamme et al., 2014; Yildiz, 2014; Lam
and Law, 2016; Salm et al., 2016; Vasileiadou et al., 2016; Zhao et al. 2017).
3.3. Sample selection
The sample frame was established at 23 active crowdfunding platforms in 9 EU-member
states, both in mature (volume, number of platforms, years of activity) and upcoming
markets. The sample selection is based on crossing data of available listings of global, EU or
country wide crowdfunding networks or databases such as crowdsurfer.com, eurocrowd.org
(European Crowdfunding Network), citizenergy.eu, crowdfundres.eu, recrowdfunding.eu,
crowdfunding.de, the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. The selection has been
limited to active crowdfunding platforms offering RES-projects to their investors – excluded
were one off crowdfunding campaigns by project promotors/energy companies, as well as
cooperatives and community energy projects, mainly because they use fundamentally
different business models and therefore cannot be compared. Our sample frame of 23
platforms most likely is not coinciding with the target population (i.e. all active platforms
offering RES-projects). As the crowdfunding market is still an early stage and dynamic
segment in finance there is a constant – but hard to measure - flow of new platforms,
platforms that cease activity, stop offering RES projects. Of the 23 platforms we include in
the study 10 (43,5%) responded the survey.
3.4. Analysis of documents and survey
We started with an in depth overview of all documents an online information made available
by active RES-crowdfunding platforms in the EU, breaking down the business model to; type
of RES-project (technology and remuneration), financial regulation of platform activity and
13
type of financial instruments (regulation, transferability, financing structure). The document
review will permit us (1) to detect significant relations between the number of platforms, the
type of projects and the given RES-regulation in each country, thus laying bare implications
for credit or financial risk to the crowdfunding, (2) to identify the financial regulatory
framework in which RES-crowdfunding platforms operate, the financial instruments they
offer, their liquidity, their underlying assets, their conditions and any legal aspect that could
lead to financial risk, thereby using the adopted regulation as a benchmark for the level of
protection.
In order to identify the risk types affecting the investor and their mitigation by the platform
we have used following proxies; RES-remuneration/technology (business risk, credit risk),
financial instruments offered/financial authorization (liquidity, credit and default risk),
transferability of instruments (liquidity risk), additional bank finance (credit risk), cross
border activity/authorization (business risk, credit risk, default risk), financial authorization,
degree of due diligence (mitigation).
The 10 platforms that responded to the survey are treated as a sample within the pre-
established sample frame. The survey-results will complement the findings of the document
review and deepen the insights on attitude towards risk
(compliance/mitigation/communication). Confronting regulatory frame, business model and
views on investor profile and risk, eventually will permit to draw general conclusions on
attitude towards risk in RES-crowdfunding.
3.5. Case study and rating system
At a final stage we include the results of a survey conducted by the Spanish crowdfunding
platform Ecrowd! among the 129 investors that are co-financing the off grid RES-production
of a tourist eco resort near Castellón (Mar de Fulles). The survey was conceived and sent by
the platform itself after due diligence for the project took much longer than the initially
announced 4 weeks. It was principally meant as an inquiry to measure satisfaction with the
investment process, but it offers valuable information on the investors profile and both their
and the platform’s attitude towards risk.
14
By focusing on a Spanish crowdfunding platform we are able to gain insight on RES-
crowdfunding activity under adverse conditions. Spain has put a moratorium on FiT in
January 2012 and did not publish the final regulation on small scale PV and self-consumption
until the beginning of October 2015, weakening investment in new PV installation. Under
the new PV self-consumption rules system owners continue to pay grid access tariffs (just
like any other consumer) as well as compensation charges for making use of the grid as a
producer. Off grid installations are excluded from both grid access and compensation charges
(PV-Financing, 2016). Most important, the Royal Decree 413/2014 which regulates the
activity of electricity production from renewable energy sources, has put RES on the same
level as cogeneration and retroactively ended the specific remuneration scheme that was in
place: the regulation period was reduced to 6 years, limiting remuneration to 7,4% for the
first regulation period. Also a pool price system was introduced, making RES-production
systems only eligible for subsidies when producing between a cap and floor ( Real Decreto
413/2014, de 6 de junio, 2014; Sisodia et al., 2016). Both delay and retroactively limiting
regulation on RES has increased regulatory risk leading to uncertainty about near future that
has paralyzed investment. By reviewing the survey of Ecrowd! we can learn how a RES-
crowdfunding platform works under the described adverse conditions and how it tackles the
risk-issue, on the compliance level, as well in mitigation and communication.
The resulting insights should be useful for platforms facing regulatory risk. With most EU-
countries reshaping RES-regulation and phasing out FiT (cf. supra 2.3), the Spanish case
study can serve as an indicator for platform behavior under changing and adverse conditions.
Especially from a Portuguese point of view this evolution has to be considered seriously. The
Spanish and Portuguese electricity market are functioning as a unified market under Mibel.
Regulation is very similar and policy changes are likely to be convergent (Sisodia et al.,
2016).
Finally the findings on risk of the document review, the EU-survey and the Spanish case
study will be ranked and fit into a rating system. The rating will be based on criteria in
systems developed and used by the Dutch platform Greencrowd and the Swedish platform
TRINE. We eventually fit in the findings of our research as additional criteria.
15
4. RESULTS
4.1. The EU RES-crowdfunding market in numbers
Out of 23 platforms that make our sample, 7 are German (30,4%), 5 are Dutch (21,7%), 4 are
French (17,4%) and 2 Austrian (8,7%). The UK, Sweden, Belgium and Finland each have 1
platform (4,3%) that offers RES-projects to their investors. Being a recent phenomenon the
market is far from consolidated, with platforms ceasing activity (e.g. Trillion Fund – UK,
GreenChannel - FR) and new platforms emerging (e.g. Ecoligo (DE) and GoParity (PT), who
both launched their first projects early 2017.
Figure 1. Number of active platforms per country
Source: crowdsurfer.com, eurocrowd.org, crowdfunding.de, CCAF
Germany and the Netherlands have the eldest active platforms, with German platforms
counting in average 1721,3 days of activity and the Dutch 1542,2 days.
16
Figure 2. Volume of crowdfunded RES-projects per country
Source: Author’s construction based on platforms’s websites
Germany has the largest volume of RES-crowdfunded projects (61.744.080 euro), followed
by the UK (49.340.000 euro – including the projects from the Trillion Fund that stopped
funding RES in 2015) and the Netherlands (42.968.648 euro). At a distance come France
(14.982.875 euro), Austria (3.160.046 euro), Spain (1.400.000 euro), Finland (889.992,53
euro), Sweden (440.000 euro) and Belgium (150.000 euro).
Figure 3. RES-crowdfunding volume/total volume in Germany
Source: crowdfunding.de (Für-gründer.de, 2017)
0
10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
60000000
70000000
Volume of crowdfunded RES-projects
Volume of crowdfunded RES-projects
37,34
58,8
6,7
5,3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2016
Mln
. Eu
ro
German investment based crowdfunding volume: RES-projects vs. other
Other crowdfunded projects RES-projects
17
Crowdfunding for RES-projects represents a modest share of total crowdfunding volumes,
with Germany’s crowdfunding database crowdfunding.de pointing at 9% in 2016 (Für-
gründer.de, 2017) and overall share estimated at 2,5% to 10% by the Cambridge Centre for
Alternative Finance (Zhang et al., 2016). As figure 3 shows, RES-crowdfunded projects are
decreasing in Germany, while overall crowdfunded volume increases over the same period.
Figure 4. RES-crowdfunding volume per capita in the EU
Source: Author’s construction based on platforms’ websites/worldometers.info
The Netherlands clearly come first (2,52 euro/person), then Germany (0,77 euro/person), the
UK (0,75 euro/person), Austria (0,37 euro/person) and France (0,23 euro/person). The
Netherlands has two major platforms each representing 37% of total volume, with the other
26% split evenly over the remaining 3 platforms. In contrast Germany and France count each
one platform that represents respectively 72% and 75% of the total RES-crowdfunded
volume. The Netherlands thus stand out as the most mature RES-crowdfunding market,
having the eldest platforms, as well as the most equalized market and the highest volume per
capita.
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
euro
Volume crowdfunded RES-projects per capita
Volume per capita
18
Figure 5. Average return of crowdfunded RES-projects
Source: Author’s own construction based on platform’s websites
Returns of the offered RES-projects range from 3,32% (average on Zonnepanelendelen –NL)
to 8,10% (Abundance –UK), with average of all RES-crowdfunded projects on 5,3%.
Average project term varies from 27 months on the sales based platform TRINE (SE) to 181
months on Zonnepanelendelen, that only offers PV solar projects depending on market
premium schemes.
There is no apparent causality between the number of platforms per country and the average
return. German platforms show returns ranging from 4,05 to 7,06%, while Dutch and French
platforms offer only slightly lower average return ranges of respectively (3,32%-6,06%) and
(3,90%-5,70%). German platforms do offer projects that have longer average maturity (80-
106 months), while the Dutch and French show wider ranges (45-181 months and 36-169
months). RES-projects relying on policy schemes (FiT and/or market premium) tend to have
longer maturities (most German, French and Dutch platforms, as well as Abundance - UK),
coinciding totally or in part with the scheme’s time frame, while projects relying on sales (cf.
TRINE –SE- and Ecrowd!- ES) tend to shorter project terms.
0,00% 1,00% 2,00% 3,00% 4,00% 5,00% 6,00% 7,00% 8,00% 9,00%
Austria
Belgium
France
Germany
Netherlands
Sweden
UK
Range in average return pro country
Highest Lowest
19
Crowdfunding platforms offer a wide range of different interest types. Some practice a yearly
increasing interest and fixed capital repayment (Stufenzins – Wiwin –DE), differentiated
interests along maturity (LeihDeinerUmweltGeld (LDUG) –DE) or variable return
depending on energy production (Abundance –UK, WeShareSolar -NL). Most platforms
offer a mix of fix annual return – annuity -, consisting of incrementing capital repayment and
digressive interest (Bettervest –DE, Abundance – UK, Lendosphere –FR, Greencrowd-
NL,..), linear payments, consisting of fixed capital repayments and a digressive interest
(LDUG – DE) or bullet payments, with a fix interest payment and full capital repayment at
maturity date (LDUG – DE). This wide variety of interest types makes ‘return’ unfit as a
criteria for further investigation. Research focusing on the relation between underlying
remuneration of the project and profitability should cross examine interest types, ideally
within the same regulatory framework/technology. Interestingly the French platforms
Lendosphere and Lumo offer higher interest rates for neighbors of the project, saying they
use crowdfunding to ‘involve local community’ and thus confirming the financing technique
as a means to mitigate social acceptance risk.
20
Figure 6. Average maturity of crowdfunded RES-projects
Source: Author’s construction based on platform’s websites
4.2. The relation between regulatory environment and RES-crowdfunding activity
4.2.1. RES-remuneration/policy support vs. RES-crowdfunding activity
The RES-projects offered by Dutch platforms all rely on energy sales that benefit from a
Premium Tariff (in place since 2011) on top of the market price (up to 15 years) and the tax
exemption on electricity consumption for self-consumption systems. Smaller projects on
German platforms (<100kW ) still count on Feed-in-Tariff-support (FiT), while all platforms
offer projects that rely on energy sales benefitting from the Premium Tariff (20 years), the
main policy instrument since the 2014 reform of the renewables legislation. In France RES-
projects on 3 in 4 platforms rely on both FiT-support and the in 2015 reformed FiT-scheme
(Tarif d’Achat), which foresees a ‘compensation mechanism’ or Premium Tariff for the
energy exported to the grid.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Belgium
Sweden
Spain
UK
France
Netherlands
Germany
months
Average maturity range per country
Lowest Highest
21
Projects on the UK-platform Abundance rely on a range of policy schemes, varying from FiT
(20 years) to the Contracts for Difference (CfD), a premium tariff that is to be the only support
scheme for all new RES-plants exceeding 5 MW. However, since 2015 several auctions for
CfD-support have been cancelled or delayed, making the pioneering Trillion Fund to desist
of RES-crowdfunding and leaving Abundance as the only remaining RES-crowdfunding
platform in Europe’s largest crowdfunding market. Similarly the only existing Spanish
platform only offers projects of energy efficiency (cash flows from saving cost) because
Spanish RES-support is de facto blocked since the phasing out of the price regulation system
in 2013 (cf. supra 3.5).
With the Dutch and German being the largest RES-crowdfunding markets stable market
premium schemes emerge as the policy instrument that most favors platform activity (Table
1.). Policy changes towards a more flexible market premium - as in France – have not
hampered RES-crowdfunding development. While policy uncertainty (UK) or abrupt scaling
back (Spain) have an immediate negative effect on activity.
Table 1. Remuneration feeding return of RES-projects/nº of platforms per country
Name platform Country Feed-in-tariff
Market premium
Energy saving cost
Product sales
Trine SE/UK* X
Abundance UK X X X
GreenCrowding DE X X
Bettervest DE X X X
Greenvesting DE X X
Wiwin DE X X
GreenXMoney DE X X
LeihDeinerUmweltGeld DE X X X
Econeers DE X X X
Lumo FR X X
WeDoGood FR X
Lendosphère FR X X X
Enerfip FR X X X
Windcentrale NL X X
Greencrowd NL X X X
WeShareSolar NL X X
DuurzaamInvesteren NL X X
OnePlanetCrowd NL X
22
Conda AT X
GreenRocket AT X
EccoNova BE X
ECrowd! ES X X
Invesdor SF X *Trine works under an UK/FCA authorization, source: Author’s own construction based on platform’s websites
Countries with the most RES-crowdfunding platforms have a RES-policy based on premium
tariff and/or FiT, which enables and guarantees long term foreseeable cash flows necessary
for the investment return. Platforms in those countries in majority offer RES-projects based
on small to medium scale solar PV systems (74% of all platforms) and wind turbines (52%
of platforms), selling produced electricity to the grid (Figure 7). All platforms that offer PV-
projects rely on FiT and market Premiums. A similar connection can be established between
wind projects and FiT/market premium, with all platforms offering wind relying on either
FiT, market premium, or both (Figure 8).
Figure 7. Number of platforms/Type of RES-technology
Source: Author’s own construction based on platform’s websites
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Technology
Type of technology in crowdfunded projects
Solar PV Wind CHP/biomass Relighting Insulation
23
In comparison energy efficiency projects (CHP –in 17,3% of platforms, relighting – 17,3%,
insulation – 8,7%) are less frequent as underlying asset. Relighting and insulation projects in
majority rely on energy savings cash flows (Figure 8).
Figure 8. RES-technology/remuneration
Source: Author’s own construction based on platform’s websites
4.2.2. Financial regulation vs.RES crowdfunding activity
The 5 Dutch platforms operate all in different regulatory frameworks: 1) authorization under
MiFID, 2) domestic bespoke regime under MiFID article 3 exemption, which allows for
‘reception and transmission or orders’ and/or ‘investment advice’ without EU passport rights,
3) authorization for services and activities in relation to non-MiFID financial instruments and
4) outside the MiFID framework and 5) ‘in between’ as one platform stated, which confirms
the European Commission’s view, that says: “Some of these authorization models are not
mutually exclusive and in practice they are combined in certain Member States.” (European
Commission, 2016, p. 18) Those last three platforms benefit from an market authority (AMF)
exemption authorization that excludes lending based platforms from the prohibition to
provide services as an intermediary in connection with attracting or obtaining redeemable
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Solar PV Wind CHP/biomass Relighting Insulation
RES-technology-remuneration type
Fit/Market Premium Energy saving cash flows Product sales
24
funds from the public (Wet financieel Toezicht, 2017). Until now the DNB (central bank)
has led a – non-official - tolerance regime towards lending based platforms regarding this
prohibition (CrowdfundRES, 2016a).
The financial instruments used are diverse, ranging from subordinated convertible loans,
unsecured business loan, subordinate loan to senior bond loans, secured business loans and
revenue sharing through royalties. There is no clear preference for a particular financial
instrument, indicating that various business models are viable in de Dutch RES-
crowdfunding market.
The German platforms show a preference for the ‘domestic bespoke regime under MiFID
Article 3 exemption’ (5 out of 7). All five have a German market authority (Bafin) license as
‘financial services intermediary’ which enables them to provide MiFID regulated instruments
such as the for investment based platforms crucially ‘reception and transmission of orders’
(RTO). Six platforms offer subordinated profit participating loans (partiarische
Nachrangdarlehen) which Bafin considers ‘investment products’ since 2015 and therefore
require a heavier framework.
The French platforms show a tendency towards a MiFID framework, with 2 out of 4
platforms filing under MiFID. One platform has an AMF license for services and activities
in relation to non-MiFID financial instruments. And the remaining platform has no traceable
license for financial services or activities. The MiFID platforms offer a 2015 created bond
type that is senior to shareholders and junior to a bank financing partner.
Both the UK platform Abundance and the Swedish TRINE have a market authority (FCA)
license and comply fully with MiFID regulation. This can be consequence of the FCA’s
approach to create a level playing field for investment based crowdfunding allowing it to be
- as described by CrowdfundRES overview: “a valid business model operating under the
existing investment-based regime, with minor amendments.” (CrowdfundRES, 2016a).
Abundance and TRINE offer debt crowdfunding through bonds and debentures/loan notes.
Being the largest of all RES-crowdfunding platforms in arguably the most dynamic
25
crowdfunding market/regulatory framework, this option can be seen as convergence on
efficiency.
Both Austrian platforms operate outside the MiFID framework, complying with legal
exemptions that stem from operating outside the prospectus regime. GreenRocket, that offers
equity for sustainable startups, is regulated according §5 AltFG (the Austrian ‘Alternativ
Finanzierungsgesetz, introduced in 2015) and registered as 'investment and company
advisor'. Conda also complies with §5 AltFG, but is registered as ‘owner of media, publisher
and manager of an online platform’(AltFG, 2015). Austrian FMA does no supervision on
platform activity. Conda has a German licence from the FMA (Bafin), following the § 34f
Abs. 1 Gewerbeordnung that allows the platform to attract German investors (GewO, 2017).
Ecrowd!, the only existing Spanish platform, is licensed by the Spanish market authority
Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV) and is registered as a ‘platform for
participative financing’, as required by the Ley 5/2015, de 27 de abril, de fomento de la
financiación empresarial (LFFE) ( Ley 5/2015 , de 27 de abril, 2015). It operates with an
authorization for services and activities in relation to non-MiFID financial instruments,
which exempts from prospectus obligation. LFFE further establishes high capital and
coverage requirements for the platform owners (cf. infra 5.), investing limits pro project and
pro investor and a prohibition of handling client money. Thus LLFE sets a new frame for
intermediary in the financing market, defining the platforms’ activity as: “contacting, in a
professional manner, investors and promoters through websites or other electronic means”
(CrowdfundRES, 2016a, p.428).
26
Table 2. The authorization of platform activity/Nº of platforms per country
Name platform Country Authorisation under MiFID
Domestic bespoke regime under MiFID Art. 3 exemption
Authorisation for services and activities in relation to non-MiFID financial instruments
Authorisation outside the MiFID framework
Trine SE/UK* X
Abundance UK X
GreenCrowding DE X
Bettervest DE X
Greenvesting DE X
Wiwin DE X
GreenXMoney DE X
LeihDeinerUmweltGeld DE X
Econeers DE X
Lumo FR X
WeDoGood FR X
Lendosphère FR X
Enerfip FR X
Windcentrale NL X
Greencrowd NL X
ZonnepanelenDelen NL X
DuurzaamInvesteren NL X
OnePlanetCrowd NL X
Conda AT X
GreenRocket AT X
EccoNova BE X
ECrowd! ES X
Invesdor SF X Source: Author’s own construction based on platform’s websites
The Finnish crowdinvesting platform Invesdor has a license by the Finnish market authority
FIVA and is operating fully compliant with MiFID. Choice for the heaviest of all regulatory
frameworks likely is a consequence of the lack of ‘coherent regulatory regime specifically
adapted to crowdfunding in Finland’ (CrowdfundRES, 2016a). When falling within the scope
of the Finnish Investment Services Act (ISA) platforms have to comply with all requirements.
Short of exemption for crowdfunding, opting for MiFID seems to be a headlong rush, giving
the platforms margin to enter in full competition with traditional services.
27
EccoNova, the first Belgian RES-crowdfunding platform, is operating outside the MiFID
framework, excluding a series of activities (investment service, investment advice, RTO for
financial instruments). Belgium has recently introduced specific crowdinvesting legislation
(Wet van 2016-12-18). Platforms have to work with FSMA license, that requires screening
of platform management, civil responsibility coverage, a fitness-test for crowdfunding
investors, risk warnings. Prospectus exemption stays at the rather low 300.000 euro, while
the investing limit pro investor is increased from 1000 euro to 5000 euro. EccoNova has its
license application pending.
Overall we can say RES-crowdfunding platforms in the Netherlands have benefitted from a
tolerant regulatory environment tending to self-regulation. German platforms have initially
preferred lightly regulated instruments that fitted their purposes (subordinated loans), but
were forced to adopt a heavier framework when those loans were considered investment
products. The UK has regulated lending based crowdfunding under the existing regime for
financial services thus forcing platforms towards MiFID compliance. Both France and Spain
have created a specific status (Conseil en Investissement Participatif in France, ‘platforms
for participative financing’ as defined in the Spanish LFFE) for investment based platforms.
Nonetheless, especially larger platforms in France prefer a MiFID authorization. The
Austrian Alternative finance law favors equity crowdinvesting, while putting restraints
(license obligation) on the debt or lending model. The other platforms and countries
considered (Belgium, Finland, Sweden) show a disperse regulatory landscape with unclear,
non-specific or unfinished regulation not favoring RES-crowdfunding development – with
Swedish TRINE opting for a UK authorization.
4.2.3. Business model/amount of fees-RES-regulation
Fees range from 2% (Ecrowd! – ES and Oneplanetcrowd –NL) to 11,5% on funded capital
(Conda –AT), with most platforms practicing a fee-range depending on project
characteristics (term, return). All but one platform (TRINE -SE) take fees on the funded
capital when the goal is reached (success/arrangement fee) and during the remaining term of
28
the loan/contract (annual management fee). TRINE takes an even split management fee based
on the project return (e.g. when investor get 5% TRINE is paid annually 5% as well).
Only 3 out of 20 platforms (that disclosed information on their fees) have one off success or
contract fees. All remaining platforms take besides the success/arrangement fee also an
annually paid management fee (with OnePlanetCrowd –NL) letting promotors the choice.
The platform with the highest crowdfunded volume – UK’s Abundance – practices a 4-5%
success fee and a 1-1,5% annually management fee, which is comparable to the number 2 in
volume - German Wiwin – that has an overall fee on issued debt of 7,5%. Lower volume
platforms such as WeDoGood (FR) and EccoNova (BE) also practice comparable high fees
(6-9%).
The type of investment (equity, debt or royalties) clearly has an impact on the amount of the
arrangement fee. Platforms offering only debt (12) ask the project promotors fees between
2% and 7,5% of the funded capital, while platforms that present projects based on both debt
and equity (7) practice fees between 5% and 11,5%. The only platform offering solely equity
investment (Invesdor) does not disclose any information on fees. Platforms based on royalties
ask fees that range from 2% to 9,09%. Interestingly all royalty-platforms (3) let investors pay
a part of the arrangement or management fee. Overall 7 out of 20 platforms (35%) ask some
kind of contribution of their investors.
29
Figure 9. Type of investment/arrangement fee
Source: Author’s own construction based on platform’s websites
A similar pattern can be discovered though between RES-regulation/support schemes and
the amount of the fees. Platforms like Abundance (UK), Lendosphere (FR), Enerfip (FR),
Greenxmoney (DE) that get their cash flows from older FiT-policies also practice comparable
lower fees than platforms relying on market premium, energy saving costs or product sales.
The lower success fee can be explained by the longer average terms of FiT-based projects,
guaranteeing a long and stable management fee. There are some exceptions though, with
Ecrowd! (ES) practicing the lowest fees on the market (2-4%+1-1,5% annually) in spite of
having no access to policy schemes and Wiwin (DE), that has in its portfolio FiT-funded
projects, asking a fairly high 7,5% on issued debt. Range in success fees (Figure 10) is the
largest among the platforms presenting projects based on FiT, market premium and energy
saving cash flows. Platforms offering projects that rely on FiT and market premium, only on
market premium or on product sales show a significant lower range.
2%
3%
2%
0
7,50%
11,50%
9,09%
00%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Debt Debt+Equity Royalty Equity
on
fu
nd
ed c
apit
al
Investment type - success fee range
Lowest Highest
30
Figure 10. Type remuneration/arrangement fee
Source: Author’s own construction based on platforms’ websites
4.3. Risk types surging from the business models used
4.3.1. RES-regulation and risk
Eight platforms (4 DE, 3 FR and 1 UK) have RES-projects alimented by FiT-schemes,
making these projects the least exposed to business risk. Most of today’s FiT are digressive
(France), limited to small installations or reduced in time (Germany), but even then they offer
a fixed tariff with easy-to-calculate returns over a fixed period. The business risk of FiT is
lower than monthly calculated market premiums (German market premium = reference tariff
for each technology – monthly electricity value c/kWh), which vary along market prices and
energy production. The comparable lower fees practiced by platforms offering FiT-based
projects (cf. supra 4.2.3) confirm their lower business risk exposure. With the major RES-
crowdfunding markets (NL, DE, UK, FR) tending to market premium schemes and phasing
out FiT’s, therefore one could state business risk is rising.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
FiT+Market Premium Market premium CF Energy saving +FiT +MP
CF Energy saving Product sales
Remuneration - success fee range
Lowest Highest
31
Apart from the Spanish case where remuneration and regulation period for RES-projects
retroactively were reduced (Sisodia et al., 2016), regulatory risk rarely does affect RES-
investors. Changes in policy and support schemes can be a major risk though for RES-
crowdfunding platform activity (cf. supra 4.2.1). Platform default as a consequence also
should not affect investors since they are not the issuer of the financial instrument.
4.3.2. Financial regulation and risk
The type of financial instrument determinates the level of credit risk for the investor. Nine
platforms (45%) offer lower risk instruments such as secured business loans,
bonds/debentures and senior bond loans. Differences exist across countries and even within
the same platform; Dutch senior bond loans and secured business loans are offered next to
unsecured business loans. The bonds issued by the projects on the French platforms are not
secured, they are senior to shareholders and junior to the bank. Finally, the subordinate profit
participating loans that are used by 6 German RES-crowdfunding platforms put
crowdfunders junior to all other company/project-creditors, exposing them to huge credit
risk.
With underlying RES-remuneration able to mitigate or increase credit risk, we find that 4
platforms (20%) are combining low risk FiT-support with low risk instruments, while another
4 are benefitting from FiT/market premium offering higher risk instruments. Estimating
actual credit risk level however needs to take in account additional criteria such as; additional
bank financing, complexity of products and transferability. A platform as Abundance which
offers portfolio products, that in part are financed by banks or external partners, 5 types of
debentures, that are transferable on a secondary market, has a lower credit risk exposure than
a platform offering a single project that issues a non-transferable German participatory loan
and does not have additional bank financing.
32
Table 3. Remuneration feeding return/type of financial instruments/country
Coun-try
Sales Energy saving cost
Market premium
FiT Secured loans
Bonds- debentures
Unsecured loans
Subordinate loans
Shares Royal Ties
SE/UK*
X X X X
UK X X X X
DE X X X
DE X X X X
DE X X X
DE X X X
DE X X X X
DE X X X X
DE X
FR X X X
FR X X
FR X X X X
FR X X X X X
NL X X X
NL X X X X X
NL X X X
NL X X X
NL X X X X
AT X X
AT X X X
BE X X
ES X X X X
SF X X Sources: Author’s own construction based on survey and platform websites
Overall 13 platforms (56,5%) include additional bank financing. Especially the French
platforms (75%) highly rely on extra bank financing; with the same three platforms offering
complex products (portfolio, refinancing existing projects or crowdfunding as a part of a
complex debt structure). German (57%) and Dutch (50%) platforms show average additional
bank financing, with only two Dutch and two German platforms offering complex products.
When it comes to risk bank/third party financing is a sword that cuts both edges. It can be an
extra guarantee for the project quality – as additional due diligence is carried out – but when
investors are junior to bank financing (as with the bond-type used by 3 French platforms),
they are exposed to credit risk.
33
Nine platforms (39%) offer instruments that are transferable, although only three of them
have a secondary market where they can be traded on. Of the three platforms offering
portfolio products, only one has a secondary market, exposing the investors to considerable
liquidity risk.
As to default risk (for the issuer) a default of the project promotor triggers a debt recovery
process that differs along the chosen financial instruments (cf. supra 4.3.2). Seven out of 23
reviewed platforms (30%) are authorized under MiFID, which means they stand under
supervision of market authorities regarding the use of these instruments. MiFID platforms
therefore should be less exposed to both credit and default risk. Among these platforms are
all three platforms that offer portfolio products (containing several RES-projects with
different types of technology). Platforms under MiFID tend to offer more complex products
– besides portfolio, also refinancing of existing RES-projects and fitting crowdfunding into
a complex debt structure. Four platforms that offer these more complex products (refinancing
and complex debt) are not authorized under MiFID.
With exception of TRINE, that takes an even split management fee based on the project
return (e.g. when the investor receives 5% TRINE is paid annually 5% as well) platforms
base their revenues on the funded capital (success fee) and the project term (management
fee). This means they do not depend on the performance of the project in the same way
investors do. They only share risk with their investors when it comes to the project’s lifespan
– as they get an annually management fee. Depending largely on the success of the project
promotors funding, platforms are exposed to possible conflict of interests because they have
no extra incentive to push for project quality.
4.4. The platform’s attitude towards risk
4.4.1. Awareness
Within the sample of 23 platforms, 10 platforms responded to the survey on attitude towards
investor risk. The risks that are judged most ‘probable’ to affect their RES-projects are;
financing risk (60%), technical and management risk (50%) and administrative risk (40%).
Financing risk affects both smaller and bigger platforms, all kind of debt instruments (bonds,
34
debentures and (un)secured business loans), but apparently is more frequent among platforms
that are not/no longer benefitting from FiT-support schemes. Two platforms point out the
‘sudden policy change’ as a very probable risk. Among them the Spanish platform, that has
been affected by the 2014 retroactive change of the RES-regulatory framework (cf. supra
3.5). However 50% of the respondents, spread over UK, France, Germany and the
Netherlands, think a sudden change in policy is highly unlikely.
As for the impact of these risks, the technical and management risk is considered by a
majority to have a considerable (60%)-very high (20%) impact. Financing risk (30%
considerable impact and 30% very high) emerges as the most likely risk with the highest
estimated impact on the project. Whereas policy design, market design and sudden regulatory
changes are considered of considerable/very high impact by half of the platforms (30%
considerable, 20% very high).
When it comes to risks that affect the investor platforms are confident that fraud, loss or theft
of client data will not happen (80% calling it ‘unlikely’). Interestingly 70% consider a loss
of invested capital (all or part) unlikely, while only the Swedish platform specializing in
projects located in developing countries and a German platform call a default risk ‘probable’.
About loss of interest there is no consensus, with 40% saying it is ‘probable’ – against 50%
calling it ‘unlikely’.
4.4.2. Mitigation
All 23 platforms conduct a form of due diligence before accepting RES-projects to be
published for offering, making it the most important risk mitigation instrument; 22 (95,65%)
do due diligence at project level, while 19 (82,60%) screen the project promotor and 18 (78%)
do both. A due diligence at project level aims at covering the above mentioned risk types to
which a RES-project is exposed, ultimately converging in a credit and/or default risk for both
investor (losing capital and interest) and platform (losing fees/revenues, severe reputation
damage, default). In the same way preventive screening of the project promotor covers a
shared risk (credit risk for investor and platform, reputation damage, default), making due
diligence an instrument of both mitigation and trust building. However, it cannot be used as
35
a proxy for measuring the platforms attitude towards investors risk. For that we need to look
at the way the platforms mitigates risk that it does not share with the investor, as it is the case
with credit and liquidity risk stemming from the financial instruments it offers.
Depth of due diligence differs among the platforms that responded to our survey. All of them
ask technical information of the project and promotor information on legal compliance. Also
promotor balance sheets and proof of management capacity is commonly required (90%), as
is a project sensitivity analysis (70%). Other are production forecasts, reinsurance policies,
all kind of guarantees on offered products or energy systems. Most platforms need less than
6 weeks to conduct the whole process (30% less than 4 weeks, 40% between 4 and 6 weeks),
but still there are 2 platforms where it takes more than 8 weeks, confirming that due diligence
of RES-crowdfunding projects is far from a uniform process.
The most complete due diligence (project/promotor/regulation) is carried out by 7 platforms.
Of these 4 indicate they mitigate risk upfront beyond compliance obligations. These
platforms take mitigation measures such as; guarantees from project promotors, higher
discount rates, insurances, ongoing financial due diligence (project and promotor), ongoing
technical checks, secondary market, monitoring repayments to the investor. Overall
guarantees from project promotors, ongoing technical checks and monitoring repayments are
the most frequently used (80% each). On the platforms executing the most complete due
diligence, we find a range of different financial instruments on offer, both low credit/liquidity
risk for the investor (bonds/debentures, secured business loans, royalties) and higher risk
(unsecured loans, subordinated participatory loans).
This utmost dispersion in attitude towards risk – but with 40% doing more than is asked –
can be seen as an indication that RES-crowdfunding is pioneering on new ground. Clearly
all platforms have a strong notion that investor risk is crucial to their business (in terms of
expansion, growth and survival). However no apparent link exists between underlying RES-
projects/financial authorization and the platform’s awareness of business or financial risk.
The most ‘relaxed’ attitude comes from a French non-MiFID-authorized platform, with
rather big, complex/bank financed projects based on FiT-support/PPA with EDF. While the
four platforms that are mitigating beyond compliance are authorized under the 4 different
36
categories, two of them (DE-UK) have projects relying on FiT-schemes, all have projects
benefitting from market premiums (DE-UK-NL), among them both complex portfolio
products and simple subordinated loans based on one project.
4.4.3. Communication
All platforms communicate risk upfront, generally as a consequence of the authorization they
comply with (e.g. Dutch AMF exemption forces platforms to put a risk banner on each page,
similar risk warnings are imposed by the German Bafin and the Spanish CNMV). However
within the same authorization different communication approaches are possible. Abundance
– UK/FCA/MiFID – for example, puts a risk banner on each page, while TRINE –
UK/FCA/MiFID – only warns for risks on its FAQ-page and uses a rating system that
translates the due diligence result to the investor. Also Greencrowd.nl (NL) uses a self-
developed rating system to communicate risk, while Oneplanetcrowd (NL) adds a resume of
risks affecting the investor they detected during due diligence.
Strikingly, communication is the area where platforms most diverge. Some offer large
amounts of information on project and project promotor, systematized in a downloadable
offer document (70% in our survey), while other platforms practice an ad hoc communication
on projects and promotor, made out summaries and often without indicating sources. Five
out of ten platforms say they make available information of which content goes beyond
compliance, citing an investor fitness test, a financial glossary and a monitoring tool giving
feedback on financed projects as extra communication measures. Within this group three are
mitigating risk beyond compliance, resulting in 30% of platforms that are outperforming the
rules.
4.5. Perceived risk
In order to weigh the mitigation/communication effort of RES-crowdfunding platforms
perceived risk of the investor should be taken in account. Literature gives some indications
that investment based crowdfunding platforms may attract investors that are willing to take
above average risk stemming from their motivation profile (cf. supra 2.4.).
37
In regard to investors motivation we have compared results of a global Environmental
Awareness Index (EIA) based on a survey carried out in 2013 (Harju-Autti, 2014) and the
latest Yale Environmental Performance Index (Hsu, 2016). As for the EIA we see that the
countries with the most RES-crowdfunding platforms are high on the ranking (Germany – 4,
Netherlands – 7), while there are countries with significant RES-crowdfunding activity that
show a poor ranking (UK – 18 and France - 21). In relation to the EPI we see that developed
RES-crowdfunding markets show medium ranks (France – 10, UK- 12) and countries with
the most platforms rank the lowest (Germany – 30 and Netherlands – 36).
Two interpretations are possible: poorly performing countries seem to have a more
environmental aware population, that in turn is more willing to crowdfund RES-projects. Or,
as is proven by the UK and France, there is no apparent link between environmental
awareness and RES-crowdfunding activity, making the financial motive the most probable.
The survey results confirm this complex investor profile, with 90% of platforms calling their
investors’ motives both ‘financial’ and ‘cause-related’. ‘Inclusion’ is high as well on the
motive list (70%), while sheer ‘altruism’ is not seen as a determining motive (40%). When it
comes to investors competence, platforms generally think they deal with ‘well informed
investors’ (70%- against 20% poorly informed) and people who are ‘capable to deal with risk
(60%-against 20% vulnerable to risk). Overall platforms seem to be confident regarding their
investors competence and capability to deal with risk, which can help explain why they are
not ‘pampering’ the investors via beyond compliance mitigation and communication of risk.
38
5. CASE STUDY ECROWD!
5.1. Platform and project description
Barcelona based platform Ecrowd! started in May 2014 and offers projects that are financed
through secured and unsecured business loans. With focus on lending Ecrowd! deliberately
describes its activity not as ‘crowdfunding’ but as ‘crowdlending’. Until 31/12/2016 more
than 1,4 million euro was invested in 41 projects. Average investment amount was 950 euro,
pointing to a retail profile of the average investor. Only 17 projects out of 41 concern RES-
investment, among those: biomass heat systems replacing gasoil, thermic insulation,
relighting and other energy efficiency projects, as well as off grid solar PV (2 projects). Other
projects range from renovation with ecological materials, production of eco-friendly napkins
and coffee to enlargement of optical fiber networks. All these projects have in common that
they do not depend on policy support schemes, which can be considered risk averse behavior
as a consequence of the troubled regulatory changes RES-projects have undergone in Spain
since 2012 (cf. supra 3.5). Remarkable is the small number of off grid solar PV-projects, that
is not affected by regulatory uncertainty. We can thus state that, in an environment without
stable RES-policy support schemes, RES-crowdfunding does not take off – which once again
confirms the strong link between support schemes and crowdfunding activity.
Table 4. Technical overview Mar de Fulles
Production 136 panels 41.480 W (power capacity)
Storage 82 batteries 12.340 AH/C100 – 48 V (592 KWH)
Production 150 kWh
Investment 174.000 euro (crowd) –
62%
106.000 euro (Fiara Banca Ética/
Caixa Sant Vincent Ferrer de la Vall
de Uixó, Coop. de Credit) - 38%
Loan term 84 months
Interest 4,5% On digressive capital
Payments Fixed rate Monthly payments
Source: Author’s construction based on platform’s website
39
In the spring of 2016 Ecrowd! published the Mar de Fulles-project on its platform. Goal was
to finance through the crowd 174.000 euros of the 280.000 euro budget needed for the off
solar PV system and batteries. According to the project description on the platform the eco-
tourism resort Mar de Fulles, near Castellón (Valencia), the ‘first to be managed following
ecological, sustainable and energetically efficient principles’. The PV system works off-grid
and is supported by 82 batteries, making the resort fully self-sufficient in electricity
generation and water sourcing (Table 4.). In a fairly short time span in total 129 investors
pledged amounts between 50 euro and 23.000 euro (cf. infra 5.2, figure 11).
However, between the announcement of the project and the confirmation that it actually
would take off, more than two months passed instead of the announced 4 weeks. Therefore
Ecrowd! decided to launch a survey among the investors of the Mar de Fulles project asking
them 12 questions on their motivation to invest and their satisfaction with the investment
process and offered information. The results of this survey, generously shared by the
platform, will form the basis of this short case study.
5.2. Investors profile
The satisfactory survey was sent to all 129 investors that lent money to the Mar de Fulles
project, of which 65 (50,38%) responded. Information on the investments of each
crowdfunder were available on the platform’s site. According to the amounts invested we see
a heterogeneous group, confirming the retail profile of the RES-crowdfunding investor that
literature indicated (cf supra 2.4). Only 4 investors lend 5000 euro or more, with the top
amount at 23.000 euro. Average investment is at 1344,50 euro. Most invested amounts are
1000 euro (22 investors) and 2000 euro (19 investors), pointing at a small investor looking
for somewhat more as a mere symbolic investment.
40
Figure 11. Amounts invested in Mar de Fulles
Source: Author’s construction based on platform’s website
The survey gives us clear insight in the investors’ motivation. When they are asked to
describe the reason why they invested, they were given the choice between ‘the type of
project (off grid solar PV)’ and ‘both type of project and the announced interest of 4,5%’.
Interestingly one in four (26,15% (17/65)) investors pointed out the type of project, while
70,76% (46/65) mentions both financial return and type of project, one investor (1,53%)
explicitly pointed out the return as prime motivation. This gives us strong indications that the
financial motive plays an determinant role in overall motivations of this specific group of
crowdfunding investors.
The survey does not contain any questions regarding perceived risk of the investors.
However, in the comment section, where they were asked to justify their global satisfaction
score, two investors pointed out that the platform could do more to inform about the
guarantees, security and risks involved in the investments. In order to do so one investor
suggested to introduce a more visual/easier communication tool to communicate risk. Also,
three investors say they are investing for the first time, with one explicitly stating he’s
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Nº
inve
sto
rsAmount invested/nº of investors
41
‘trusting Ecrowd! fully in its capacity to assess project quality’. The vast majority of
comments though (25 out of 43) are positive without any restraint. The absence of criticism
could be indication of either a lower perceived risk or a motivation that relates positively to
perceived risk; i.e. enthusiastic investors willing to taker higher risk.
Investment process and information are considered ‘easy’ guaranteeing access for non-
specialist investors. In general quality of information is praised, although understanding
could be better if technical project information would be made easier to understand for non-
energy experts. These remarks indicate that, apart from typical retail investors the platforms
also attract a considerable share of newcomers and first-time investors.
5.3. The platform’s attitude towards investor’s risk
The type of questions the platform included in its survey give us valuable insights regarding
its attitude towards investor’s risk. To start with, the platform did not ask explicit questions
enquiring into perceived risk/sensibility. Main reason for this apparent omission, is a ‘nomen
est omen’ kind of the cautiousness. From conversations with platform representatives
(Matthieu Van Haperen – Ecrowd! - ES, Nuno Brito Jorge – GoParity - PT) we learned that
they fear that mentioning the risk-word too often, could shy away investors. This does not
mean Ecrowd! is not worried at all about the risk perception of its investors. The greater part
of the survey is made of questions meant to measure satisfaction with the clearness of
information and investment process. This reveals a particular attention to improving general
processes and decision-taking of the investors, as well as a pre-set awareness that they have
a comparably high risk sensitivity.
Interestingly, when profiling their investors in our EU-survey Ecrowd! described their
motivations as ‘cause related’, ‘community building’ and ‘inclusion’, while the outcome
from the Mar de Fulles-survey indicates substantial financial motive (70% include financial
reasons in their investment decision). In the EU-survey Ecrowd! also described their
investors as ‘well informed’ and capable to deal with risk’, while in the Mar de Fulles inquiry
at least 10 (15%) investors explicitly ask for more information before, during and after the
investment, three of them asking for more easy-to-understand information about guarantees
42
and risk involved. This points to a possible knowledge/information gap that could scare away
new investors. Highlighting easy access financial and project information – as suggested by
one of the investors - could help closing this gap.
The above points at a double discrepancy: 1) Ecrowd! supposes a social/environmental
motivation, while a majority of investors underlines the importance of the financial aspect in
their decision to invest. 2) The platform supposes that investors are well informed, while
there are clear indications that a fair share are first time investors.
In addition to that we found - in spite of generally positive comments of investors - the
information level of project presentations on Ecrowd! below EU-average. No downloadable
offer document is made available (70% of platforms in the EU-survey does), promotor
information is limited to copy/pasted financials and project information is presented in large
unstructured chunks. Although crucial to liquidity risk - but largely unknown to
inexperienced investors - there is no information on the junior/senior status of their debt in
relation to bank finance. Neither is there extensive information on characteristics of
secured/unsecured business loan as debt instrument, nor a glossary with financial terms (60%
of EU-platforms) or an investor fitness test (50% of EU-platforms).
5.4. A rating system as the perfect compromise?
The question we pose ourselves here is whether a rating system can resolve this information
deficit. With only 3 in 23 platforms rating the projects they present on their sites, a rating
system clearly is not a preferred communication tool. Mainly this is because ratings made
visible for the crowdfunding investor, come with some disadvantages for the platform. They
(i) put the focus on risk (cf. supra 5.3.)
(ii) create competition between projects
(iii) remind of traditional finance and ‘ratings agencies’
(iv) oversimplify risk assessment in decision taking
Most platforms (21 out of 23 – 91%) give explicit information on investor risk, either in a
separate chapter (52%) or as part of their FAQs (39%). Interestingly Ecrowd! does neither,
43
it only addresses risk in a promotion style text that compares crowdlending with other
investment products. Not offering an easy access risk evaluation tool for investors can be
seen as symptomatic for the ambiguous stand some crowdfunding platforms, like Ecrowd!,
take on investor risk communication. Clearly, a rating system is where the platform’s
interests (to attract investors) and the investor’s interests (get maximal transparency) shock.
As an alternative we propose a rating system that is embedded in a detailed offer document,
as is practiced by Greencrowd (NL). The link with the complete financial and technical
project information avoids oversimplification. On the contrary, the embedded rating can
work as a didactic instrument, pulling the investor into more detailed background
information.
5.5. The rating system
We suggest a rating system based on models used by Greencrowd (NL) and TRINE (SE).
Greencrowd uses 8 criteria, TRINE 4. We include 2 extra criteria based on the findings in
our EU-survey (type of remuneration and support schemes). After merging the overlapping
criteria we come to 11 criteria, in order of importance and each with a weighed score. Criteria
are justified in the context of literature and the findings of the EU-survey.
1. External evaluation of creditworthiness (1-5) – a defaulting promotor leads
to default/credit risk for crowdfunder (part of due diligence in all reviewed
platforms, top criterium in rating system used by TRINE, Greencrowd)
2. Debt service coverage ratio – (DSCR = Ebitda/Interest+capital
payments) (1-4) – underlying cash flow is considered the aorta of project
finance
3. Type of remuneration (0-3) – EU-best practices show strong link between
type of remuneration scheme and successful RES-crowdfunding
4. Support schemes (1-3) – subsidies covering installation cost improve NPV
(Sissodia et al., 2016)
44
5. Percentage unsubordinated capital (0-3) – increases liquidity/default risk
6. Percentage subordinated capital (1-3) – third party financing mitigates
overall credit risk
7. Development phase (1-3) – finished and functioning projects have passed the
most crucial phase of RES-project development, ie. planning and construction
(DIACORE, 2016)
8. Supply conditions (1-3) – type of prices (fixed, with or without indexation or
market prices) will determine cash flow.
9. Installation serves as guarantee (-1 = yes, 0 = no) – mitigates credit risk
10. Other hard guarantees (-1 = yes, 0 = no) – mitigates credit risk
11. Country the project is located in - (0-7) - covering political risk and market
size
Table 5. Rating system applied to Mar de Fulles
Criteria Boundary values Score Mar de Fulles
1. Ext. evaluation promotor highest = 1 – lowest or none = 5 5
2. Debt service coverage ratio > 1,3 = 1
1,2-1,3 = 2
1,1-1,2= 3
1
3. Type of remuneration Off grid = 0
FiT/market premium = 1
Self consumption = 2
PPA (market prices) = 3
0
4. Support schemes (% of
installation cost)
100%-50% = 1
50%-25% = 2
25%-0 = 3
0% = 4
4
45
5. Unsubordinated capital (%) 0% = 0
0%-30% = 1
30%-60% = 2
60%-70% = 3
2
6. Subordinated capital (%) >= 50% = 1
25%-50% = 2
< 25% = 3
3
7. Development phase In exploitation = 1
Under construction = 2
In development = 3
2
8. Supply conditions Fix prices with fix indexation = 1
Fix prices without indexation = 2
Market prices = 3
1
9. Installation as guarantee Yes = -1
No = 0
0
10. Other hard guarantees Yes = -1
No = 0
0
11. Country of project location scale: 0-7, following the OECD
country risk index (OECD, 2017)
0
46
Table 6: Score card rating system
Score Rating
<=10 A+
11 A1
12 A2
13 A3
14 B1
15 B2
16 B3
17 C1
18 C2
19 C3
20 D1
21 D2
22 D3
23 E1
24 E2
25 E3
>25 F Source: Greencrowd.nl, authors own construction
Rating Mar de Fulles:
C2
47
6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Market overview:
In this work we have made a critical analysis of EU crowdfunding platforms that offer
renewable energy projects. Our document review of 23 active platforms and the survey
answered by C-level representatives of 10 platforms, has shown a strong nexus between
stable market premium schemes and RES-crowdfunding activity.
Germany and the Netherlands have been identified as the markets with the eldest, the most
platforms and the largest crowdfunded volumes. Both countries have stable market premium
schemes in place. From the overview we learnt that there is a predominance of small to
medium scale solar PV systems and wind turbines that benefit from policy support schemes.
Survey-results showed that financing risk is considered more probable by platforms offering
projects that no longer benefit from the – long term, predictable - Feed-in-tariffs (FiT).
Moreover, our case study of the Spanish platform Ecrowd! has confirmed that, without stable
support schemes, the platform show risk averse behavior: i.e. it avoids grid connected RES-
projects and turns to off grid or non-RES-projects with sound cash flows. We also found
evidence that the type of support schemes is shaping the business model. Platforms that get
their cash flows from older FiT-policies practice comparable lower fees than those relying
on market premium, energy saving costs and/or product sales.
Financial regulation has a similar shaping effect on the business model of the RES-
crowdfunding platform. The tolerant financial regulatory framework based on exemption
rules in the Netherlands, favors a range of business models and financial instruments. While
the more specific German framework, also based on exemption, tends to reduce RES-
crowdfunding to one business model/one instrument. Restrictions on crowdfunding (as in
France) or levelling it next to traditional financial services (UK), tend to force platform
adopting MiFID in order to ‘free themselves’. Unclear, unfinished or non-existent regulation
(Sweden, Belgium, Finland), does not favor crowdfunding activity and also drives platforms
48
to MiFID. Specific regulation favoring one type of crowdfunding (as with equity
crowdfunding in Austria) results in more equity platforms.
The business and credit risk that can affect the RES-crowdfunding investor depend strongly
on the underlying remuneration and support scheme of the project. With the phasing out of
FiT – replaced by a more volatile market premium – business risk is expected to increase.
Only 20% of platforms offer RES-projects that combine low risk FiT-support with low risk
instruments. Credit risk exposure for investors can be considered high, making platforms
dependent on their mitigation policy to reduce risk. RES-crowdfunding is also profiling as a
long term fix investment; with than half of the platforms not offering transferable instruments
and only three having a secondary market, investors should take in account considerable
liquidity risk. Moreover because platforms are depending largely on the success of the project
promotors funding, they are exposed to possible conflict of interests.
Platforms seem to be aware they are offering a high risk investment. Mitigation through due
diligence is generalized, even when the process is far from uniform. Confidence on their
business models is high, with a minority calling default or even credit risk for the investor
probable. There is a notable dispersion in attitude towards risk. A considerable minority of
40% is mitigating risk beyond compliance, while the majority just sticks to the rules of the
framework they work in. At the same time we found that there is no standard communication
of risk, even within the same regulatory framework. The survey points to 50% of platforms
communicating beyond compliance, while within this group three are mitigating risk beyond
compliance. This results in 30% of platforms that are outperforming the rules.
As to the motivation of investors, the complex profile pointed out by literature (cf. supra 2.4)
is confirmed by our findings. In our EU-survey 90% of platforms call their investors’ motives
both ‘financial’ and ‘cause-related’. From an investor perspective, results are similar; our
case study shows 70% of investors invoking both ‘financial return’ and ‘type of project’ as
motives to invest. There is no conclusive data on perceived risk, although comments in the
Ecrowd!-survey suggest investor motivation may relate positively to perceived risk.
49
The dispersion in attitude towards risk confirms our main research hypothesis, but only to a
certain extent (cf. supra 2.4). A considerable minority of the platforms does seem to take in
account the so called risk paradox, where unexperienced retail investors meet a fairly
complex investment product. Whereas the overall confident attitude of platforms can be seen
as an indication that they overstretch the capability of investors to deal with the actual risk
they are exposed to. Moreover, confidence of platforms coincides with an investor showing
strong financial motivation and low perceived risk. Therefore we can conclude there exists
an information gap that is possibly threatening to both investor and platform activity.
In order to mend this gap, we suggested a rating system based on 11 criteria we took from
our findings. The rating system should be easy to extract information, but also it should be
embedded in a downloadable offer document containing all technical and financial project
information.
Policy suggestions and future research
The strong nexus between underlying support scheme and RES-crowdfunding shows that it
needs policy support to function as a viable means to (co)finance RES-projects. The idea that
RES-crowdfunding on its own could push energy transition into a direction with distributed
energy resources at its core has – under actual market conditions - no fundament. In order to
maintain crowdfunding as a viable alternative or complement in financing RES, policy
support for distributed energy resources (DER) and non-mature technologies should stay in
place, avoiding radical regulatory shifts.
As for the financial regulation the EU should consider a union wide crowdfunding exemption
rule, similar to the German and Dutch approach. Establishing a prospectus exemption range
between 1 and 8 million euro, as foreseen in the Prospectus Regulation voted May 16th 2017
by the Council (PE/CONS63/16, 2017), could prove insufficient to attract middle range RES-
projects that are in need for financing. As to investor protection, uniform downloadable offer
documents, investor limits and a fitness-test should be introduced.
In addition to that we need to investigate the policy consequences of cheap solar energy, said
to be the cheapest way to produce electricity in already more than 60 countries (Randall,
50
2016). With unsubsidized solar energy LCOE nearing parity, research should compare
impact of the new market conditions in different regulatory frameworks. Under the new
conditions, further investigation into the business and credit risk for the RES-crowdfund
investor is needed. From the platform point of view it would be interesting to investigate risk
mitigation instruments such as adequate third party financing. From a project point of view
research could look more closely into the benefits of crowdfunding as a marketing and
communications instrument or as a ways to mitigate social acceptance risk.
Also, the rating system suggested here could be improved considerably. Future research
could focus on how RES-crowdfunding business models crystalize in one particular market.
Quantitative research could include project size, RES-remuneration/support and financial
instruments in order to weigh risk in each business model. This can result in risk modelling
that is adaptable to particular business models, possibly preparing the base for a more sound
risk rating system.
Finally, a thorough research into perceived risk of the RES-crowdfunding investor could be
key for RES-crowdfunding activity. A precise investor profile should be worked out in order
to improve risk treatment. Then, if the investor’s motivation is primarily financial as our
results have shown, the question is how to treat the rising risk when FiT and market premiums
are phased out. Moreover, accurate investor profiles could help platforms to enter in direct
competition with classic financial products when interest on saving accounts start to rise
again. Exact knowledge of investor motivation should be combined with the most complete
due diligence and transparent risk communication. This could help platforms to turn their
supposed unique selling propositions - project quality and transparency of the investment
process - into real assets.
51
7. REFERENCES
7.1. Articles
Agrawal, A. K., C. Catalini, and A. Goldfarb (2013), "Some simple economics of
crowdfunding". NBER Working Paper, nº 19133, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Retrieved December 3rd 2016 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19133.
Alafita, T. and J. M. Pearce (2014), "Securitization of residential solar photovoltaic assets:
Costs, risks and uncertainty.", Energy Policy, Vol 67, pp. 488-498.
Belleflamme, P., T. Lambert, and A. Schwienbacher (2014), "Crowdfunding: Tapping the
right crowd.", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 29, Nº5, pp. 585-609.
Bruton, G., S.Khavul, D. Siegel and M. Wright (2015), "New Financial Alternatives in
Seeding Entrepreneurship: Microfinance, Crowdfunding, and Peer-to-Peer Innovations."
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 39, Nº1, pp. 9-26.
Christensen, J. L. and D.S. Hain (2017), "Knowing where to go: The knowledge foundation
for investments in renewable energy." Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 25, pp. 124-
133.
CrowdfundRES (2016a), Crowdfunding RES-Regulation in the EU. WIP Renewable
Energies, Munich. Retrieved October 2nd 2016 from http://www.crowdfundres.eu/results/
CrowdfundRES (2016b), CrowdFundRES Case Studies. WIP Renewable Energies, Munich.
Retrieved September 29th 2016 from http://www.crowdfundres.eu/results/
CrowdfundRES (2016c), Draft Policy Recommendations. WIP Renewable Energies,
Munich. Retrieved December 7th 2016 from http://www.crowdfundres.eu/results/
De Buysere, K., O. Gajda, R. Kleverlaan and D. Marom (2012), A framework for European
Crowdfunding. Retrieved January 2nd 2017 from http://eurocrowd.winball2.de/wp-
content/blogs.dir/sites/85/2013/06/FRAMEWORK_EU_CROWDFUNDING.pdf
DIACORE (2016), The impact of risk in res-investments and the role of smart policies.
Ecofys, London. Retrieved October 17th 2016 from http://diacore.eu/images/files2/WP3-
Final%20Report/diacore-2016-impact-of-risk-in-res-investments.pdf
EBA (2015). EBA Opinion on lending based Crowdfunding. European Banking Authority,
London. Retrieved December 22nd 2016 from
https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/983359/EBA-Op-2015-
03+(EBA+Opinion+on+lending+based+Crowdfunding).pdf
Engelken, M., B. Römer, M.Drescher, I.M. Welpe, A. Picot (2016), "Comparing drivers,
barriers, and opportunities of business models for renewable energies: A review." Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 60, pp.795-809.
52
ESMA (2014), Advice investment-based crowdfunding. European Securities and Market
Authority, Paris. Retrieved December 22nd 2016 from
https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/2015/11/2014-
1560_advice_on_investment-based_crowdfunding.pdf
ESMA (2015), Investment based crowdfunding: Insights from regulators in the EU.
European Securities and Market Authority, Paris. Retrieved February 9th 2017 from
https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/2015/11/esma-2015-
856_ann_1_esma_response_to_ec_green_paper_on_cmu_-_crowdfunding_survey.pdf
European Commission (2014), Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and
energy 2014-2020. Brussels, Official Journal of the European Union.
European Commission (2016), Crowdfunding in the EU Capital Markets Union. Brussels.
Retrieved December 22th 2016 from https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/crowdfunding-
eu-capital-markets-union_en
FCA (2014), The FCA’s regulatory approach to crowdfunding over the internet, and the
promotion of non-readily realisable securities by other media. Financial Conduct Authority,
London. Retrieved January 11th 2017 from https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps14-
04.pdf
FCA (2015), A review of the regulatory regime for crowdfunding and the promotion of non-
readily realisable securities by other media. Financial Conduct Authority, London. Retrieved
January 11th 2017 from https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/thematic-reviews/crowdfunding-
review.pdf
Fleiß, E., S. Hatzl, S. Seebauer and A.Posch (2017), "Money, not morale: The impact of
desires and beliefs on private investment in photovoltaic citizen participation initiatives."
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 141, pp. 920-927.
Für-gründer.de (2017), Crowdfinanzierung in Deutschland. Für-gründer.de, Frankfurt-am-
Main. Retrieved May 16th 2017 from https://www.fuer-
gruender.de/fileadmin/mediapool/Publikation/Crowdfinanzierung_2016-Fuer-Gruender.de-
Dentons.pdf
Gatzert, N. and T. Kosub (2016), "Risks and risk management of renewable energy projects:
The case of onshore and offshore wind parks." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Vol. 60, pp. 982-998.
Gatzert, N. and N. Vogl (2016), "Evaluating investments in renewable energy under policy
risks." Energy Policy, Vol. 95, pp. 238-252.
Harju-Autti, P. and K. Eevi (2014), "A Novel Environmental Awareness Index Measured
Cross-Nationally For Fifty Seven Countries." Universal Journal of Environmental Research
and Technology, Vol. 4, Nº4, pp. 178-198
Harrison, R. (2013), "Crowdfunding and the revitalisation of the early stage risk capital
market: catalyst or chimera?" Venture Capital, Vol. 15, Nº4, pp. 283-287.
53
Hsu, A. e. a. (2016), 2016 Environmental Performance Index. Yale University, New Haven.
Retrieved June 12th 2017 from http://epi.yale.edu/reports/2016-report
Kohl, K. (2017), Proceedings of the European Policy Workshop. WIP Renewable Energies,
Munich. Retrieved June 14th 2017 from http://www.crowdfundres.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/D4.3.-Proceedings-EU-Policy-Workshop.pdf
Lam, P. T. I. and A. O. K. Law (2016), "Crowdfunding for renewable and sustainable energy
projects: An exploratory case study approach." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Vol. 60, pp. 11-20.
Lee, C. W. and J. Zhong (2015), "Financing and risk management of renewable energy
projects with a hybrid bond." Renewable Energy, Vol. 75, pp. 779-787.
Mollick, E. (2014), "The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study." Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 29, Nº1, pp. 1-16.
OECD (2017), Country Risk Classifications of the Participants to the Arrangement on
Officially Supported Export Credits. Paris. Retrieved May 3rd 2017 from
https://oecd.org/trade/xcred/crc.htm
O'Sullivan, F. and W., Charles (2016), "Solar securization: an innovation in renewable
energy finance." A MIT Energy Initiative working paper, nº MITEI-WP-2016-05. MIT,
Cambridge.
Ordanini, A., L.Miceli, M. Pizzetti and A. Parasuraman (2011), "Crowdfunding:
transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms." Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 22, Nº4, pp. 443-470.
PV-Financing (2016), Business-Model Report PV Financing, Spain. Bundesverband
Solarwirtschaft, Berlin. Retrieved October 18th 2016 from http://www.pv-
financing.eu/business-model-reports/
Pyrgou, A., A. Kylili and P.A. Fokaides (2016), "The future of the Feed-in Tariff (FiT)
scheme in Europe: The case of photovoltaics." Energy Policy, Vol. 95, pp. 94-102.
Randall, T. (2016), "World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind.".
Retrieved June 12th 2017 from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-
15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind.
Rees-Mogg, M. and O.Harris (2016), Is the crowd indifferent to financials? Wheatfromchaff,
Somerset. Retrieved January 10th 2017 from
https://www.crowdrating.co.uk/uploads/CrowdRating%20Report%20-
%20Is%20the%20crowd%20indifferent%20to%20financials%20-%20Feb2016.pdf
Salm, S., S.L. Hille and R. Wüstenhagen (2016), "What are retail investors' risk-return
preferences towards renewable energy projects? A choice experiment in Germany." Energy
Policy, Vol.97, pp. 310-320.
54
Schwienbacher, A. and B. Larralde (2010), "Crowdfunding of small entrepreneurial
ventures." In D. Cumming (ed.)(2012), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurial Finance,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 369–392.
Sisodia, G. S., I. Soares and P. Ferreira. (2016), "Modeling business risk: The effect of
regulatory revision on renewable energy investment - The Iberian case." Renewable Energy,
Vol. 95, pp. 303-313.
Stigka, E. K., J.A. Paravantis and G.H. Mihalakakou (2014), "Social acceptance of renewable
energy sources: A review of contingent valuation applications." Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, Vol. 32, pp. 100-106.
Vasileiadou, E., J.C.C.M.Huijben and R.P.J.M. Raven (2016), "Three is a crowd? Exploring
the potential of crowdfunding for renewable energy in the Netherlands." Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 128, pp. 142-155.
Vlaev, I. C., N.Chater and N. Stewart (2009), "Dimensionality of Risk Perception: Factors
Affecting Consumer Understanding and Evaluation of Financial Risk." The Journal of
Behavioral Finance, Vol. 10, pp. 158-181.
Yildiz, Ö. (2014), "Financing renewable energy infrastructures via financial citizen
participation – The case of Germany." Renewable Energy, Vol. 68, pp. 677-685.
Zhang, B., J. Burton, K. Garvey, A. James, A. Lui, R. Wardrop and T. Ziegler (2016),
Sustaining momentum - European Alternative Finance report. Cambridge Centre for
Alternative Finance, Cambridge. Retrieved September 30th 2016 from
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/alternative-
finance/downloads/2016-european-alternative-finance-report-sustaining-momentum.pdf
Zhang, C., P.E. Campana, J. Yang and J. Yan (2016), "Analysis of Distributed Photovoltaic
Financing: A Case Study Approach of Crowd-funding with Photovoltaic Water Pumping
System in Microgrids." Energy Procedia, Vol. 103, pp. 387-393.
Zhao, Q., C-D. Chen, J-L. Wang and P-C. Chen. (2017), "Determinants of backers’ funding
intention in crowdfunding: Social exchange theory and regulatory focus." Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 34, Nº1, pp. 370-384.
Zheng, R., N. Chakraborty, K. Sycara and Y. Xu (2015), "A Crowdfunding model for green
energy investment." 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Inteligence, Buenos
Aires, July 25th-31st 2015.
55
7.2. Legislation
Real Decreto 413/2014, de 6 de junio, por el que se regula la actividad de producción de
energía eléctrica a partir de fuentes de energía renovables, cogeneración y residuos. BOE-A-
2014-6123. Retrieved June 13th 2017. Available on
https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2014-6123
Ley 5/2015 , de 27 de abril, de fomento de la financiación empresarial. BOE-A-2015-4607.
Retrieved June 13th 2017. Available on https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-
2015-4607
Lei nº102/2015 de 24 de Agosto - Regime jurídico do financiamento colaborativo. Retrieved
June 13th 2017. Available on http://data.dre.pt/eli/lei/102/2015/08/24/p/dre/pt/html
Bundesgesetz über alternative Finanzierungsformen (AltFG). BGBI I. nº114/2015. Retrieved
June 13th 2017. Available on
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnumm
er=20009241
Wet tot regeling van de erkenning en de afbakening van crowdfunding en houdende diverse
bepalingen inzake financiën, van 2016-12-18. Retrieved June 13th 2017. Available on
http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&table_name=we
t&cn=2016121801
Gewerbeordnung (2017). §34f Finanzanlagenvermittler. Retrieved June 13th 2017. Available
on https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gewo/index.html#BJNR002450869BJNE025705118
Wet op het financieel toezicht (2017). Art. 4:3. Retrieved June 13th 2017. Available on
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0020368/2017-01-01
PE/CONS63/16 (2017). Regulation of the European Parliament and th Council on the
prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on
a regulated market, and repealing Directive 2003/71/EC. 2015/0268 (COD). Retrieved June
13th 2017. Available on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1497376138705&uri=CONSIL:PE_63_2016_INIT
7.3. Websites
https://www.abundanceinvestment.com/
https://www.bettervest.com/en/
https://citizenergy.eu/
56
http://www.crowdfunding.de/
https://www.crowdrating.co.uk/
https://www.conda.at/crowdinvesting/oesterreich/
https://www.crowdsurfer.com/home/
https://www.duurzaaminvesteren.nl/
https://www.ecconova.com/
https://www.econeers.de/
https://www.ecrowdinvest.com/
https://enerfip.fr/
http://eurocrowd.org/
https://greencrowd.nl/projecten
http://greencrowding.com/
https://www.greenvesting.com/
https://www.greenrocket.com/
https://www.greenxmoney.com/
https://www.invesdor.com/en
https://www.jointrine.com/
https://www.leihdeinerumweltgeld.de/
https://www.lendosphere.com/
https://www.lumo-france.com/
https://www.oneplanetcrowd.com/nl
http://www.res-legal.eu/home/
57
https://www.wedogood.co/
https://www.wiwin.de/
https://www.windcentrale.nl/
https://www.zonnepanelendelen.nl/
58
8. ANNEXES
Annex 1 - Document review and EU-survey responses
Annex 2 – Encuesta de satisfaccíon Mar de Fulles
Annex 3 – Calculations Rating System
Timestamp Name of the platform Country Start date
1/2/2017 10:38:26 TRINE Sweden 05/02/2016
1/2/2017 13:34:50 Green Crowding Germany 01/01/2015
1/2/2017 21:43:43 ECrowd! Spain 01/05/2014
1/3/2017 12:37:00 Abundance Investment UK 12/01/2011
1/11/2017 11:40:12 CONDA Austria 18/03/2013
1/13/2017 17:21:36 Lendosphere France 10/12/2014
1/16/2017 9:03:41 Enerfip France 01/06/2015
1/16/2017 9:04:07 greenXmoney.com Germany 01/01/2014
1/18/2017 12:06:41 Greencrowd The Netherlands 08/08/2012
1/18/2017 15:36:36 ZonnepanelenDelen The Netherlands 14/10/2014
OnePlanetCrowd The Netherlands 01/01/2012
De Windcentrale The Netherlands 01/01/2010
Duurzaam Investeren The Netherlands 01/07/2014
Bettervest Germany 01/01/2012
Greenvesting Germany 01/01/2010
Wiwin Germany 01/01/2011
WeDoGood France 01/01/2016
Lumo France 01/03/2012
EccoNova Belgium 01/07/2015
Invesdor Finland 01/05/2012
LeihDeinerUmweltGeld Germany 01/01/2011
Econeers Germany 01/01/2013
Greenrocket Austria 01/01/2013
End date Days of activity Vol./Days of activity Total volume of crowdfunded RES projects on 31/12/2016
31/12/2016 330 1333 440000
31/12/2016 730 0 10
31/12/2016 975 1435 1400000
31/12/2016 2180 20477 44640000
31/12/2016 1384 596 825100
31/12/2016 752 15292 11500000
31/12/2016 579 2072 1200000
31/12/2016 1095 566 620000
31/12/2016 1606 2399 3854000
31/12/2016 809 3876 3135975
31/12/2016 1826 2268 4141673
31/12/2016 2556 6259 16000000
31/12/2016 914 17327 15837000
31/12/2016 1826 2269 4144670
31/12/2016 2556 210 539200
31/12/2016 2191 20456 44820500
31/12/2016 365 246 90000
31/12/2016 1766 1241 2192875
31/12/2016 549 273 150000
31/12/2016 1705 521 889992,53
31/12/2016 2191 2534 5552950
31/12/2016 1460 4155 6066750
31/12/2016 1460 1599 2334946
Type of fees Total amount of fees Type of RES-projects
solar PV wind
5% arrangement fee on funded capital + x% annualy paid management fee equally split with investors + annual fee from communication partners22000-50000 off grid rooftop PV systems
n/A rooftop solar PV systems
2-4% arrangement fee on funded capital + 1-1,5% annualy paid management fee on the the remaining capital + 0,60% paid by investors on their investment60000-70000 rooftop solar PV systems
4-5% arrangement fee on funded capital + 1,5% annualy paid management fee on the the remaining capital -no investor fee1785600-2500000 rooftop solar PV, ground mounted solar farm, portfolio of rooftop solar PVon-shore winturbines (power and drying woodchip sold to biomass boiler owners)
contract fee between 2000 and 3500 euro pro project + arrangement fee between 7,5% and 11,5% on the funding goal + 1,5% annualy paid management fee on transaction capital75000-80000
4% arrangement fee on funded capital + 1,6-2% on the debt issuance 644000-690000 rooftop solar PV, ground mounted solar farm, microgrid solar PVon-shore winturbines (parks)
contract fee of 1000 euro or 0,5-1,5% on funding goal + 5-10% arrangement fee on funded capital60000-120000 rooftop solar PV, ground mounted solar farmsoff-shore windturbines
2% on the sold energy (for the owner of a production site) + 1,5% on the bought energy +0,2% bi-annually on the value of the contract(for the investors)21700-22940 rooftop solar PV on-shore windturbine
100 euro contract fee + 3% arrangement fee on the funding goal (minimum 1250 euro) + 2 euro annually paid management fee per investmemt115620-118460 rooftop solar PV, ground mounted solar PV systemson-shore windturbine
5-7% arrangement fee on the funded capital+ x% annually paid management fee156798,75-219518,25 rooftop solar PVanalysis fee 200 euro +
1% of the funding goal + 331333,84-335000 off grid rooftop PV systems, rooftop solar PV, solar PV tiles
20 euro exploitation fee per sold windshare + 3 euro management fee per windshare1400000-1500000 on-shore wind turbines (singular mills)
x% contract fee + x% arrangement fee on funded capital (negotiated on project base no information disclosed)portfolio solar PV systems on-shore wind turbines (park)
max- 10% arrangement fee on funded capital + 1% annualy paid management fee on funded capital400000-500000 offgrid solar PV, rooftop solar PV, off grid mobile solar PV systems
4,75% arrangement fee on the funded capital + 1% annually paid management fee on the funded capital25612-35000 offgrid solar PV, rooftop solar PV, off grid mobile solar PV systems
7,5% arrangement fee on the funded capital/debt emitted3361737,50-x ground mounted solar farmson-shore wind turbines
9,09% one off contract fee on funding goal added to the amount to be raised (so investors are funding the fee as well)7500-x
5% management fee on the investment (investor) + x% annually paid management fee on the funded capital (promotor - no information disclosed)109643-x rooftop solar PV systems, ground mounted solar farmson-shore wind turbines (parks)
6-8% arrangement fee on the funded capital (minimum 3000 euro)9000-12000 on-shore wind turbines (parks)
x% fixed up-front listing fee, plus x% success fee and a fixed closing fee if the funding round is successful (no information disclosed)
3% of funded capital presentation fee, paid by project promotor and 1% yearly paid management fee on remaining capitalrooftop solar PV systems, ground mounted solar PVon-shore windparks
6%-10% of the funded capital as successfee, 0,8% of funded capital as yearly paid management fee, costs for Secupay (for investor)rooftop solar PV systems, ground mounted solar PV
10% of the funded capital as successfee, 1,5% of funded capital yearly paid as management feeon-shore windparks
RES-technology
biomass energy efficiency other Policy support schemes
solar lamps
relighting, isolation FiT (20 years) <100kW, market premium (tendering)
biomass boilers relighting, isolation e-vehicle charging stations, e-vehicle
biomass boilers, CHP plants bioliquid (waste cooking oil) plantsFiT (20 years) <5MW (10 years for micro-CHP), Export Tariff= bonus payment for exporting/selling (not using), Contracts for Difference (CFD)=market premium, Renewables Obligation=quota system, Renewable Heat Incentive
biomass heating systems relighting integrated energy production, storage and control
on-shore winturbines (parks) FiT+export bonus+purchase obligation, Tender for support Tariff (CRE)
heat storage systems (industrial)FiT+export bonus+purchase obligation
FiT (20 years) <100kW, market premium (tendering)
e-vehicle charging stations, solar education package, heating and cooling systems, portfolio of district heating projects, heat storage systems
market premium
biomass heating systems sun boiler, effcient DC chargermarket premium
on-shore wind turbines (singular mills) market premium
on-shore wind turbines (park) relighting tidal energy system, heating and cooling storage systemsportfolio relighting+solar PV, portfolio e-vehicle leasing contractsTradable renewable energy certificates (RECs), government RES-subsidies, market premium
offgrid solar PV, rooftop solar PV, off grid mobile solar PV systems relighting CHP plant, district heating network, solar irrigation systembonus tariff for CHP generated power (KWK-G 2016), FiT (injection from PV systems)
offgrid solar PV, rooftop solar PV, off grid mobile solar PV systems monthly calculated market premium (production based-EEG)
portfolio of wind and ground mounted solar PV systemsFiT, market premium (EEG)
CHP plant
on-shore wind turbines (parks) small hydro (recuperation of water mills), funding of new energy supplierFiT+export bonus+purchase obligation (not specified), regional (Poitou-Charentes) subsidies for crowdfunded RES-projects (1 euro for every 1euro invested by a inhabitant of the region), capital advancememt (region Poitou-Charentes)
biomass heating systems, CHP plants regional subsidy/investment aid (serves as guarantee)
x% fixed up-front listing fee, plus x% success fee and a fixed closing fee if the funding round is successful (no information disclosed) kite-windparks, sharing and renting e-vehicles, energy storage, RES-portfolio (hydrogen, local energy)
biomass, biogas plants, biomass heating networks FiT (20 years) <100kW, market premium (tendering)
biomass heating systems, CHP plants energy efficient industry park, LED lighting production, biomass productionmarket premium (EEG)
biomass production smart energy storage, smart energy metering, PV panel optimization, fish lifts for small hydro, enerfgy efficiency services, PV bags,..
RES-technology Remuneration/Business model
yield and maturity of investment
Energy saving cost Energy sales/usage rent Other yield (average per platform)
energy sales to consumerssales of solar products (prepaid/pay-as-you-go)5,46%
cash flows from energy saving costs n/a
cash flows from energy saving costsEnergy sales Vehicle sales n/a
cash flows from energy saving costsEnergy sales via PPA revenues generated by a renewables portfolio, a number of sources including under the National Grid’s STOR (Short Term Operating Reserve) back-up capacity8,10%
Energy sales via PPA revenues from business sales 4,30%
FiT+export bonus+purchase obligation, Tender for support Tariff (CRE)Energy sales via PPA with local supplier (EDF, Senegal, Benin) or property ownerrevenues from business sales, pre-payment by consumers (Senegal), Development Bank loans (Namibia)5,10%
cash flows from energy saving costs (through recuperation and selfconsumption)Energy sales via PPA 5,70%
FiT (20 years) <100kW, market premium (tendering) Energy sales via PPA 4,05%
cash flows from energy saving costsEnergy sales revenues from business sales, revenu from project sale, revenues generated by renewables portfolio5,40%
Energy sales revenues from business sales (SPV cash flows)3,32%
Energy sales via PPA sale convertible bonds, revenues from business sales6,06%
cash flows from energy saving costsEnergy sales via PPA n/a
cash flows from energy saving costsEnergy sales via PPA, usage rent of PV systemsrevenues generated by renewables portfolio, leasing contracts for operated systems/car fleet, business sales5,61%
cash flows from energy saving cost (selfconsumption, energy efficiency, avoided grid connection cost)Energy sales/usage rent (solar containers in Mali)revenues from business sales (fruit and vegetables, food&beverage, solar products)7,06%
cash flows from energy saving cost (selfconsumption, energy efficiency, avoided grid connection cost)Energy sales 5,21%
FiT, market premium (EEG) Energy sales revenues generated by renewables portfolio (mixed solar and wind)4,58%
cash flows from energy saving cost (selfconsumption, energy efficiency, avoided grid connection cost)7,16%
FiT+export bonus+purchase obligation (not specified), regional (Poitou-Charentes) subsidies for crowdfunded RES-projects (1 euro for every 1euro invested by a inhabitant of the region), capital advancememt (region Poitou-Charentes)Energy sales via PPA (with local supplier) 3,90%
cash flows from energy saving cost (energy efficiency for both gasoil and power) 5,38%
kite-windparks, sharing and renting e-vehicles, energy storage, RES-portfolio (hydrogen, local energy) revenues from business sales by RES-companies portfolio (solar, hydrogen), product salesn/a
cash flows from energy savingsEnergy sales 5,12%
cash flows from energy savingsEnergy sales via PPA (up to 20 years)revenue from business 5,26%
smart energy storage, smart energy metering, PV panel optimization, fish lifts for small hydro, enerfgy efficiency services, PV bags,..revenu from business salesn/a
Remuneration/Business model
yield and maturity of investment
yield (min-max) yield (only wind projects) WACC (wind, source Diacore)maturity (average)
2,66%-6,75% 7,4%-9% 27,20 months
n/a 3,5%-4,5% n/a
n/a 10%-10% 36,00 months
5-12% 8,33% 6,5%-6,5% 167,00 months
3,5-5.5% 6,5%-6,5% 96,00 months
3,3%-7% 4,76% 5,7%-5,7% 36,60 months
4,5%-7% 5,60% 5,7%-5,7% 40,00 months
2,72%-4,92% 4,66% 3,5%-4,5% 90,00 months
3%-8% 6,0%-6,7% 82,73 months
2,2%-4% 6,0%-6,7% 181,14 months
4%-7,5% 6,0%-6,7% 45,12 months
n/a 6,0%-6,7% n/a
4%-7% 5,63% 6,0%-6,7% 74,57 months
5%-10% 3,5%-4,5% 80,32 months
4%-9% 3,5%-4,5% 106,29 months
3,25%-5,75% 4,75% 3,5%-4,5% 96,00 months
7,16%-7,16% 5,7%-5,7% 60,00 months
2,5%-6,5% 5,60% 5,7%-5,7% 169,71 months
4%-6% n/a 5,0%-6,0% 81,00 months
n/a 6,0%-7,0% n/a
3%-7,40% 4,79% 3,5%-4,5% 85,13 months
4%-8% 3,5%-4,5% 83,86 months
1%-6,5% 6,50% 6,5%-6,5% 104,57 months
maturity (min-max) maturity (only wind) Authorisation under MiFID Domestic bespoke regime under MiFID Article 3 exemption
12-60 months X
n/a
12-84 months
12-240 months 106 months X
60-156 months
12-60 months 29,84 months X
24-72 months 31,20 months
48-180 months 48 months X
6-180 months X
120-284 months
22-60 months
n/a
12-300 months 68,38 months X
36-120 months X
84-120 months X
60-144 months 144 months X
60 months
36-240 months 126,80 months X
24-120 months n/a
n/a X
36-144 months 69,23 months X
48-120 months
60-120 months 60,00 months
Regulation of platform actvity
Indicate the type of crowdfunding models used for RES-projects on your platform
Authorisation for services and activities in relation to non-MiFID financial instrumentsAuthorisation outside the MiFID framework Other/Additional info
Authorised and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) with reference number 713859Debt
X Bafin exemption authorizationDebt
X Licensed by the Spanish market authority Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV) as a ‘platform for participative financing’Debt
Authorised and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Debt
X Holds a §34f GewO license (intermediary for financial services) from German market authority BafinDebt, Equity
Licensed and registered by AMF and ORIAS, the French institution that regulates financial and insurance brokers as a ‘conseilleur de investissement participatif’ (CIP)Debt
X AMF licence (French Regulathory Authority)Debt, Equity
Authorization as 'financial investments intermediary' under the German § 11a Abs. 1 GewORoyalty
Licensed and registered with the Dutch market authorities (AFM). Debt, reward, donation
X In between - we are currently filing for new frameworkDebt
X Exemption for receivable money (lending) by the Dutch market authority AFM Debt, equity, reward and donations
X An AMF license and prospectus exemption Royalty
Licensed by the Dutch AFM, no investment advice 'execution only' investment serviceDebt, equity
Holds a §34f GewO license (intermediary for financial services) from market authority BafinDebt, debt+reward, equity (platfrom shares)
Holds a §34f GewO license (intermediary for financial services) from market authority BafinDebt
Licensed by the German Bafin as a 'vertraglich gebundener Vermittler im Sinne des § 2 Abs. 10 Kreditwesengesetz (KWG), agent of EffectaDebt
X Not licensed by the French market authorities (AMF) nor by the banking and financial service authority OriasRoyalty
Licensed by the French market authorities AMF and the banking and financial services authorities (ORIAS) as a ‘participative financing consultant’ Debt
X License by the Belgian market authority FSMA is pendingDebt
License by the Finnisch market authority FIVAEquity
Holds a § 34 c GewO and a §34f GewO license (intermediary for financial services) from market authority BafinDebt
X Holds a §34f GewO license (intermediary for financial services) from market authority Bafin, only for investments/instruments that benefit from crowdfunding exemption regulationDebt, Equity
X regulated according §5 AltFG (Austria) registered als 'investment and company advisor'Debt, Equity
Regulation of platform actvity
Which financial instruments do the projects offer?Tax on return? Complex products? (portfolio, refinancing, part of debt structure)Emitted by the platform
Debentures, Secured business loan, Unsecured business loanno information on tax regimeno no
Subordinate participatory Loanno information on tax regimeno no
Secured business loan, Unsecured business loaninterest has to be declared as income 'impuesto sobre la renta'no no
Debentures, Bonds no tax previously withold, interest has to be declared as income, taks free interest allowance: first £1,000 (£500 for higher rate taxpayers) of interest income will be free of income taks + taks free dividend (5000 GBP)yes (portfolio) no
Subordinate participatory Loandownloadable docs on taks implications for AT, DE and CH, interest considered income and taxed as suchno no
Bonds (variable return and bonus for neighbouring investors)France considers interest as income of 'produits de placement à revenu fixe, they are double taxed: 15,5 % social tax on interest (taken at source) and progressive income tax (24% taken at source as a pre-payment)yes (refinancing) no
Securities/unlisted shares, Bonds (capital return in fine)interest is double taxed: 15,5 % social tax on interest (taken at source) and progressive income tax (24% pre-paid taken at source)yes (complex debt) no
Revenue sharing VAT paid on buying and selling 'Wattpapier', no information on taks regime on returnno no
Secured business loan, Unsecured business loan (capital return in fine or annually)no information on tax regimeyes (refinancing) yes
Debentures, Bonds no income tax nor energy ta paid on return, bonds do have to enter tax forms (box 3) as patrimoniumno no
Subordinated convertible loan, unsecured business loan, subordinate loan (capital return in fine or quarterly), sharesconvertable loans are considered patrimonium and have to enter taks form (box 3), taxation of 1,2% above treshold, incomplete info no no
Revenue sharing windshares are considered patrimonium and have to enter taks form (box 3), taxation of 1,2% above tresholdno yes
senior bond loans, secured business loansbond loans are considered patrimonium and have to enter taks form (box 3), taxation of 1,2% above tresholdyes (portfolio) no
Subordinated participatory Loaninterest payments have to be declared as income, no complete information on tax regimeno no
Subordinated loan with fixed annual rate paymentsinterest payments have to be declared as incomeyes (complex debt) no
Subordinated participatory loaninterest payments have to be declared as income, so called 'Abgeltungssteuer' with flat rate of 25%yes (portfolio, refinancing, complex debt)no
Revenue sharing investment possibly considered deductible, no information on taxation of interestsno no
Bonds (senior to shareholders, junior to bank)double taxed: 15,5 % social taks on interest (taken at source) and progressive income taks (24% taken at source as a pre-payment)yes (complex debt) no
Unsecured business loan interest are considered income and taxed at sourcetrough 'précompte mobilier qui s'élève à 30%'yes (complex debt) no
Shares indicates to check the investor's local tax regime on 'subscriptions of new equities, dividends paid by private companies and profits made from selling shares of private companies'no no
Subordinated participatory loaninterest is paid netto, so the investor has to declare them as capital gains in their taxform no no
Subordinated participatory loaninterest is considered capital gain and has to be declared under '§ 20 Einkommensteuergesetz (EStG)' , very complete chapter on taxi ssueno no
Shares (Genussrecht), Subordinated participatory loansAT: has to enter income taxform (gemäß §27 Abs.2 Z2 EStG ), DE: interest is considered capital gain and has to be declared in income taksno no
Emitted by the project promotor-third party-company ownerTransferable Refundable Additional bank finance?
yes yes (but no 2nd market) no (only in case of non reached funding goal)no
yes n/A n/A no
yes no yes yes (loans + regional subsidies)
yes yes (with 2nd market) yes no
yes yes (but no 2nd market) no (only in case of non reached funding goal)no
yes no no (only in case of non reached funding goal)yes
yes yes (with 2nd market) no (only in case of non reached funding goal)yes
yes yes (with 2nd market) yes no
yes no no (only in case of non reached funding goal)yes
yes yes (but no 2nd market) yes no
yes no no yes (participation fund)
no yes (but only after 2years, no 2nd market)yes no
yes no yes yes
yes no no no
yes no no yes
yes (by SPV) yes (but no 2nd market) no (only in case of non reached funding goal)yes
yes yes yes no
yes (by project owner or SPV)no no (only in case of non reached funding goal)yes (banks are always complementing/advancing crowd capital)
yes (project owner) no no (only in case of non reached funding goal)yes
yes yes (but no 2nd market) no (only in case of non reached funding goal)no
yes no no yes
yes no no yes
yes no no yes
chapter on investor risk
project level promotor level other
yes yes yes
yes yes regulation n/A
yes yes regulation no
yes yes regulation yes (risk warning part of compliance)
yes yes (external) regulation yes
yes yes yes (FAQ)
yes yes (FAQ)
yes yes yes (risk warning part of compliance)
yes yes regulation yes
yes yes regulation yes (FAQ)
yes yes (external) yes (FAQ)
yes yes (FAQ)
yes yes yes (FAQ)
yes yes no technical monitoring yes (risk warning part of compliance)
yes yes yes (risk warning part of compliance)
yes yes yes (risk warning part of compliance)
yes yes (FAQ)
yes yes governance, local anchorage, technical monitoringyes (FAQ)
yes yes rating system yes (FAQ)
yes (legal, background management) yes (risk warning part of compliance)
yes (formal criteria only) yes (risk warning part of compliance)
yes yes yes (risk warning part of compliance
yes (formal criteria only) yes (formal) yes (risk warning part of compliance)
due diligence
rating system
country of authorization (CoA) projects in industrialized countries
yes UK Yes, LemonWay (FR)
N/A Germany n/A Germany
no Spain Yes. LemonWay (FR) Spain, Portugal
no UK Yes, WorldPay (UK) UK
no Austria Yes, LemonWay (FR) Austria, Germany
no France Yes, LemonWay (FR), Visa, Mastercard, AtosFrance
no France Yes, S-Money (Banque Populaire - Caisse d'Epargne - FR)France
no Germany No, client money transferred and held on indepentent account 'Treuhandkonto'Germany
yes Netherlands Yes, Ideal (NL) Netherlands, Tchech Republic
no Netherlands Yes, Ideal (NL) Netherlands
no Netherlands Yes, Buckaroo (NL) Netherlands
no Netherlands No, energy provider Greenchoice (NL) and cooperative take care of paymentsNetherlands
no Netherlands Yes, Ideal (NL) Netherlands, Belgium
no Germany No, client money transferred and held on indepentent account 'Treuhandkonto'Germany, Hungary
no Germany No, client money transferred and held on indepentent account 'Treuhandkonto' with SecupayGermany
no Germany Yes, Effecta (DE) Germany
no France Yes, LemonWay (FR) France
no France Yes, S-Money (Banque Populaire - Caisse d'Epargne - FR)France
yes Belgium No, direct payment between crowdfunder and project ownerBelgium
no Finland No, client money held on indepentent 'escrow account' by InvesdorFinland, Norway,Sweden, UK
no Germany No, client money transferred and held on indepentent account 'Treuhandkonto' with partner bank (Fidor)Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, Croatia
no Germany No, client money transferred and held on indepentent account 'Treuhandkonto' with SecupayGermany
no Austria No, client money transferred and held on indepentent account 'Treuhandkonto' with SecupayAustria, Germany
Cross-border activity
What is the probability that the following risk types occur to the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Country risk (political stability, corruption, economic development,..)]What is the probability that the following risk types occur to the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Social acceptance risk]What is the probability that the following risk types occur to the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Administrative risk]
projects in developing countries
Kenya, Zambia, Senegal, Tanzania, UgandaProbable Unlikely Indifferent
Probable Probable Probable
Probable Very probable Probable
Unlikely Very probable Indifferent
Unthinkable Unlikely Indifferent
Senegal, Benin, Namibia Indifferent Probable Probable
Unthinkable Unlikely Unlikely
Unthinkable Unthinkable Indifferent
Russia Unlikely Unlikely Probable
Unthinkable Unlikely Indifferent
Ghana, Benin, Senegal, Ethiopia, Mali, Kenya, Tanzania
Ghana, Mali
Finland, Norway,Sweden, UK
Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, Croatia
Paraguay
Cross-border activity
What is the probability that the following risk types occur to the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Financing risk]What is the probability that the following risk types occur to the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Technical and management risk]What is the probability that the following risk types occur to the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Grid access risk]What is the probability that the following risk types occur to the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Policy design risk]
Probable Indifferent Probable Indifferent
Probable Probable Unlikely Unlikely
Probable Probable Probable Very probable
Unlikely Indifferent Unthinkable Unthinkable
Probable Indifferent Unlikely Unlikely
Probable Probable Probable Indifferent
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Unthinkable Unlikely Unlikely Unthinkable
Unlikely Probable Unlikely Probable
Probable Probable Unlikely Probable
What is the probability that the following risk types occur to the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Market design and regulatory risk]What is the probability that the following risk types occur to the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Sudden policy change risk]What is the estimated impact/effect of each risk type on the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Country risk (political stability, corruption, economic development,..)]What is the estimated impact/effect of each risk type on the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Social acceptance risk]
Unlikely Unlikely Considerable impact effectMarginal impact/effect
Indifferent Probable Indifferent Indifferent
Very probable Very probable Considerable impact effectConsiderable impact effect
Unthinkable Unlikely Considerable impact effectIndifferent
Indifferent Unlikely No impact/effect Indifferent
Indifferent Indifferent Marginal impact/effect Considerable impact effect
Unlikely Unlikely Indifferent Considerable impact effect
Unthinkable Unthinkable Considerable impact effectNo impact/effect
Probable Unlikely Considerable impact effectMarginal impact/effect
Probable Very probable Very high impact/effect Considerable impact effect
What is the estimated impact/effect of each risk type on the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Administrative risk]What is the estimated impact/effect of each risk type on the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Financing risk]What is the estimated impact/effect of each risk type on the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Technical and management risk]What is the estimated impact/effect of each risk type on the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Grid access risk]
Indifferent Very high impact/effect Considerable impact effectConsiderable impact effect
Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent
Considerable impact effectVery high impact/effect Very high impact/effect Considerable impact effect
Considerable impact effectIndifferent Considerable impact effectVery high impact/effect
Indifferent Considerable impact effectConsiderable impact effectIndifferent
Marginal impact/effect Marginal impact/effect Marginal impact/effect Marginal impact/effect
Considerable impact effectConsiderable impact effectConsiderable impact effectConsiderable impact effect
Indifferent No impact/effect Considerable impact effectIndifferent
Marginal impact/effect Considerable impact effectVery high impact/effect Considerable impact effect
Considerable impact effectVery high impact/effect Considerable impact effectConsiderable impact effect
What is the estimated impact/effect of each risk type on the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Policy design risk]What is the estimated impact/effect of each risk type on the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Market design and regulatory risk]What is the estimated impact/effect of each risk type on the crowdfunded RES-projects? [Sudden policy change risk]Please indicate the probability of following investor risks occurring on your platform [Loss of capital (total or in part)]
Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Probable
Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Probable
Very high impact/effect Very high impact/effect Very high impact/effect Unlikely
Very high impact/effect Very high impact/effect Very high impact/effect Unlikely
Marginal impact/effect Marginal impact/effect Indifferent Indifferent
Marginal impact/effect Marginal impact/effect Marginal impact/effect Unlikely
Considerable impact effectConsiderable impact effectConsiderable impact effectUnlikely
No impact/effect No impact/effect No impact/effect Unlikely
Considerable impact effectConsiderable impact effectConsiderable impact effectUnlikely
Considerable impact effectConsiderable impact effectConsiderable impact effectUnlikely
Please indicate the probability of following investor risks occurring on your platform [Loss of pre-anounced interests (total or in part)]Please indicate the probability of following investor risks occurring on your platform [Dilution (equity)]Please indicate the probability of following investor risks occurring on your platform [Inability to exit investments]Please indicate the probability of following investor risks occurring on your platform [Inability to price correctly the securities]
Probable Unthinkable Unthinkable Unlikely
Probable Unlikely Very probable Indifferent
Unlikely Unthinkable Unlikely Unthinkable
Probable Indifferent Unlikely Indifferent
Indifferent Probable Unlikely Indifferent
Unlikely Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Unlikely Unthinkable Unthinkable Unlikely
Unlikely Unthinkable Probable Probable
Probable Indifferent Probable Very probable
Please indicate the probability of following investor risks occurring on your platform [Misinformation or insufficient information]Please indicate the probability of following investor risks occurring on your platform [Conflict of interest between issuers, platforms and investors]Please indicate the probability of following investor risks occurring on your platform [Insolvency of the platform operators]Please indicate the probability of following investor risks occurring on your platform [Loss or theft of client data]
Indifferent Probable Probable Unthinkable
Unlikely Unlikely Indifferent Unlikely
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Unlikely Unlikely Unthinkable Unlikely
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Indifferent Unthinkable Unthinkable Unlikely
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Indifferent Unlikely Indifferent Indifferent
Please indicate the probability of following investor risks occurring on your platform [Fraud]Comments At which level the platform actively tries to identify risks?Please specify which other level
Unlikely Project, Promotor
Unthinkable Project, Promotor, Regulation
Unlikely Project, Promotor, Regulation
Unlikely Project, Promotor, Regulation
Unthinkable Project, Promotor, Regulation
Unlikely Project, Promotor, lenders
Unlikely Project
Unlikely Project, Promotor
Unlikely Project, Promotor, Regulation
Indifferent Hard to answer, different risks involved because we are only hosting the financing. The crowdfunding ends up on a escrow account. And risks change over time and are project dependable. (that is why we write a information memorandum of 40 pages per project) The above model can be different for platform that is hosting vs platform that is the issuing partyProject, Promotor, Regulation
Which documents do you require in order to identify risk at those levels?Please give a short description of the risk assessment procesHow long does a financial, technical and legal due diligence of a RES project take?In which regulatory context does the platform operate?
Project sensitivity analysis, Project technical description, Promotor balance sheets, Promotor information on legal compliance, Promotor managing/capability certificationbetween 4 and 6 weeks Authorisation under MiFID
Project sensitivity analysis, Project technical description, Promotor balance sheets, Promotor information on legal compliance, Promotor managing/capability certification, Ongoing legislation processes in finance/crowdfunding, Ongoing legislation processes in renewable energy (market design, remuneration, subsidies, grid access)longer than 8 weeks Authorisation for services and activities in relation to non-MiFID financial instruments
Project technical description, Promotor balance sheets, Promotor information on legal compliance, Promotor managing/capability certification, Ongoing legislation processes in finance/crowdfunding, Ongoing legislation processes in renewable energy (market design, remuneration, subsidies, grid access)between 4 and 6 weeks Authorisation for services and activities in relation to non-MiFID financial instruments
Project sensitivity analysis, Project technical description, Promotor balance sheets, Promotor information on legal compliance, Promotor managing/capability certification, Ongoing legislation processes in finance/crowdfunding, Ongoing legislation processes in renewable energy (market design, remuneration, subsidies, grid access)Our project due diligence process takes up to 3-4 months and covers a full financial, legal and technical due diligence process. longer than 8 weeks Authorisation under MiFID
Project sensitivity analysis, Project technical description, Promotor balance sheets, Promotor information on legal compliance, Promotor managing/capability certification, Ongoing legislation processes in finance/crowdfundingExternal DD less than 4 weeks Authorisation outside the MiFID framework
Project sensitivity analysis, Project technical description, Promotor balance sheets, Promotor information on legal compliance, Promotor managing/capability certification, Ongoing legislation processes in finance/crowdfunding, Ongoing legislation processes in renewable energy (market design, remuneration, subsidies, grid access)between 4 and 6 weeks Authorisation under MiFID
Project technical description, Promotor balance sheets, Promotor information on legal compliance, Promotor managing/capability certification, Promotor forecasted cash flows analysisless than 4 weeks AMF licence (French Regulathory Authority)
Project technical description, Promotor balance sheets, Promotor information on legal compliance, Promotor managing/capability certification, Ongoing legislation processes in renewable energy (market design, remuneration, subsidies, grid access), Insurance, operation&maintainance contractbetween 4 and 6 weeks Domestic bespoke regime under MiFID article 3 exemption
Project sensitivity analysis, Project technical description, Promotor balance sheets, Promotor information on legal compliance, Promotor managing/capability certification, Ongoing legislation processes in finance/crowdfunding, Ongoing legislation processes in renewable energy (market design, remuneration, subsidies, grid access)between 6 and 8 weeks Domestic bespoke regime under MiFID article 3 exemption
Project sensitivity analysis, Project technical description, Promotor information on legal compliance, Ongoing legislation processes in finance/crowdfunding, Ongoing legislation processes in renewable energy (market design, remuneration, subsidies, grid access)We have a standard list of a technical and a financial due diligence about production forecasts, (re)insurance policies on products used, ownership of subsidies and building lease agreement. less than 4 weeks In between - we are currently filing for new framework
How does the platform mitigate risk upfront? Which are the measures adopted to mitigate risk?Please specify the adopted measuresHow would you describe the motivation of your investors
According to the compliance for each financial instrumentGuarantees from project promotors, Ongoing financial due diligence (project and promotor), Ongoing technical checks, Monitoring repayments to the investorGuarantees, partnership building, measurements if repayments not coming in, UK Aid backs some projects. Its first-loss protection covers up 50% of the investmentAltruist, Financial, Cause related, Inclusion (being part of a project)
Beyond the compliance rules for each financial instrumentGuarantees from project promotors, Insurances, Higher discount rates, Ongoing financial due diligence (project and promotor), Ongoing technical checks, Monitoring repayments to the investorCheck websites Altruist, Financial, Cause related, Community building, Inclusion (being part of a project), Sharing (ideas, experiences)
According to the compliance for each financial instrumentOngoing financial due diligence (project and promotor), Ongoing technical checks, Monitoring repayments to the investor, Legal Due DiligenceLegal Due Diligence Cause related, Community building, Inclusion (being part of a project)
Beyond the compliance rules for each financial instrumentGuarantees from project promotors, Insurances, Ongoing financial due diligence (project and promotor), Ongoing technical checks, Secondary market, Monitoring repayments to the investorWe secure some debentures where the risk is highFinancial, Cause related
According to the compliance for each financial instrumentOngoing financial due diligence (project and promotor), Monitoring repayments to the investor(Project = Promoter): Project/company evaluation by an external partnerFinancial, Cause related, Inclusion (being part of a project)
According to the compliance for each financial instrumentGuarantees from project promotors, Insurances, Higher discount ratesguarantees from promotor, insurances for the platform, rates for lendersFinancial, Cause related, Inclusion (being part of a project), proximity
According to the compliance for each financial instrumentGuarantees from project promotors, Higher discount rates, Ongoing financial due diligence (project and promotor), Ongoing technical checks, Secondary market, Monitoring repayments to the investorsee above Financial, Cause related, Inclusion (being part of a project)
According to the compliance for each financial instrumentGuarantees from project promotors, Insurances, Ongoing technical checks, Secondary market, Monitoring repayments to the investorThe owner of the project guarantees that insurances and operation and maintainance contracts are existend and that the prduciton of energy is secured. Investors can use our secondary market at anytime. Financial, Cause related
Beyond the compliance rules for each financial instrumentGuarantees from project promotors, Insurances, Higher discount rates, Ongoing financial due diligence (project and promotor), Ongoing technical checks, Monitoring repayments to the investoraa Altruist, Financial
Beyond the compliance rules for each financial instrumentGuarantees from project promotors, Insurances, Ongoing technical checks, Within our model itself there is a risk mitigation, lower production, lower interest ratesAll PV systems have a guarentee as long as the majurity date of the project. Ownership of subsidy is checked, building lease agreement has to be sent in, different stress level scenario's are made within the businesscase, projects are obliged to have a realtime monitoring system connected to our back-end so we can always check. Altruist, Financial, Cause related, Community building, Inclusion (being part of a project)
How would you describe the investor's profile?Does the platform communicate the risks it identified upfront?Does the content of this informationDoes the platform takes any additional measures to inform or protect its investors from project default or financial risk?
capable to deal with risk Yes Align with the information required by the compliance rules?A questionnaire on investment features and risks, Limit on maximum investment amount
well informed retail investor, capable to deal with risk, specialist investorYes Exceed the information required by the compliance rules?A downloadable offer document, A financial glossary (explaining WACC, NPV, IRR, discount rate,..), An investor suitability test ('know your customer' rules), A questionnaire on investment features and risks, A monitoring tool giving feedback on financed projects, Limit on maximum investment amount
well informed retail investor, capable to deal with riskYes Align with the information required by the compliance rules?Limit on maximum investment amount
well informed retail investor, capable to deal with riskYes Exceed the information required by the compliance rules?A downloadable offer document, A financial glossary (explaining WACC, NPV, IRR, discount rate,..), An investor suitability test ('know your customer' rules), A questionnaire on investment features and risks
well informed retail investor, poorly informed retail investor, capable to deal with riskNo Align with the information required by the compliance rules?A downloadable offer document, A financial glossary (explaining WACC, NPV, IRR, discount rate,..), A monitoring tool giving feedback on financed projects, Limit on maximum investment amount
poorly informed retail investorYes Align with the information required by the compliance rules?An investor suitability test ('know your customer' rules), stats on the platform default in reimbursement
vulnarable to risk Yes Exceed the information required by the compliance rules?A downloadable offer document, A financial glossary (explaining WACC, NPV, IRR, discount rate,..), An investor suitability test ('know your customer' rules), A questionnaire on investment features and risks, A monitoring tool giving feedback on financed projects, Limit on maximum investment amount
well informed retail investorYes Exceed the information required by the compliance rules?A downloadable offer document, Limit on maximum investment amount
well informed retail investor, capable to deal with riskYes Exceed the information required by the compliance rules?A downloadable offer document, A financial glossary (explaining WACC, NPV, IRR, discount rate,..), An investor suitability test ('know your customer' rules), A questionnaire on investment features and risks, A monitoring tool giving feedback on financed projects, Limit on maximum investment amount
well informed retail investor, vulnarable to risk, The average amount is pretty low on our platform, by choice, because investors want to neutralize their own electricy bill. Our main group has had a good education but not always financial smart. Green is the main motivator. Yes Align with the information required by the compliance rules?A downloadable offer document, A financial glossary (explaining WACC, NPV, IRR, discount rate,..), A monitoring tool giving feedback on financed projects, Limit on maximum investment amount, We will have this in the short term: An investor suitability test ('know your customer' rules)
Please specify the content of these risk communcation instruments
Questionaire when signing up and maximum investment limit
Many
According to spanish crowdfunding regulation law (5/2015)
for instance, we run an appropriateness test - which checks that potential investors have understood the key risks of the project they are intending to invest in
Information about/ Confirmation of risks on multiple occasions: Insolvency / malversion / clustering risk / difficult to transfer
on our Stats page
see above
All relevant contracts or insurances are downloadable for each project. The revenue is calculated at the time ov investment, so teh investor is able to know exactly when and how much he will be repaid.
aa
Each issuing party is responsible for making an IM and IB (information memorandum and information leaflet) stating all the risks. People can see via our ZonneDelen app how current projects are performing We influence investment amounts via the buttons on are platform and so making it hard to invest a lot of money.
for instance, we run an appropriateness test - which checks that potential investors have understood the key risks of the project they are intending to invest in
Information about/ Confirmation of risks on multiple occasions: Insolvency / malversion / clustering risk / difficult to transfer
All relevant contracts or insurances are downloadable for each project. The revenue is calculated at the time ov investment, so teh investor is able to know exactly when and how much he will be repaid.
Each issuing party is responsible for making an IM and IB (information memorandum and information leaflet) stating all the risks. People can see via our ZonneDelen app how current projects are performing We influence investment amounts via the buttons on are platform and so making it hard to invest a lot of money.
Each issuing party is responsible for making an IM and IB (information memorandum and information leaflet) stating all the risks. People can see via our ZonneDelen app how current projects are performing We influence investment amounts via the buttons on are platform and so making it hard to invest a lot of money.
Each issuing party is responsible for making an IM and IB (information memorandum and information leaflet) stating all the risks. People can see via our ZonneDelen app how current projects are performing We influence investment amounts via the buttons on are platform and so making it hard to invest a lot of money.
¿Cuál fue la principal razón que le hizo invertir en el proyecto de energía solar para "Mar de Fulles"?Otro Al analizar el proyecto, ¿dispuso de toda la información que necesitaba para decidirse a hacer la inversión?Una vez se había decido a invertir, ¿se encontró con que el proceso de aportación de fondos fue sencillo?¿Con qué problemas se encontró para invertir?¿Era usted consciente de este procedimiento 10%+90% de aportación de fondos?
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 0
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas0 na 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas0 Sería más sencillo si se pudiese aportar con tarjetas de crédito/débito o PayPal.0
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 0
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
proyecto pionero en dimensión €€Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 0
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 0
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)No, tuve que pedir más información1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)No, tuve que pedir más información1 0
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas0 Para mi, resultaría más sencillo realizar toda la inversión en un sólo paso, en vez del 10% al principio y el 90% al final, pero supongo que si lo hacéis de esa forma tendréis vuestros motivos0
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%No, tuve que pedir más información1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%No, tuve que pedir más información1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 0
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 0
El proyecto en su conjunto. Su alto valor social y medioambiental.Sí, it was very detailed, I did not need anything else1 1
Type of project (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, it was very detailed, I did not need anything else1 1
Type of project (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, it was very detailed, I did not need anything else1 0
Both the project and the financial returnSí, most of my questions were answered1 1
Financial return (4.5% interest rate) no, I had to request more information1 1
Both the project and the financial returnSí, most of my questions were answered1 1
Both the project and the financial returnSí, most of my questions were answered1 1
Type of project (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, it was very detailed, I did not need anything else1 1
Both the project and the financial returnSí, most of my questions were answered1 1
Both the project and the financial returnSí, most of my questions were answered1 1
Both the project and the financial returnSí, it was very detailed, I did not need anything else1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas0 Cal fer que es puga invertir directament una vegada som socis de Ecrowd, cobrant-nos per exemple del compte. La identificació del DNI ha donat nombrosos problemes desconeixent el motiu1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Tipo de proyecto (fotovoltaica aislada)Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, era muy detallada. No necesité nada más.1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
Ambos: tipo de proyecto y los intereses del 4,50%Sí, la mayoría de mis dudas estaban bien explicadas1 1
¿Qué le parece este procedimiento 10%+90%?Otro ¿Cómo valora la información que ha recibido del proyecto después de hacer la primera parte de su inversión?En la pregunta anterior nos ha dado una valoración de {{answer_24591312}} sobre 5. ¿Qué podríamos haber hecho mejor?A partir de su experiencia invirtiendo con ECrowd! en este proyecto, ¿con qué probabilidad hará en el futuro otras inversiones con ECrowd!?A partir de su experiencia invirtiendo con ECrowd! en este proyecto, ¿con qué probabilidad recomendaría invertir con ECrowd! a un amigo o familiar?
Preferiría aportar el 100% al decidir mi inversión 5 9 9
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 10 8
Está bien, lo entiendo 4 Algo más sobre el proceso de finalización del préstamo durante la espera entre que se completa y se termina de invertir.9 8
Está bien, lo entiendo 4 Informar sobre el entorno del sector 9 6
Está bien, lo entiendo 3 Siendo la primera vez que invertía, hubiera agradecido más información de la evolución de la última evaluación del proyecto. Me llegó a crear dudas de la aprobación del préstamo8 7
Está bien, lo entiendo 4 Inverti al final. 10 8
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 9 9
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 10 10
Preferiría aportar el 100% al decidir mi inversión 3 nada 10 10
Está bien, lo entiendo 3 Siempre se puede mejorar, pero no se me ocurre.7 7
Preferiría aportar el 100% cuando el proyecto esté totalmente suscrito5 8 8
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 9 0
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 10 9
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 8 5
Está bien, lo entiendo 4 Indicar una fecha aproximada de formalización del préstamo9 9
Preferiría aportar el 100% cuando el proyecto esté totalmente suscrito3 es un poco lento 6 5
Está bien, lo entiendo 1 No hemos recibido información sobre los plazos de formalización del préstamo. 10 10
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 8 7
Preferiría aportar el 100% al decidir mi inversión 4 Acelerar los procesos de firma 9 9
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 10 10
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 10 9
Preferiría aportar el 100% cuando el proyecto esté totalmente suscrito4 No se a que información se refiere6 7
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 10 10
Preferiría aportar el 100% al decidir mi inversión 4 siempre se puede mejorar 7 7
Preferiría aportar el 100% cuando el proyecto esté totalmente suscrito5 7 9
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 10 10
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 7 8
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 9 9
Está bien, lo entiendo 4 no recuerdo haber recibido información despues de hacer la primera parte de la inversión9 7
Está bien, lo entiendo 4 no sabía que una vez hecha la reserva podía cambiar de opinión.8 8
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 10 8
Está bien, lo entiendo 3 El proceso ha sido bastante lento, con poca información entre tanto.8 8
Está bien, lo entiendo 4 Estimación de tiempos hasta formalización final y actualuzación si es necesario9 7
Está bien, lo entiendo 3 Más documentación (informes, opiniones, licencias, fotografías, catastro...)8 8
Está bien, lo entiendo 3 más infrmación 7 6
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 10 7
Preferiría aportar el 100% al decidir mi inversión 5 10 10
Está bien, lo entiendo 4 mayor rapidez en la firma del crédito para reducir tiempos de espera10 9
Está bien, lo entiendo 3 Estimaciones de las fases y tiempos de formalización del préstamo, así como las actualizaciones necesarias10 8
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 10 10
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 6 7
Está bien, lo entiendo 5 9 9
Está bien, lo entiendo 4 En principio estoy satisfecho. Nada que decir.8 7
I would prefer to pay 100% immediately and be done with it3 Ser más rápidos!!!!!! 8 8
It's fine, you should leave it as is 4 sois, de los que mejor lo estáis haciendo en crowfunding, pero, el 4 es para que deseéis mejorarlo, si es posible, claro9 9
It's fine, you should leave it as is 5 10 10
It's fine, you should leave it as is 4 More quickly 7 8
It's fine, you should leave it as is 3 Mejorar la información de los trámites en la web.6 7
I would prefer to pay 100% immediately and be done with it5 10 10
I would prefer to pay 100% only when the project has been fully finalised4 - 8 8
It's fine, you should leave it as is 5 10 10
It's fine, you should leave it as is 4 Realmente no tengo ninguna experiencia en evaluar este tipo de proyéctos. Necesito construir mi opinión con observando más proyéctos.6 7
It's fine, you should leave it as is 4 Mejorando traducción 7 7
It's fine, you should leave it as is 4 GIve us more information about timings10 10
It's fine, you should leave it as is 4 Speed up the pocess 7 8
It's fine, you should leave it as is 5 7 7
It's fine, you should leave it as is 5 8 7
It's fine, you should leave it as is 3 Crec que està bé el procés, podria millorar remetet informació de com va avançant i no a soles al final. També estaria bé facilitar eines per compartir els avantatges d ela inversió amb persones del nostre entorn, xarxes socials, etc. 6 8
It's fine, you should leave it as is 3 Un proceso más rápido desde el pago total al inicio7 8
I would prefer to pay 100% immediately and be done with it4 Be a little faster in the paperworks9 9
It's fine, you should leave it as is 4 Estuve un tiempo en que no sabia si el proyecto iba adelante o se habia abandonado 8 6
It's fine, you should leave it as is 5 10 10
It's fine, you should leave it as is 5 10 10
It's fine, you should leave it as is 4 ¿Hacer la encuesta en castellano?8 8
Finalmente, en cuanto a su experiencia de invertir con ECrowd!, ¿cuál es su grado de satisfacción global?¿Qué le ha hecho valorar su experiencia global en un {{answer_24591315}} sobre 10?Fecha de entrada (UTC)
8 Al principio faltaba información para saber porque se tarda tanto desde que inviertes hasta que se formaliza el préstamo. Han pasado 2 meses.#############
9 Es excelente #############
9 Por ahora pongo un 9, estoy empezando...#############
9 #############
7 Agradecería mas información durante la firma del préstamos y sobre todo, sobre la seguridad de la inversión en caso de problemas técnicos o económicos de la instalación donde se invierte.#############
10 #############
9 Estoy muy agradecido a que las cosas se hagan de modo transparente y honestamente, además de aportar valor a las nuevas energías renovables, que creo que son el mejor futuro que podemos dejarles a nuestros hijos. #############
10 Es la unica plataforma que ofrece estas posibilidades: proyectos socialmente interesantes y con rentabilidad muy buena. Y una cosa no deberia quitar la otra#############
10 you're the best #############
7 #############
8 Bueno, creo que siempre se puede mejorar.#############
9 #############
10 De momento todas las cuotas se pagan sin retraso y los proyectos son interesantes#############
8 #############
9 De momento confío en la capacidad de analizar las inversiones de ECrowd. En el futuro sabré si dicho análisis fue exitoso.#############
6 es un poco lento #############
7 Cuando se cierra y se cubre la financiación del proyecto se debería informar con más claridad de los plazos de formalización del préstamo y de el momento en el que se van a cobrar las primeras amortizaciones. En este sentido la información ha sido un poco escasa.#############
8 Transparencia en todo el proceso#############
9 #############
10 #############
9 Creo en el proyecto ecrowd#############
7 #############
10 Acceso a información de los proyectos incluso sin registrarse. Claridad, no hay nada oculto ni oscuro. Información fiscal adecuada. Rapidez de respuesta a mis consultas. No hay tiempos muertos en los cobros mensuales. #############
7 siempre se puede mejorar#############
8 Buenas noches: Me encanta poder invertir en proyectos verdes. Echo de menos tener más proyectos donde elegir y de más zonas del país. También los plazos de los préstamos suelen ser muy largos y estaría bien poder invertir a más corto plazo y tener más liquidez del dinero invertido con mercado secundario. Muchas gracias.#############
10 Ecrowd lleva con seriedad y rigurosidad tanto la selección de proyectos como la información a los inversores. Me parece una forma muy interesante de impulsar proyectos medioambientales y de una manera muy satisfactoria para todas las partes.#############
7 Que es una actividad con más componente racional y de planificación que emocional. Mi experiencia global fue mayor en la visita al parque natural del Emporda, aunque racionalmente fuera más dificultosa y incomoda. Encuentro tedioso y erroneo en las encuestas de satisfacción el hecho de no tener la máxima puntuación deba comportar un problema. Convertimos una variable semi-quantitativa ordinal en una booleana. Pero como yo no diseño los estudios... Además, las máxima puntuación en todo tiene un nombre: peloteo. Algo busca.#############
9 Es un formato sencillo e intuitivo, accesible para no expertos en finanzas. Aun así, sería interesante dar un peso específico al tema de las garantias y al nivel de riesgo de la inversión (por ejemplo, poner algun barómetro, o algo bastante visual). El lenguaje de los informes técnicos es muy detallado para expertos (lo cual se agradece si lo entiendes), pero seguramente inaccesible para no expertos en energia. A lo mejor añadir un resumen divulgativo lo haria más accesible a otros perfiles de inversor#############
7 creo que ecrowd!, puede convertirse en una plataforma para grandes inversores, en vez de muchas pequeñas aportaciones, que no solo tengamos en cuenta el interes, sino tambien el beneficio que supone para la sociedad#############
9 #############
9 La idea de invertir en proyectos éticos y rentables me parece de 10. Pero hasta que no vea resultados tangibles de la inversión, valoro las experiencia con 9#############
8 La experiencia, en general es buena , pero todavía no ha terminado para hacer una valoración positiva completamente.#############
8 Proceso sencillo y bien estructurado#############
8 Sugeriría realizar alguna mejora en la web (comparar con otras webs de crowdlending/crowdfunding).#############
8 Más proyectos hacen falta#############
8 Hasta ahora todo bien, falta comenzar a recibir las devoluciones e intereses para poder valorar con un 10. Eso espero!!! ;-)#############
9 Por lo comentado anteriormente, creo que es más cómodo para el inversor realizar el proceso en un sólo paso#############
9 tipo de proyectos que apoya y rentabilidad#############
8 Proceso claro y sencillo#############
9 Aún me encuentro al principio de mis participaciones.#############
8 globalmente estoy satisfecho, solamente justo en los primeros meses de 2016 cuando querir investir en nuevo projecto no habian mas disponivles q este. Ahora veo q hay mas projectos a disposicion. #############
9 Estic satisfet amb el funcionament i model de eCrowd! Crec que se m'ha passat algun projecte nou perquè no sempre es rep un avís per mail, m'agradaria rebre'ls sempre, així com de qualsevol canvi d'estat dels projectes en els que participo (ja que no em connecto massa sovint al portal). Gràcies#############
7 En principio estoy contento. Si veo que mi primera inversión funciona, supongo que volveré a invertir.#############
8 #############
9 #############
10 #############
8 Because I am a little investor #############
7 Hay que mejorar la información en la primera parte de la tramitación.#############
9 Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con él proceso, no me importa esperar un mes por él análisis de un préstamo de 10 años.#############
8 #############
10 Para mi es muy importante que hayan empresas como la vuestra que nos ayuden a realizar inversiones socialmente interesantes con muy buenas ratio de rentabilidad. Porque una cosa no quita la otra. #############
7 Necesito más tiempo y observación para emitir un juicio. Un saludo.#############
7 #############
#############
10 Because it's a very good option to get some return from my money and also to contribute to a better world#############
8 #############
8 #############
8 #############
#############
8 Crec que esteu fent un molt bon treball i de moment sembla que no hi han projectes fallits.#############
8 Me parece un que todo está claro en todo momento, excepto el tiempo que transcurre desde el pago total al inicio de la cuota#############
9 #############
8 #############
8 #############
10 #############
8 Es mi primera inversión, no tengo datos para poder dar un diez#############
Payment nºDate Capital amortizedCapital remaining Interest payment (bruto) Total payment (bruto)
1 10/06/2015 23,81 € 1.976,19 € 7,50 € 32,98 €
2 10/07/2015 23,81 € 1.952,38 € 7,41 € 32,87 €
3 10/08/2015 23,81 € 1.928,57 € 7,32 € 32,76 €
4 10/09/2015 23,81 € 1.904,76 € 7,23 € 32,65 €
5 10/10/2015 23,81 € 1.880,95 € 7,14 € 32,54 €
6 10/11/2015 23,81 € 1.857,14 € 7,05 € 32,43 €
7 10/12/2015 23,81 € 1.833,33 € 6,96 € 32,32 €
8 10/01/2016 23,81 € 1.809,52 € 6,88 € 32,21 €
9 10/02/2016 23,81 € 1.785,71 € 6,79 € 32,10 €
10 10/03/2016 23,81 € 1.761,90 € 6,70 € 31,99 €
11 10/04/2016 23,81 € 1.738,10 € 6,61 € 31,88 €
12 10/05/2016 23,81 € 1.714,29 € 6,52 € 31,78 €
13 10/06/2016 23,81 € 1.690,48 € 6,43 € 31,67 €
14 10/07/2016 23,81 € 1.666,67 € 6,34 € 31,56 €
15 10/08/2016 23,81 € 1.642,86 € 6,25 € 31,45 €
16 10/09/2016 23,81 € 1.619,05 € 6,16 € 31,34 €
17 10/10/2016 23,81 € 1.595,24 € 6,07 € 31,23 €
18 10/11/2016 23,81 € 1.571,43 € 5,98 € 31,12 €
19 10/12/2016 23,81 € 1.547,62 € 5,89 € 31,01 €
20 10/01/2017 23,81 € 1.523,81 € 5,80 € 30,90 €
21 10/02/2017 23,81 € 1.500,00 € 5,71 € 30,79 €
22 10/03/2017 23,81 € 1.476,19 € 5,63 € 30,68 €
23 10/04/2017 23,81 € 1.452,38 € 5,54 € 30,58 €
24 10/05/2017 23,81 € 1.428,57 € 5,45 € 30,47 €
25 10/06/2017 23,81 € 1.404,76 € 5,36 € 30,36 €
26 10/07/2017 23,81 € 1.380,95 € 5,27 € 30,25 €
27 10/08/2017 23,81 € 1.357,14 € 5,18 € 30,14 €
28 10/09/2017 23,81 € 1.333,33 € 5,09 € 30,03 €
29 10/10/2017 23,81 € 1.309,52 € 5,00 € 29,92 €
30 10/11/2017 23,81 € 1.285,71 € 4,91 € 29,81 €
31 10/12/2017 23,81 € 1.261,90 € 4,82 € 29,70 €
32 10/01/2018 23,81 € 1.238,10 € 4,73 € 29,59 €
33 10/02/2018 23,81 € 1.214,29 € 4,64 € 29,48 €
34 10/03/2018 23,81 € 1.190,48 € 4,55 € 29,38 €
35 10/04/2018 23,81 € 1.166,67 € 4,46 € 29,27 €
36 10/05/2018 23,81 € 1.142,86 € 4,37 € 29,16 €
37 10/06/2018 23,81 € 1.119,05 € 4,29 € 29,05 €
38 10/07/2018 23,81 € 1.095,24 € 4,20 € 28,94 €
39 10/08/2018 23,81 € 1.071,43 € 4,11 € 28,83 €
40 10/09/2018 23,81 € 1.047,62 € 4,02 € 28,72 €
41 10/10/2018 23,81 € 1.023,81 € 3,93 € 28,61 €
42 10/11/2018 23,81 € 1.000,00 € 3,84 € 28,50 €
43 10/12/2018 23,81 € 976,19 € 3,75 € 28,39 €
44 10/01/2019 23,81 € 952,38 € 3,66 € 28,28 €
45 10/02/2019 23,81 € 928,57 € 3,57 € 28,17 €
46 10/03/2019 23,81 € 904,76 € 3,48 € 28,07 €
47 10/04/2019 23,81 € 880,95 € 3,39 € 27,96 €
48 10/05/2019 23,81 € 857,14 € 3,30 € 27,85 €
49 10/06/2019 23,81 € 833,33 € 3,21 € 27,74 €
50 10/07/2019 23,81 € 809,52 € 3,12 € 27,63 €
51 10/08/2019 23,81 € 785,71 € 3,04 € 27,52 €
52 10/09/2019 23,81 € 761,90 € 2,95 € 27,41 €
53 10/10/2019 23,81 € 738,10 € 2,86 € 27,30 €
54 10/11/2019 23,81 € 714,29 € 2,77 € 27,19 €
55 10/12/2019 23,81 € 690,48 € 2,68 € 27,08 €
56 10/01/2020 23,81 € 666,67 € 2,59 € 26,97 €
57 10/02/2020 23,81 € 642,86 € 2,50 € 26,87 €
58 10/03/2020 23,81 € 619,05 € 2,41 € 26,76 €
59 10/04/2020 23,81 € 595,24 € 2,32 € 26,65 €
60 10/05/2020 23,81 € 571,43 € 2,23 € 26,54 €
61 10/06/2020 23,81 € 547,62 € 2,14 € 26,43 €
62 10/07/2020 23,81 € 523,81 € 2,05 € 26,32 €
63 10/08/2020 23,81 € 500,00 € 1,96 € 26,21 €
64 10/09/2020 23,81 € 476,19 € 1,87 € 26,10 €
65 10/10/2020 23,81 € 452,38 € 1,79 € 25,99 €
66 10/11/2020 23,81 € 428,57 € 1,70 € 25,88 €
67 10/12/2020 23,81 € 404,76 € 1,61 € 25,77 €
68 10/01/2021 23,81 € 380,95 € 1,52 € 25,66 €
69 10/02/2021 23,81 € 357,14 € 1,43 € 25,56 €
70 10/03/2021 23,81 € 333,33 € 1,34 € 25,45 €
71 10/04/2021 23,81 € 309,52 € 1,25 € 25,34 €
72 10/05/2021 23,81 € 285,71 € 1,16 € 25,23 €
73 10/06/2021 23,81 € 261,90 € 1,07 € 25,12 €
74 10/07/2021 23,81 € 238,10 € 0,98 € 25,01 €
75 10/08/2021 23,81 € 214,29 € 0,89 € 24,90 €
76 10/09/2021 23,81 € 190,48 € 0,80 € 24,79 €
77 10/10/2021 23,81 € 166,67 € 0,71 € 24,68 €
78 10/11/2021 23,81 € 142,86 € 0,62 € 24,57 €
79 10/12/2021 23,81 € 119,05 € 0,54 € 24,46 €
80 10/01/2022 23,81 € 95,24 € 0,45 € 24,36 €
81 10/02/2022 23,81 € 71,43 € 0,36 € 24,25 €
82 10/03/2022 23,81 € 47,62 € 0,27 € 24,14 €
83 10/04/2022 23,81 € 23,81 € 0,18 € 24,03 €
84 10/05/2022 23,81 € 0,00 € 0,09 € 23,92 €
Total 2.000,00 € 318,75 € 2.449,58 €
![Crowdfunding of Renewable Energy Projects – Survey of ... · [Crowdfunding of Renewable Energy Projects – Survey of Crowdfunding Platforms] 3 Disclaimer This project has received](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5f29a16fb95cb249ad2c2ad8/crowdfunding-of-renewable-energy-projects-a-survey-of-crowdfunding-of-renewable.jpg)
