Tag: IPOs

Remarks on Small and Emerging Companies

Mary Jo White is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on Chair White’s remarks at a recent open meeting of the SEC, available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair White and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

As you know, the term of this Committee expires September 24, 2015. The advice and expertise the Committee has provided to the Commission on a variety of issues over the last four years has been incredibly helpful to us. And, as today’s [September 23, 2015] agenda reflects, you are continuing those contributions. Your contributions have shown the importance of this Committee, and I am pleased to announce that the Commission is renewing its charter for another two-year term. The Commission will be selecting members and it is my hope that many of you will continue your service. I look forward to our continuing dialogue and being the beneficiary of your insight and suggestions.


The Disappearance of Public Firms

Gustavo Grullon is Professor of Finance at Rice University. This post is based on an article authored by Professor Grullon; Yelena Larkin, Assistant Professor of Finance at Penn State University; and Roni Michaely, Professor of Finance at Cornell University.

In our paper, The Disappearance of Public Firms and the Changing Nature of U.S. Industries, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we show that contrary to popular beliefs, U.S. industries have become more concentrated since the beginning of the 21st century due to a systematic decline in the number of publicly-traded firms. This decline has been so dramatic that the number of firms these days is lower than it was in the early 1970s, when the real gross domestic product in the U.S. was one third of what it is today.

We show that the decline in the number of public firms has not been compensated by other mechanisms that could reduce market concentration. First, private firms did not replace public firms, as the aggregate number of both public and private firms declined in over half of the industries, and the concentration ratio based on revenues of public and private firms has increased. Second, we examine whether the intensified foreign competition could provide an alternative source of rivalry to domestic firms, and find that the share of imports out of the total revenues by U.S. public firms has remained flat since 2000. Third, we show that the decrease in the number of public firms has been a general pattern that has affected over 90% of U.S. industries, and is not driven by distressed industries, or business niches that have disappeared due to technological innovations or changes in consumer preferences. Instead, it has been driven by a combination of a lower number of IPOs as well as high M&A activity.


Firms and Earnings Guidance

Kristian Allee is Assistant Professor of Accounting at the University of Wisconsin. This post is based on an article authored by Professor Allee; Ted Christensen, Professor of Accounting at Brigham Young University; Bryan Graden, Assistant Professor of Accounting at Illinois State University; and Ken Merkley, Assistant Professor of Accounting at Cornell University.

Understanding the formation of firms’ disclosure practices is of significant interest to regulators, managers, and investors. Anecdotal evidence and prior disclosure research generally conclude that firms’ current disclosure practices are often tightly connected to prior disclosure practices. However, prior disclosure practices must have a beginning in their own right, begging the questions of when and why disclosure practices begin. In our paper, When Do Firms Initiate Earnings Guidance? The Timing, Consequences, and Characteristics of Firms’ First Earnings Guidance, we examine when firms initiate earnings guidance (i.e., establish an earnings guidance policy) after an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and what factors are associated with the initiation decision.


Understanding the US Listing Gap

René Stulz is Professor of Finance at Ohio State University. This post is based on an article authored by Professor Stulz; Craig Doidge, Associate Professor of Finance at the University of Toronto; and Andrew Karolyi, Professor of Finance at Cornell University.

The number of publicly-listed firms in the U.S. peaked in 1996 at 8,025. In that year, the U.S. had 30 listings per million inhabitants. By 2012, it had only 13, or 56% less. Importantly, the decrease in listings occurred in all industries and across both the NYSE and Nasdaq. In our new working paper, entitled The U.S. Listing Gap, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we show that this evolution is specific to the U.S. Listings in the rest of the world, in fact, increased over the same period. The U.S. has developed a “listing gap” relative to other countries with similar investor protection, economic growth, and overall wealth. The listing gap arises in the late 1990s and widens over time. It is statistically significant, economically large, and robust to different measurement approaches. We also find that the U.S. has a listing gap when compared to its own recent history and after controlling for changing capital market conditions.


The Iliad and the IPO

Andrew A. Schwartz is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School. This post is based on Professor Schwartz’s recent article published in The Harvard Business Law Review, available here.

Many public companies have shed takeover defenses in recent years, on the theory that such defenses reduce share price. Yet new data presented in my latest article, Corporate Legacy, shows that practically all new public companies—those launching their initial public offering (IPO)—go public with powerful takeover defenses in place, which presumably depresses the price of the shares. This behavior seems strange, as pre-IPO shareholders both have a strong incentive to maximize the value of the shares being sold in the IPO and are in position to control whether to adopt takeover defenses. Why do founders and early investors engage in this seemingly counterproductive behavior? In Corporate Legacy, I look to a surprising place, the ancient Greek epic poem, the Iliad, for a solution to this important puzzle, and claim that pre-IPO shareholders adopt strong takeover defenses, at least in part, so that the company can remain independent indefinitely and thus create a corporate legacy that may last for generations.


SPAC-and-Span: A Clean Exit?

Carol Anne Huff is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis who practices corporate and securities laws, with an emphasis on the representation of private equity firms and public companies in capital markets transactions and in mergers, acquisitions and divestitures. The following post is based on a Kirkland memorandum by Ms. Huff and Daniel Wolf.

While robust M&A and IPO markets have given investors solid liquidity options, in some cases selling a company to a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, can be an appealing alternative. Recent examples in the United States include the $500 million acquisition by Levy Acquisition Corp. of Del Taco in June 2015 and the pending $879 million acquisition by Boulevard Acquisition Corp. of AgroFresh Inc., a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. In the UK, notable examples include Burger King going public in 2012 through a $1.4 billion merger with a UK SPAC.


Regulation A+ Takes Effect

Thomas J. Kim is a partner at Sidley Austin LLP. This post is based on a Sidley Austin publication authored by Mr. Kim, Craig E. Chapman, and John J. Sabl.

On June 19, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recently adopted rule amendments to Regulation A under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act)—colloquially known as “Regulation A+”—took effect. Regulation A is intended to ease the burden of Securities Act registration for small public offerings. These rule amendments, among other things, increase the amount of capital that can be raised in Regulation A offerings from $5 million to $50 million over a 12-month period.

The extent to which Regulation A+ will result in issuers and other market participants actually using Regulation A to raise capital will depend on a number of factors—including how it compares to other methods for raising capital, how the SEC Staff will administer the offering process and the market’s acceptance of Regulation A-compliant offering materials.

IRS Releases Final Regulations Under Section 162(m)

The following post comes to us from Edmond T. FitzGerald, partner and head of the Executive Compensation Group at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, and is based on a Davis Polk client memorandum by Kyoko Takahashi Lin.

On March 31, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service published final regulations under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. As it did when it proposed these regulations in 2011, the IRS has indicated that these regulations are not intended to reflect substantive changes to existing requirements of Section 162(m), but rather to clarify them.

The final regulations clarify two requirements for exceptions from the Section 162(m) tax deductibility limit:

  • the need for per-employee limits on equity awards in order to qualify stock options and stock appreciation rights (SARs) for the “qualified performance-based compensation” exception; and
  • the treatment of restricted stock units (RSUs) or phantom stock arrangements under the transition period exception for certain compensation “paid” by newly public companies.


2015 IPO Study

The following post comes to us from Proskauer Rose LLP and is based on the Executive Summary of a Proskauer publication; the complete publication, including extensive analysis of multiple industry sectors and foreign private issuers, is available here.

We examined 119 U.S.-listed IPOs with a minimum deal size of $50 million in 2014, representing about half of the overall market for deals meeting those criteria. Our study covered a range of industries and included foreign private issuers and master limited partnerships, but excluded certain uncommon deal structures.

This edition expands on last year’s study (discussed on the Forum here) in several important ways. Collectively, these enhancements widen our perspective and, in the process, deepen our analysis.


A Modest Strategy for Combatting Frivolous IPO Lawsuits

Boris Feldman is a member of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. The views expressed in this post are those of Mr. Feldman and do not reflect those of his firm or clients.

With a minor change to the customary lock-up agreement, issuers and underwriters may be better able to fight frivolous IPO lawsuits. By allowing non-registration statement shares to enter the market, underwriters may prevent Section 11 strike-suiters from “tracing” their shares to the IPO. This could enable ’33 Act defendants to knock out the lawsuits against them.

Basics of Section 11 Standing and Tracing

Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S. Code § 77k, provides a private remedy for those who purchase shares issued pursuant to a registration statement that is materially false or misleading. The remedy applies to “any person acquiring such security.” Section 11(a). That is, a person may assert a claim with respect to shares issued pursuant to the particular registration statement.


  • Subscribe

  • Cosponsored By:

  • Supported By:

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows

    Lucian Bebchuk
    Alon Brav
    Robert Charles Clark
    John Coates
    Alma Cohen
    Stephen M. Davis
    Allen Ferrell
    Jesse Fried
    Oliver Hart
    Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
    Scott Hirst
    Howell Jackson
    Robert J. Jackson, Jr.
    Wei Jiang
    Reinier Kraakman
    Robert Pozen
    Mark Ramseyer
    Mark Roe
    Robert Sitkoff
    Holger Spamann
    Guhan Subramanian

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

    William Ackman
    Peter Atkins
    Joseph Bachelder
    John Bader
    Allison Bennington
    Daniel Burch
    Richard Climan
    Jesse Cohn
    Isaac Corré
    Scott Davis
    John Finley
    David Fox
    Stephen Fraidin
    Byron Georgiou
    Larry Hamdan
    Carl Icahn
    Jack B. Jacobs
    Paula Loop
    David Millstone
    Theodore Mirvis
    James Morphy
    Toby Myerson
    Morton Pierce
    Barry Rosenstein
    Paul Rowe
    Rodman Ward