JOBS Act

Phil Goldstein Accepts His Birthright

He’s not saying he plans a huge Bulldog Investors billboard on the Mass. Pike, big enough for Bill Galvin to see if from his front stoop in Brighton every morning. But if Uncle Phil were into that kind of thing, now he could. Read more »

  • 29 Aug 2013 at 3:17 PM

Somebody Plans To Take Advantage Of The JOBS Act

And that someone is PIMCO. Go figure. Read more »

A good rule of thumb is never to reason from an acronym but here’s this Bloomberg article about how Dan Loeb’s Third Point Reinsurance is making use of the JOBS Act in its IPO even though it creates no JOBS in America so hahaha irony. It’s not entirely clear what Third Point Re is doing to take advantage of the JOBS Act – it filed its initial draft prospectus confidentially, and it’s being a little coy about its plans for financial disclosure and internal-control certification. Nor is it clear who is harmed by these potential omissions, or how; the main harm seems to be a devaluation of the acronym which I guess is a thing? How will we ever be able to trust an acronym again? Next you’ll tell me the PATRIOT Act is unpatriotic.1

Of course the point of the JOBS Act was not to create jobs, which you can tell because (1) it begins with the words “An Act To increase American job creation,” which is pretty suspicious, and (2) it otherwise has nothing to do with jobs, there are no requirements for employees or hiring or anything in it, it’s just the name, not even the name, the name doesn’t mention jobs, just the acronym, honestly.2 Read more »

Here’s sort of a pleasing paper on equity research analysts. The background is basically that there’s this constellation of questions that reduce to “do public markets make companies Bad?,” and one of the main mechanisms by which that might happen would be if markets make companies focus on short-term earnings and shareholder distributions rather than long-term value creation for all stakeholders through sustainable innovation. So you try to find ways to measure (1) how public a company is and (2) how innovative it is, more or less, and then see how they interact. Analyst coverage is sort of a proxy for, like, intensity of public-ness,1 while patents are sort of a proxy for innovation.2 So does more research coverage make companies more or less innovative?

In terms of economic significance, our analysis suggests that an exogenous average loss of one analyst following a firm causes it to generate 18.2% more patents over a three-year window than a similar firm without any decrease in analyst coverage.

Read more »

There’s a great story in the Journal this morning about how the JOBS Act, which allows small new public companies to do various lazy things in their financial reporting, actually isn’t having that effect, because the companies hold themselves to a higher standard. Here is a representative passage:

Thanks to the law, Vienna, Va.-based software company Eloqua Inc.met with a large mutual-fund company to gauge interest in its stock about a month before its August IPO. The JOBS Act allows smaller companies to engage in such discussions with select investors before the SEC gives companies its approval to market an offering.

The meeting helped executives hone their pitch to investors ahead of the company’s “roadshow” to market its shares, Eloqua Chief Executive Joseph Payne said. But the company won’t take advantage of another provision allowing it to put off hiring a public accounting firm to audit its internal controls, though Eloqua estimates the audit could cost up to $400,000 each year. “We might look like a little-boy company when we worked really hard to be a big-boy company,” he said.

ISN’T THAT ADORABLE? I want to give Eloqua a hug.

This story fills me with warm feelings about not just Eloqua but also America and our capital markets and our investors and our regulators and, just, everyone, group hug guys. One story you could tell about IPOs is that they are a thing that unscrupulous stock promoters do to trick dumb investors into giving them money to support their frauds, and that without strict SEC standards for accounting and offering-document review all of our grandmothers would be losing their money on ideas that sounded great but were actually not great. An alternative story is that the investors who drive the success and pricing of IPOs tend to be big intelligent institutions and are unlikely to be conned into parting with their money by a few lame magic tricks. Evidence is perhaps somewhat mixed – things about Facebook go here1 – but little – sorry! big! – Eloqua is good evidence for story #2. Read more »

The SEC had a feisty week last week, telling off Congress with cheery abandon. Darrell Issa sent them a pretty crazy letter a few months back demanding that all IPOs be Dutch auctions for some reason, and last week Mary Schapiro sent him a deeply researched 32-page letter telling him, with appropriate condescension, that that wasn’t happening. Also a few months back Congress passed a JOBS Act demanding that the SEC allow much more fraud in connection with sub-$1bn-company IPOs, in particular by occasionally allowing bankers and analysts to be in the same room with each other, and last Wednesday the SEC released a Q&A saying that that wasn’t happening either.*

There is much to ponder but let’s talk about the overall tone, which is:

  • the SEC wants to make sure you don’t get bad information, but
  • it’s not so concerned with you getting good information, or at least, not all the information you might want, or at least, not all the information that somebody richer and better-looking than you might get.

So there is a lot of protection against research analysts shading their analysis to win IPO business, and a lot of discussion in the letter to Issa about the danger to investors of getting incomplete information if they are given anything other than the 200-page chock-full-o-risk-factors prospectus for an IPO. But there is not much discussion of the fact that some people get more information – in particular, the fact that in the Facebook IPO the company seems to have told the banks’ analysts to revise their estimates downwards, and the analysts seem to have done so and then told their biggest customers (and nobody else), and then those big customers seem to have piled out of the deal leaving it to retail investors who didn’t know any better. Read more »

You are doing that aren’t you? Now you have no excuse if they’re not perfect:

Ms. Schapiro, in prepared testimony before a panel of the U.S. House oversight committee, said that the SEC would not meet a July 4 deadline set by Congress to complete the rules lifting the longstanding ban on publicizing private securities offerings.

She said the SEC’s work on this issue is more complicated than it would seem because Congress directed the SEC to require issuers of private offerings to take reasonable steps to verify that purchases are accredited investors.

So I’m excited to see your ads on Dealbreaker for which you will pay top dollar, but as I idly looked for the MAAX zips documentation today it occurred to me that there’s another interesting possibility in this rule change that could also redound to Dealbreaker’s benefit, which is that it might dramatically increase the amount of information out there on private offerings.

Right now companies in the U.S. – and for “companies” read “companies, hedge funds, structured credit vehicles, and other what-have-you” – offer their securities in one of two ways:
(1) publicly, and
(2) not. Read more »