The Deregulation of the Private Equity Markets and the Decline in IPOs

The deregulation of securities laws—in particular the National Securities Markets Improvement Act (NSMIA) of 1996—has increased the supply of private capital to late-stage private startups, which are now able to grow to a size that few private firms used to reach. NSMIA is one of a number of factors that have changed the going-public versus staying-private trade-off, helping bring about a new equilibrium where fewer startups go public, and those that do are older. This new equilibrium does not reflect an initial public offering (IPO) market failure. Rather, founders are using their increased bargaining power vis-à-vis investors to stay private longer

Private Equity Investment in the BRICs

This Article investigates the legal and economic environment for private equity investments in Brazil, Russia, India and China (“BRIC”). In contrast with disappointing returns in the 1990s, private equity investment has soared in developing countries over the past decade. To explain what has led to the recent success of private equity in the BRICs, this Article will first give an overview of the challenges faced generally when investing in portfolio companies in developing markets and then analyze the legal and economic framework for each of the four BRICs. This Article finds that Brazil and China offer the best opportunities for private equity because investors can rely on strong domestic capital markets for the exit. While India is not far behind, Russia still has room for improvement, particularly with regard to the reliability of its legal system and the attractiveness of its capital markets

Initial public offerings and venture capital in Germany

We present a survey on the role of initial public offerings (Epos) and venture capital (VC) in Germany after the Second World War. Between 1945 and 1983 IPOs hardly played a role at all and only a minor role thereafter. In addition, companies that chose an IPO were much older and larger than the average companies going public for the first time in the US or the UK. The level of IPO underpricing in Germany, in contrast, has not been fundamentally different from that in other countries. The picture for venture capital financing is not much different from that provided by IPOs in Germany. For a long time venture capital financing was hardly significant, particularly as a source of early stage financing. The unprecedented boom on the Neuer Markt between 1997 and 2000, when many small venture capital financed firms entered the market, provides a striking contrast to the preceding era. However, by US standards, the levels of both IPO and venture capital activities remained rather low even in this boom phase. The extent to which recent developments will have a lasting impact on the financing of German firms, the level of IPO activity, and venture capital financing, remains to be seen. At the time of writing, activity has come to a near stand still and the Neuer Markt has just been dissolved. The low number of IPOs and the fairly low volume of VC financing in Germany before the introduction of the Neuer Markt are a striking and much debated phenomenon. Understanding the reasons for these apparent peculiarities is vital to understanding the German financial system. The potential explanations that have been put forward range from differentces in mentality to legal and institutional impediments and the availability of alternative sources of financing. Moreover the recent literature discusses how interest groups may have benefited and influenced the situation. These groups include politicians, unions/workers, managers/controlling-owners of established firms as well as banks. Revised version forthcoming in "The German Financial System", edited by Jan P. Krahnen and Reinhard H. Schmidt, Oxford University Press

The Valuation Effect of Listing Requirements: An Analysis of Venture Capital-Backed IPOs

This paper examines the impact of securities regulation and exchange listing standards on the valuation of venture capital-backed IPOs in Canada and the United States. We use a sample of IPOs in both countries matched by size and sector over the 1986-2007 period. The data strongly indicate Canadian IPO valuations are 48% to 66% lower than their matched American counterparts, depending on the matched sample and control variables. We carefully control for several alternative explanations that might account for this difference, including issuer and VC quality, mispricing and liquidity effects. The data highlight the costs associated with low listing standards in Canada. Ce papier examine l’impact de la réglementation des valeurs mobilières et des normes minimales d’inscription en bourse sur la valorisation des premiers appels publics à l’épargne (PAPEs) effectués au Canada et aux États-Unis par des émetteurs financés par des investisseurs en capital de risque. Nous utilisons un échantillon de PAPEs dans chacun des pays sur la période 1986 à 2007. Chaque émission canadienne est pairée avec une émission américaine de taille et de secteur similaires. Nous montrons que les valorisations des émissions canadiennes sont de 48 % à 66 % plus basses que celles des émissions correspondantes américaines, en fonction de l’échantillon retenu et des variables de contrôle. Cette différence subsiste à la prise en compte de plusieurs variables de contrôle, notamment la qualité des émetteurs et des investisseurs en capital de risque, ainsi que la liquidité. Les résultats montrent que les normes réglementaires permissives appliquées aux entreprises émergentes au Canada ont un effet perceptible sur la valeur que leur attribuent les investisseurs.Securities Regulation, Listing Standards, Valuation, Initial Public Offerings, réglementation des valeurs mobilières, normes minimales d’inscription en bourse, valorisation, introduction en bourse

Do Differences in Institutional and Legal Environments Explain Cross-Country Variations in IPO Underpricing?

We empirically analyze the determinants of Initial Public Offering (IPO) underpricing using panel data for 29 countries over the period 1988-2005. Our hypotheses stress the importance of institutional and legal factors in explaining cross-country variations. We find that increased protection of shareholders and greater accounting transparency contribute negatively to variations in underpricing. When more information is available price discovery is facilitated, allowing for more effective corporate governance. Moreover, when equity markets perform well, investors anticipate companies and investment banks to time the market and require higher underpricing in return. Overall, we conclude that better investor protection and better institutional environments reduce the perceived risk of investing, and attenuate the problem of asymmetric information, thereby causing lower underpricing across countries.IPO underpricing, institutions, legal infrastructure, panel data

Promoting access to primary equity markets : a legal and regulatory approach

This paper examines legal and regulatory measures that can be taken to promote access to the primary market in emerging market economies. While capital market development depends on many factors including, primarily, a favorable macroeconomic environment, an appropriately designed and effective legal and regulatory framework can help to encourage market growth and to increase access to finance for all companies, including small- and medium-sized enterprises. In this paper we identify the basic necessities that underpin a regulatory regime that is cost effective and strikes an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, laws and regulations that may be too restrictive to achieve a supply of capital and, on the other, those that may be so relaxed that investors feel that there is an unacceptable level of risk and do not care to venture into the market. We explore the legal foundations for the successful operation of a primary market for securities and identify disclosure and effective monitoring and enforcement as essential elements of legal protection. We then examine different legal and regulatory approaches for improving access to finance. We discuss measures that can be used by traditional stock exchanges to attract smaller enterprises to their lists as well as recent initiatives to create second boards or divide the main board into different market segments. We also discuss different mechanisms for companies to raise funds outside of a formal stock market listing, including private placements and private equity. Finally, we propose some recommendations for a simple legal and regulatory framework that will help promote access to primary equity markets, via both the traditional exchange as well as other alternatives.Markets and Market Access,Economic Theory&Research,Financial Intermediation,CorporateLaw,Investment and Investment Climate

“Publicness” in Contemporary Securities Regulation after the JOBS Act

The JOBS Act of 2012 reflects the largest deregulatory change to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 over its more than 75 year history. It contracts the coverage of those companies subject to the obligations of ‘publicness” and it introduces an “on ramp” that will permit most newly-public companies to meet a lesser set of disclosure, internal control and governance obligations for up to five years. We set these changes against a larger discussion of when a private enterprise should be forced to take on public status in securities regulation, a topic that has been entirely under theorized. We conclude that the change from 500 to 2000 shareholders of record made by the JOBS Act, while entirely clear in its deregulatory thrust, misses a key point: “record” ownership is an antiquated metric for any measuring of publicness and Congress needs to find a better one, such as public trading. More broadly, we observe that Congress increasingly has defined public obligations in securities regulation less by the traditional touchstone of investor protection and more by ways that our largest companies affect constituencies beyond their investor base. Our boundary-setting thus should include two tiers of public companies with the smaller tier limited to core disclosure and governance obligations. Finally, our review of these boundary questions reveals a larger pattern that ought to inform how we understand securities regulation. Entrepreneurs and their advisors regularly occupy new unregulated space created in the wake of technological change or by gaps in regulation revealed as markets evolve. Government response, seemingly inevitably, is piecemeal and reactive. The result is a regulatory process that is more informal than administrative law theory usually suggests and more opaque than we might want in contemplating regulatory change

Initial Public Offerings and Venture Capital in Germany

We present a survey on the role of initial public offerings (IPOs) and venture capital (VC) in Germany after the Second World War. Between 1945 and 1983 IPOs hardly played a role at all and only a minor role thereafter. In addition, companies that chose an IPO were much older and larger than the average companies going public for the first time in the US or the UK. The level of IPO underpricing in Germany, in contrast, has not been fundamentally different from that in other countries. The picture for venture capital financing is not much different from that provided by IPOs in Germany. For a long time venture capital financing was hardly significant, particularly as a source of early stage financing. The unprecedented boom on the Neuer Markt between 1997 and 2000, when many small venture capital financed firms entered the market, provides a striking contrast to the preceding era. However, by US standards, the levels of both IPO and venture capital activities remained rather low even in this boom phase. The extent to which recent developments will have a lasting impact on the financing of German firms, the level of IPO activity, and venture capital financing, remains to be seen. At the time of writing, activity has come to a near stand still and the Neuer Markt has just been dissolved. The low number of IPOs and the fairly low volume of VC financing in Germany before the introduction of the Neuer Markt are a striking and much debated phenomenon. Understanding the reasons for these apparent peculiarities is vital to understanding the German financial system. The potential explanations that have been put forward range from differences in mentality to legal and institutional impediments and the availability of alternative sources of financing. Moreover the recent literature discusses how interest groups may have benefited and influenced the situation. These groups include politicians, unions/workers, managers/controlling-owners of established firms as well as banks.Initial Public Offering (IPO), Venture Capital, Germany

Proposal for a Single Securities Commission: Comments and Discussion

This report analyzes and comments on the principal arguments put forward by the Crawford Panel to support the establishment of a single securities commission in Canada. One argument advanced is that the current rules-based regulatory structure should be replaced with a principles-based approach similar to that of the United Kingdom’s Alternative Investment Market (AIM). According to the Panel, this approach would allow for a relaxation of the conditions for corporate financing. We will point out the very distinctive characteristics of the Canadian market, which allows emerging companies—those without income and even without any revenue—to carry out initial and subsequent rounds of financing. Our estimates indicate that such financing is carried out at an advantageous cost, and the survival of new issuers seems more certain in Canada than in other countries where the rules for listing on a stock exchange are more restrictive. We believe it would be difficult to further relax the rules of a market in which 45% of issuers are able to list their securities on a stock exchange without reporting any revenue and in which 71% of new exchange registrants do not earn any income. This situation is unparalleled in the world. We will show that adopting a system similar to the AIM model would result in a significant percentage of existing issuers no longer being able to access the market. We therefore concur fully with the opinion expressed by one of the experts enlisted by the Panel, namely, that adopting a system similar to the AIM model in Canada is neither feasible nor desirable. The Panel expressed concern about the conditions for the financing of junior issuers. We will show that, in general, the direct costs of such financings are lower in Canada than in the United States. We will see that, in fact, there is a very high number of small offerings and issues in Canada. The Canadian markets seem to have developed strategies that are well suited to the characteristics of an economy heavily dependent on small-cap companies and on the resource sector. An analysis of all financings, including traditional and non-traditional stock exchange listings as well as subsequent financings (a total of more than 10,000 transactions), clearly shows that financings are very small and are carried out locally and, in 77% of cases, by issuers from outside Ontario. The Panel also expressed concern about the level of competitiveness of the Canadian market; this is a concern that we share. We will show that the principal challenge faced by the Canadian market is the gradual shift of transactions involving cross-listed securities to the U.S. market. In contrast to the Panel, we do not believe that AIM listings constitute a major problem. When Canadian companies cross-list their securities, they opt for the U.S. market at a ratio of eight to one. The migration of companies and transactions towards the U.S. market has many causes, but it would be very difficult to argue that the regulatory structure is a key factor. The argument whereby the costs of capital are lower in the U.S. does not stand up to analysis. Several recent and thorough studies indicate that the difference in these costs between the two countries is minimal, leaning in favour of one country or the other depending on the study. Our own findings show that Canadian companies that cross-list their securities do not benefit from any lower costs. The decision to list securities on a foreign market is driven primarily by strategic business factors and by the search for large pools of investors. In that regard, Canada has no advantage, and it seems unlikely that regulatory changes will convert Canada into a significant source of financing for foreign companies. In our opinion, efforts should be focused, above all, on improving and sustaining the financing options available to Canadian issuers. The Panel has argued that establishing a single commission is necessary for improving enforcement of securities laws in Canada. In this regard, Canada is often compared to the United States. An analysis of data on sanctions shows, firstly, that the SEC is far from being the source of the majority of sanctions imposed on financial market participants. It initiates less than 10% of proceedings involving financial matters and imposes less than one quarter of all monetary sanctions. Secondly, there has been an increase in sanctions imposed in Canada in this area. Thirdly, there are major differences between Canada and other countries. This explains the differences observed and perceived as regards enforcement. The experts enlisted by the Panel have, in fact, recommended a series of eight actions and have suggested, in the eighth item, pan-Canadian enforcement of the law. Consequently, these experts have not concluded that centralization of the securities commissions is an indispensable condition for enhancing the enforcement of securities laws. The issue of costs arises very often in discussions regarding the Canadian regulatory system. Yet, there is little evidence showing that the current regulatory structure leads to significant costs for investors or issuers. The costs of the regulatory authorities represent a negligible percentage of the transaction costs borne by investors and of revenues from brokerage activities in Canada. The direct costs of regulatory authorities are lower than those incurred in other countries, when expressed on the basis of the number of reporting issuers. Finally, arguments to the effect that a single commission would generate substantial savings are less than convincing. Such savings would be possible only if the activities of securities commissions outside Ontario were virtually abolished. Three elements appear from our analysis. First and foremost, the principal arguments put forward by the Panel to justify the urgency of centralizing securities commissions in Canada do not stand up to analysis and are, at times, contradicted by the research and the experts mandated by the Panel itself. Secondly, the major challenge faced by the Canadian market—the shift of enterprises and transactions to the U.S.—does not seem to have been perceived as such or even discussed. Finally, we believe it is essential to recognize and preserve the distinctive characteristics of the existing market. It is a market that welcomes growth companies and small-cap companies, is highly decentralized and is apparently very favourable to issuers. Ce rapport analyse et commente les principaux arguments avancés par le Comité Crawford pour justifier l’instauration d’une commission des valeurs mobilières unique au Canada. Un premier argument défend que la structure actuelle de réglementation, basée sur des règles, devrait être remplacée par une approche basée sur des principes, inspirée de l’expérience de l’Alternative Investment Market (AIM) au Royaume-Uni. Selon le Comité, cette approche permettrait d’assouplir les conditions de financement des sociétés. Nous montrons les caractéristiques très particulières du marché canadien, qui permet les financements initiaux et subséquents de sociétés en développement, sans bénéfice et même sans revenu. Nos estimations indiquent que ce financement se fait à un coût avantageux, et la survie des nouveaux émetteurs semble plus assurée au Canada que dans d’autres pays où les règles d’admission en Bourse sont plus restrictives. Nous considérons qu’il semble difficile d’assouplir encore les règles d’un marché où 45 % des émetteurs s’inscrivent en Bourse sans rapporter de revenu et où 71 % des nouveaux inscrits en Bourse ne rapportent pas de bénéfice. Cette situation n’a pas d’équivalent au monde. Nous montrons que l’imposition d’un système semblable à celui de l’AIM ferait qu’une proportion importante des émetteurs actuels ne pourrait plus accéder au marché. Nous rejoignons donc totalement l’avis de l’un des experts engagés par le Comité, qui indique que l’imposition d’un système semblable à celui de l’AIM au Canada n’est ni possible, ni souhaitable. Le Comité est préoccupé par les conditions de financement des émetteurs de petite taille. Nous montrons que les coûts directs de ces financements sont, de façon générale, moins élevés au Canada qu’ils ne le sont aux États-Unis. Nous indiquons par ailleurs la fréquence très élevée des émissions et placements de petite taille au Canada. Les marchés canadiens semblent avoir développé des stratégies bien adaptées aux spécificités d’une économie qui repose fortement sur les entreprises faiblement capitalisées et sur le secteur des ressources. Lorsqu’on analyse l’ensemble des opérations de financement, incluant les entrées en Bourse conventionnelles ou non ainsi que les financements subséquents (soit plus de 10 000 opérations), il apparaît nettement que les financements sont de très petite taille, effectués localement et, à 77 %, levés par des émetteurs non ontariens. Le Comité est soucieux du niveau de compétitivité du marché canadien et nous partageons ses inquiétudes. Notamment, nous avons montré que le principal défi auquel fait face ce marché provient du glissement progressif des transactions portant sur les titres interlistés vers le marché américain. Contrairement au Comité, nous défendons que les inscriptions sur l’AIM ne constituent pas un problème majeur. Lorsqu’elles s’interlistent, les sociétés canadiennes optent pour le marché américain dans une proportion de huit à une. La migration des sociétés et des transactions vers le marché américain a des causes multiples, mais il semble très difficile de prétendre que la structure des organismes de réglementation y soit un facteur déterminant. L’argument voulant que le coût du capital soit inférieur aux États-Unis ne résiste pas à l’analyse. Plusieurs études récentes et rigoureuses indiquent que la différence, à ce niveau, est infime entre les deux pays, et le sens de la différence varie suivant les travaux. Nos propres résultats indiquent que les sociétés canadiennes qui s’interlistent ne bénéficient d’aucune diminution de ce coût. Les décisions de s’inscrire sur un marché étranger sont essentiellement liées aux considérations stratégiques des entreprises et à la recherche de bassins importants d’investisseurs. Sur ce plan, le Canada ne bénéficie d’aucun avantage et il semble peu vraisemblable que des changements réglementaires puissent faire du Canada une base importante de financement de sociétés non canadiennes. Il nous semble que les efforts devraient être, avant tout, consacrés à améliorer et pérenniser les possibilités de financement des émetteurs canadiens. Le Comité défend que l’instauration d’une commission unique est nécessaire pour améliorer l’application de la Loi au Canada. Sur ce plan le Canada est souvent comparé aux États-Unis. L’analyse des données sur les sanctions indique premièrement que la SEC n’est pas, et de loin, à l’origine de la majorité des sanctions obtenues contre des intervenants du marché financier. Elle est à l’origine de moins de 10 % des poursuites en matière financière et impose moins du quart du total des sanctions monétaires. Deuxièmement, nous observons une augmentation des sanctions imposées au Canada en ce domaine. Troisièmement, il existe d’importantes différences entre le Canada et les autres pays, qui expliquent les écarts observés et perçus dans la rigueur de l’application de la Loi. Les experts engagés par le Comité recommandent d’ailleurs un ensemble de huit actions différentes et suggèrent, au huitième point, une application pancanadienne de la Loi. Ces experts ne concluent donc pas que la centralisation des commissions des valeurs mobilières soit la condition indispensable à un renforcement de l’application de la Loi. La problématique des coûts est très souvent mentionnée dans le débat entourant la réglementation canadienne. Il existe pourtant peu d’évidence à l’effet que la structure de réglementation actuelle induit des coûts significatifs pour les investisseurs et même pour les émetteurs. Les coûts des organismes de réglementation représentent une proportion infime des coûts de transactions supportés par les investisseurs ou encore des revenus de l’activité du courtage au Canada. Les coûts directs provoqués par les organismes de réglementation sont inférieurs à ceux encourus dans les autres pays, dès qu’on les exprime sur la base du nombre d’émetteurs assujettis. Enfin, les évidences à l’effet qu’une commission unique permettrait des économies importantes semblent peu convaincantes. Ces économies ne sont possibles que si l’activité des commissions des valeurs mobilières en dehors de l’Ontario est pratiquement abolie. Trois éléments découlent de notre analyse. En premier lieu, les principaux éléments avancés par le Comité pour justifier l’urgence de centraliser les commissions des valeurs mobilières au Canada résistent mal à l’analyse et sont parfois contredits par la recherche ou par les experts mandatés par ce même Comité. En second lieu, le défi majeur auquel semble confronté le marché canadien ne semble ni être perçu comme tel, ni être traité : il s’agit du glissement des entreprises et des transactions vers les États-Unis. Enfin, il nous semble essentiel de reconnaître et préserver les caractéristiques particulières du marché actuel, largement ouvert aux sociétés en croissance et de petite taille, très décentralisé et apparemment très favorable aux émetteurs.