Popular Topics
All Topics
- "Gun Jumping"
- "Test-the-Waters" communications
- 10b5-1 plans
- 2016 SEC Agenda
- ABL
- Accelerated Filer
- Accelerated filers
- Access to Capital and Market Liquidity Report
- Accounting
- Accredited investor
- Advance Notice Bylaws
- Airbnb
- Alternative Trading Systems
- Amended Rule 15c2-11
- Annual meeting
- Annual reports
- ASC Topic 740
- Asset Management
- asset-based loan
- ATS
- Auction IPOs
- Audit committee
- Auditor attestation
- Authentication document
- Bankruptcy
- Blackout periods
- BlackRock
- Blank-check companies
- Blockchain
- blue sky
- Board committees
- Board Diversity
- Board independence
- Board of Directors
- Boilerplate
- Boilerplate in securities documents
- borrower
- Broker-dealer
- Broker-dealer registration
- Broker-dealers
- Business organizations
- Calculation of Registration Fee
- California
- California Assembly Bill 979
- Capital formation
- capital markets
- Capital raising
- CARES Act
- CEO letters
- Certified B corporation
- Chair Mary Jo White
- Chairman’s letters
- Chairperson’s letters
- Climate Change
- coal companies
- coal company IPOs
- coal miners
- coal mining
- collateral
- collateralized mortgage-backed securities "CMBS"
- Columbia Law School
- Commencement of an offering
- Compensation sharing
- Compensatory offerings
- Compensatory sales
- Compensatory securities
- Compensatory securities offerings and sales
- Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation 110.02
- conditions precedent
- conference
- Confidential filings
- Confidential information
- Confidential treatment
- Confidentiality agreements
- coronavirus
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Corporate social responsibility
- Corporate social responsibility: CSR
- Corporate Stock-Givaway Program
- covenants
- COVID-19
- credit agreement
- Crowdfunding
- Cryptocurrency
- CSR
- Cyber breach
- cyber incident
- Cyber risk
- Cyber-attack
- cybersecurity
- DAO
- December 31 Fiscal year end
- Decimalization
- Definition of a Security
- Delaware corporate law
- Delaware Law
- Delayed filings
- Delaying amendment
- Description of Business
- Designer stock
- Digital Advertising
- Digital securities
- Direct listings
- Direct marketing programs
- Direct response marketing
- Director Nominees
- Director Questionnaire
- Directors
- Disclosure
- Disclosure and Reporting
- Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative
- Disclosure Obligations
- Disclosure Regime
- Disclosure regulation
- Disclosure Requirements
- Disclosure Rules
- Disclosure simplification
- Disclosure updates and simplification release
- Diversity
- Division of Corporation Finance
- Dodd Frank
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Domino's Piece of the Pie Rewards
- Domino's Pizza
- Donald Trump
- Dual Class Shares
- Dual-class Capitalization
- Dual-Class Common Stock
- Dual-class shareholder voting
- Due diligence
- earnings guidance
- Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
- EDGAR Filing Manual
- EGC
- Electronic signatures
- Emerging growth companies
- Emerging Growth Company
- Employee Practices
- engagement letter
- environment, social and governance
- Environmental, Social and Governance
- Equity Market Structure
- ESG
- event of default
- events of default
- Exchange Act
- Exchange Act Rule 12b-2
- Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11
- Exchange listing
- Exchanges
- executive compensation
- Exempt offerings
- Exempt securities offerings
- Exhibits to Registration Statement
- Expert Market
- FAST Act
- FDA
- Female
- Fictitious regulators
- Filing review comments
- financial forecasts
- Financial guidance
- Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
- Financial intermediaries
- Financial projections
- Financial sophistication
- Financial statements
- Financing Alternatives
- Finders
- Finders exception
- Finders exemption
- FINRA
- FINRA Rule 5130
- FINRA Rule 5131
- First-day pop
- Five-factor test
- Form 10-K
- Form 10-Q
- Form D
- Form NT
- Form S-1
- Form S-3
- Form S-4
- Forward-looking information
- Founder’s letters
- Fraud
- Fraudulent activities
- Free Stock
- Free Stock Offerings
- FTC
- General Motors Co.
- General solicitation
- general solicitation offerings
- Glass Lewis
- Global Warming
- Golden Leashes
- Greenlight Capital, Inc.
- Hart-Scott-Rodino
- HSR Act
- Impersonators of genuine firms
- Incorporation by reference
- Indications of Interest
- Influencer Marketing
- Information asymmetry
- Initial coin offering
- Initial listing requirements
- Initial public offerings
- Insider sales
- Insider Trading
- Integration
- interest
- Interest rate system
- Interest rates
- Intrastate offerings
- Investment banking
- Investment Company Act
- Investor Advisory Committee
- Investor Alert
- IPO
- IPO disclosure
- IPO drawbacks
- IPO pricing
- IPOs
- ISS
- Item 10(b)
- Item 101
- Item 103
- Item 103 of Regulation S-K
- Item 105
- Item 401 of Regulation S-K
- Item 501(b)(7)
- Item 504 of Regulations S-K
- Item 601(b)(24) of Regulation S-K
- James Mackintosh
- JOBS Act
- Ken Langone
- known trends, demands, commitments, events or uncertainties
- Large Accelerated Filer
- Larry Fink’s 2019 letter to CEOs
- Late filings
- Law
- Legal proceedings
- lender
- LGBTQ+
- LIBOR
- line of credit
- Liquidity
- LLC
- loan agreement
- Loan Agreements
- Loan transactions
- Loans
- Loyalty Programs
- Lyft, Inc.
- MAE
- Main Street Loans
- Management
- management disclosure and analysis
- Management; Executive officers and directors
- Mark Cuban
- Material contract exhibits
- Material nonpublic information
- MD&A
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Missing filings
- Modernization
- Multi-Class Shares
- NASDAQ
- Nasdaq Independence Rules
- Nasdaq Listing Rules
- Nomination Letter
- Non-accelerated Filer
- Non-GAAP Financial Measures
- NSMIA
- NYSE
- Offering fees
- Offering proceeds
- Offering statement on Form 1-A
- Offering statement on Form C
- Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation
- Ordinary Course Covenant
- OTC
- OTC Market Group
- OTC Markets
- OTC Pink
- OTC quoted companies
- OTCQB
- Paid-for Research
- pandemic
- Pay Ratio Disclosure
- Pay Ratio Rule
- Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
- Payroll Protection Program (PPP)
- perfection certificate
- Periodic reports
- Perpetual dual-class stock
- Power of Attorney
- Pre-established plan
- Prescriptive-based disclosure
- Primary issuances
- Principal Executive Offices
- Principles-based disclosure
- Private Equity
- Private fund knowledgeable employees
- Private placements
- Prof. John C. Coffee, Jr.
- Proposed Rule 5605(f)
- Prospectuses
- proxy advisory firms
- Proxy Contests
- Proxy fights
- Proxy materials
- Proxy statement
- Proxy voting
- Public benefit corporation
- Public Companies
- Public company acquisitions
- Public Float
- Public M&A
- Public offerings
- Pump-and-dump
- Purpose & Profit
- Purpose of the corporation
- Qualified institutional buyer
- Ramp-and-dump
- Reference interest rates
- Reg S-K
- Registered offerings
- Registered public offerings
- Registration Filing Fee
- Registration statement
- Registration statements
- Regulation A activity
- Regulation A Offerings
- Regulation A+
- Regulation Crowdfunding
- Regulation D
- Regulation FD
- Regulation of finders
- Regulation S
- Regulation S-K
- Regulation S-K Item 10(f)(1)
- Regulation S-K Item 303
- Regulation S-T
- Regulations S-K
- Regulatory Entrepreneurship
- Release No. 34-90112
- Reporting Category
- representations
- resource extraction antigraft rule
- restricted stock
- Reverse mergers
- revolver
- Rights offerings
- Risk Factors
- Rule 10b-5
- Rule 10b5-1
- Rule 10b5-1 plan
- Rule 144A
- Rule 14a-4
- Rule 163B under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 21F-17
- Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Rule 253(f)
- Rule 302(b)
- Rule 4(a)(2) offering
- Rule 406 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 473 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 483 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 504 limited offerings
- Rule 506(b)
- Rule 506(c)
- Rule 701
- S&P Dow Jones
- Safe Harbor
- Safe harbor for forward-looking information
- SAFEs
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act §404(b)
- Say-on-Pay Frequency Vote
- SEC
- SEC approval of offerings
- SEC Comments
- SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson Jr.
- SEC disclosure
- SEC disgorgement
- SEC Division of Economics and Risk Analysis
- SEC Filing Deadlines
- SEC Filing Reviews
- SEC Form 10
- SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
- SEC Release No. 33-10591
- SEC Report of Investigation
- SEC review
- SEC Rule 152
- SEC shutdown
- Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- Section 21F
- Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933
- Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- securities
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Securities Act
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities Act Rule 257
- Securities Act Rule 405
- Securities Act Section 17(b)
- Securities Exchange Act
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Securities Exchange Act Rule 12b-25
- Securities Exchange Act Section 13(a)
- Securities litigation
- Securities offerings
- securities transactions
- Severance Agreements
- Sexual harassment
- Sexual misconduct
- Shareholder Activism
- shareholder activists
- Shareholder nominations
- Shareholder rights
- Shareholder voting
- Shareholder Voting Rights
- shelter in place
- Signatures in Registration Statement
- Simple Agreement for Future Equity
- Small business
- Small-cap
- Small-cap Companies
- Small-cap IPOs
- Small-cap Issuers
- Smaller reporting companies
- Smaller reporting company
- Snap IPO
- Social Capital Hedosophia
- Social Media
- Social Media Marketing
- SOFR
- SPAC
- SPAC's
- Special Purpose Acquisition Company
- Special situations
- Spin-offs
- Sponsorship
- Spotify
- SRC
- Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 118
- Staff Comments
- Staleness date
- Startups
- State securities laws
- stock options
- Stock Ownership Guidelines
- Stock Promotion Schemes
- Strategic spin-offs
- Sunset provisions
- Supreme Court
- Sustainability
- Switch, Inc.
- T+2
- Targeted stocks
- Tax
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Tech IPOs
- Tech M&A
- Tech unicorns
- term loan
- term sheet
- Termination or Completion of an offering
- The CLS Blue Sky Blog
- The Wall Street Journal
- Third Party Payments
- Tick Pilot
- Tick Size
- Tick Size Pilot Program
- Tick Sizes
- Token sales
- Tracking stocks
- Trade Settlement
- Trading
- trading platforms
- Transaction-based compensation
- U.S. dollar LIBOR
- U.S. federal income tax reform
- Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Underrepresented Minority
- Underwriting allocations
- Underwriting fees
- Undisclosed Fees
- Unequal Voting Rights
- Universal proxy ballots
- Unregistered finders
- Unregistered offerings
- Unregistered Soliciting Entities
- Unsolicited quotes
- Uplisting
- US Supreme Court
- Use of boilerplate
- Use of IPO proceeds
- Use of Proceeds
- venture capital
- venture capital investors
- venture capital terms
- Venture exchanges
- Verification of accredited status
- Virtual currency
- voting control
- voting power
- warranties
- Whistleblower Program
- Whistleblowers
- Window periods
- “Tandy” Representations
- “Testing the Waters”
Recent Posts
- SEC Issues Sample Comment Letter Regarding Crypto Risks
- SEC Sample Comment Letters – A Helpful Resource for Preparing Annual Reports and Registration Statements
- FINRA and the Stock Exchanges Take Aim at Underwriters to Address Small-Cap IPO “Ramp and Dump” Schemes
- Recent SEC Enforcement Action Provides Cautionary Guidance for Adopting and Structuring 10b5-1 Plans
- The Struggle to Disclose an Issuer’s Intended Uses of Proceeds in Registered Public Offerings
- Kudos to the 2021 SEC Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation
- More than 2,000 Publicly Traded Companies Shifted to OTC’s Expert Market as Amended Rule 15c2-11 Goes into Effect
- Finding Your Post-COVID Principal Executive Offices
- The SEC Reminds Public Companies that All Filings Must Be Truthful and Complete, Even Form NTs to Extend a Periodic Report Deadline for a Few Days
- Growth Companies Should Disclose Financial Projections In IPO Prospectuses
Archives
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- February 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- July 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- January 2021
Contact Us
(212) 451-2300
www.olshanlaw.com
The Wall Street Journal’s Streetwise Columnist Explores Reinventing the Traditional IPO Process by Combining Aspects of the SPAC Model to Address Drawbacks Feared by Tech Unicorns
In an exceptionally thoughtful column using the recent Social Capital Hedosophia SPAC IPO as his test case, author James Mackintosh suggests it's time to fix IPOs with smarter lock-ups, an auction process variant for price setting and more say by issuers over who gets stock.
James Mackintosh’s Streetwise column in the September 26 Wall Street Journal, “The IPO Needs Reinventing,” imagines a pre-funded IPO process for tech “unicorns” that resembles the current SPAC (special purpose acquisition corporation) business model to fix what he sees as a broken traditional IPO process.
Mr. Mackintosh’s view appears to have been triggered by the recent $680 billion SPAC IPO by Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp., a blank-check business combination shell company. SPACs have been an integral part of the public equity market ecosystem during the past 12 years as an alternative to private equity as large Wall Street investment banking firms have increasingly underwritten them. In a SPAC IPO, investors commit their cash upfront to a blank-check shell company, but do not know what their money is going to be spent on when they buy the SPAC's shares - hence, the “blank-check” designation given by the SEC. If and when a target is found, investors have the choice to pull out by voting against the acquisition and get their money back under the SEC's rules governing blank-check companies. So far this year, SPACs have been in favor with $7.6 billion having been raised, according to Dealogic, the most since the record $12 billion raised by SPACs in 2007. Not every blank-check company, however, has met with success in consummating an acquisition or developing an active trading market.
Focusing on the drawbacks of traditional IPOs
Mr. Mackintosh first contends that the problems with the traditional IPO process that ultimately create an unattractive on-ramp to going public are:
- underwriters have an incentive to underprice new issues to reduce their potential losses in a firm-commitment underwriting;
- the too-low price creates excess demand for the shares, so banks have to ration the supply and give bigger allocations to their best clients who do well from the “first-day pop” in price;
- the IPO involves months of stressful “form-filling”;
- an IPO brings an influx of new investors unknown to the company's founders; and
- employees are typically restricted from selling shares for a six-month lock-up period.
Applying the SPAC model to the traditional IPO process
In Mr. Mackintosh’s view, the Social Capital Hedosophia founders have found a potentially better way for tech unicorns to go public. The founders apparently plan to set up multiple blank-check companies, with trading symbols from IPOA (used by Social Capital Hedosophia) to IPOZ, and identify tech unicorns for each one to complete a reverse takeover of the pre-funded shell to gain a stock market listing without the traditional IPO drawbacks like inherent economic conflicts of interest and the high regulatory costs associated with becoming a public company. This would be accomplished by generally using the SPAC business model in which:
- the big shareholders of the blank-check company would get to know the target company and the price would be set by negotiation between the company’s board, its big shareholders and the target company to avoid the stock price discount that investment banks impose in a traditional IPO and the resultant first-day pop phenomenon;
- lock-ups would be better customized, with some employees able to sell right away, while founders and late-stage venture capital firms might be still locked in;
- the Social Capital Hedosophia founders might not allow an opt-out shareholder in IPOA to participate in IPOB, C or D to reduce the likelihood of a blank-check company's shareholders voting against an acquisition or opting out; and
- the blank-check company shareholders would be expected to stick with the company after the acquisition, which avoids so-called staggering the deal by selling out as soon as the share price jumps, giving the company desired long-term investors and stock stability.
Not exactly a perfect solution
Mr. Mackintosh nevertheless remains wary of the Social Capital Hedosophia project, wondering whether this is just another sign of the willingness of investors to put their trust and their money into financial experiments (think the dot-com boom). Mr. Mackintosh does note the Social Capital Hedosophia founders’ tech credentials, presumably understanding that their knowledge and contacts in the industry give investors some background to predict future performance.
From a blank-check investor’s standpoint, there may be some question as to the fairness of their level of investment considering they are giving up flexibility by handing over their cash now, without any meaningful insight into the target company, and then expected to commit for the long term. Additionally, the founders of Social Capital Hedosophia are entitled to a fee at the time of the acquisition equal to 20% of the cash raised, payable in equity, compared to a typical underwriting discount of 7% charged by underwriters in a traditional IPO (although the founders have agreed to provide post-listing advice through their private equity group and are subject to the risk of losing their entire investment if the company does not find a shareholder-approved acquisition within two years and is liquidated).
Best option: Fix the existing IPO
In concluding his column, Mr. Mackintosh bluntly states:
“The willingness of investors to back Social Capital Hedosophia shows how fed up they are with the traditional IPO.”
With that statement, Mr. Mackintosh suggests fixing the existing IPO process in three ways:
- lock-up periods on shareholders should be smarter;
- investment banks should incorporate a variant of the auction process into their price setting where investors bid for stock and say what they are willing to pay (as used by Google in its 2004 IPO and offered by WR Hambrecht & Co.) to reduce underwriting costs to the issuer including the impact of the “first-day pop”; and
- IPO issuers should have more say over the type of investor who gets stock, reducing the investment banks’ ability to help their individual clients.
Despite a somewhat dim view of the role of conflicts of interest in investment banking pricing – as if IPO issuers are no more than lambs led to the slaughter – Mr. Mackintosh sets aside the usual excuses to bring clarity to the current structural state of the IPO market. Unlike so many other commentators, we find it refreshing that Mr. Mackintosh does not blame the state of the market on overregulation or on lack of investor receptiveness to tech IPOs due to occasional disappointments or their dual-class capital structures. The reinvention of the IPO is an evolving discussion and we look forward to reading more from the author of this column.