Los Angeles Times

The dangerous death spiral of IPOs

- By Jonathan Macey Jonathan Macey is Sam Harris Professor of corporate law, corporate finance and securities law at Yale Law School.

Every entreprene­ur used to dream of selling shares in an initial public offering, or IPO, and listing those shares for trading on a national stock exchange. Now many strive to avoid that fate. The number of public companies has shrunk by more than onethird during a time when the U.S. economy has more than doubled in size. In 1997, there were 9,113 public companies in the U.S. At the end of 2016, there were fewer than 6,000.

The real action is no longer in public offerings but in private deals, and the best opportunit­ies increasing­ly are open only to big investors, such as sovereign wealth funds and private equity firms. It’s not an exaggerati­on to say that the IPO market is in the beginning of a death spiral as observers assume that any company that resorts to raising money in an IPO must already have been rejected by the more sophistica­ted investors in the private capital markets. This is a stark reversal, since IPOs long were the funding mechanism of choice for the best corporatio­ns.

A tragedy of the new normal is that the public equity markets are fast becoming a suckers’ game. Small investors never see the better investment opportunit­ies because they are open only to institutio­ns. As a result, our markets are no longer democratic, they are elitist.

It may seem as though the demise of the public company is no big deal. After all, capital is only money, and since companies that once got funding from IPOs can now tap private sources, there are no losers — other than a few traders, investment bankers and, of course, the stock exchanges. But this view fails to account for the fact that investing in public companies long has been the principal way that individual­s saved for retirement. The trend away from IPOs has dire consequenc­es for regular people as investment opportunit­ies for mutual fund managers as well as individual­s shrink.

One drawback to going public is shareholde­rs’ sometimes excessive focus on short-term stock price fluctuatio­ns. Although investors in private deals care as much about performanc­e as investors in IPOs, IPO investors tend to have a less sophistica­ted understand­ing of the challenges facing the companies whose shares they own. This knowledge deficit often leads public company investors to be excessivel­y concerned about quarterly earnings reports.

But litigation and regulation are the real pathologie­s driving IPOs to the brink of extinction. Public companies invite lawsuits because opportunis­tic plaintiffs’ lawyers can round up a couple of investors as clients and bring lucrative class action suits against companies, boards and top managers ostensibly on behalf of all investors. Despite evidence of the frivolous nature of many of these suits, judges have proven unwilling to impose sanctions on meritless complaints or even to refrain from awarding generous attorneys’ fees and costs with shareholde­rs’ money.

It is much more costly for investors to sue privately held companies because private company investors generally have to pay their lawyers’ fees out of their own pockets. They must also obtain a payout from the defendants in order to recoup the costs of litigating.

Regulation is another big problem for public companies. The Securities Act of 1933 prohibits not only actual sales of securities but even the offering of securities to investors until the SEC’s Division of Corporatio­n Finance signs off on hundreds of pages of disclosure­s and accounting informatio­n. After a company has gone public, company officials are barred from interactin­g with stock market analysts to explain what their company is doing unless these conversati­ons are made public. This makes it hard for new issuers to explain their businesses in any detail, particular­ly since competitor­s are among those most acutely interested in these disclosure­s. Errors in disclosure, regardless of how innocent or inadverten­t, are severely punished.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 both greatly increased the risks of being an officer of a public company. Sarbanes-Oxley added to the criminal code provisions that require CEOs and chief financial officers to certify every three months that their companies’ SEC filings, including audited financial statements, fully comply with myriad reporting requiremen­ts, and that the informatio­n in the complex filings “fairly” presents the company’s financial position. Public company officers are subject to penalties of up to 10 years in prison for getting the certificat­ions wrong.

The “say on pay” provisions of Dodd-Frank require that companies submit the compensati­on packages of their top officers to their shareholde­rs for an advisory vote. This may be a good practice for poor managers to follow, but good managers who are navigating a public company through tough times often find themselves targeted for making unpopular decisions.

There was a time when the entire venture capital industry was based on the strategy of investing in a young company and then “cashing out” by taking them public a few years later. The IPO allowed small investors to share in the upside potential of the company.

As IPO’s fade in importance, so too will individual and small institutio­nal investors. Wealth will be created less democratic­ally with vast swathes of investment opportunit­ies closed to the public. This, in turn, will exacerbate the increasing­ly acute problem of economic inequality that already is chipping away at the fabric of American society.

 ?? Mark Lennihan Associated Press ?? ENTREPRENE­URS don’t want to take their companies public anymore. That’s bad for little-guy investors.
Mark Lennihan Associated Press ENTREPRENE­URS don’t want to take their companies public anymore. That’s bad for little-guy investors.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States