EY’s recently released white paper, Looking behind the declining number of public companies, documents the strength of the US public equity markets and growing influence and use of private capital, as part of the ongoing policy debate regarding the strength of the US IPO and public company markets.
Are markets in Australia and overseas becoming more concentrated, and is that...Nick Twort
We investigate the evidence of increasing concentration in markets in Australia and overseas. We then evaluate the reasons underlying the facts and analyse what it means for competition in Australia.
Corporate and shareholder sentiment towards MA has rebounded since the dark days of 2008. Low borrowing costs have coaxed many new buyers, including acquisitive Chinese conglomerates, into the market. The prices of prized assets have risen accordingly. It remains a sellers market in technology-driven deals, particularly in the consumer-goods, financial services, and media and telecommunications sectors.
Strong fundamentals drive US dealmaking despite macro-economic and political uncertainties. First-half activity remains on a par with 2016 as strong fundamentals continue to drive M&A.
Though US M&A faced challenges in H1 2017, the figures show that the market is active and vibrant. There were 2,413 deals worth US$588.5 billion recorded in H1 2017, up 0.5 percent by value compared to US$585.4 billion registered in H1 2016. If activity continues at its current level, US dealmaking is on track for another strong year.
Taiwan: Cross-border opportunities amid global changeWhite & Case
Disruptive forces continue to shape global markets, and Taiwanese businesses can take advantage of opportunities emerging amid these transformative trends.
The United States Turns Inward: Thoughts on US Trade Policy and US-Asian Trade Relations by Keith Maskus
http://iems.ust.hk/events/insights/maskus-united-states-turns-inward-thoughts-on-us-trade-policy-and-us-asian-trade-relations
Are markets in Australia and overseas becoming more concentrated, and is that...Nick Twort
We investigate the evidence of increasing concentration in markets in Australia and overseas. We then evaluate the reasons underlying the facts and analyse what it means for competition in Australia.
Corporate and shareholder sentiment towards MA has rebounded since the dark days of 2008. Low borrowing costs have coaxed many new buyers, including acquisitive Chinese conglomerates, into the market. The prices of prized assets have risen accordingly. It remains a sellers market in technology-driven deals, particularly in the consumer-goods, financial services, and media and telecommunications sectors.
Strong fundamentals drive US dealmaking despite macro-economic and political uncertainties. First-half activity remains on a par with 2016 as strong fundamentals continue to drive M&A.
Though US M&A faced challenges in H1 2017, the figures show that the market is active and vibrant. There were 2,413 deals worth US$588.5 billion recorded in H1 2017, up 0.5 percent by value compared to US$585.4 billion registered in H1 2016. If activity continues at its current level, US dealmaking is on track for another strong year.
Taiwan: Cross-border opportunities amid global changeWhite & Case
Disruptive forces continue to shape global markets, and Taiwanese businesses can take advantage of opportunities emerging amid these transformative trends.
The United States Turns Inward: Thoughts on US Trade Policy and US-Asian Trade Relations by Keith Maskus
http://iems.ust.hk/events/insights/maskus-united-states-turns-inward-thoughts-on-us-trade-policy-and-us-asian-trade-relations
The impact of government equity investment on internationalization: the case ...FGV Brazil
We examine the impact of government equity ownership on the degree of internationalization of emerging market firms. Our analysis of 173 Brazilian publicly traded firms from 2002 to 2011 shows that the higher the equity held by the state through the state investment bank and the pension funds of SOEs and privatized SOEs, the higher the firm’s degree of internationalization. Firms in which the government shared control with families, and with both families and foreigners, had a higher degree of internationalization. Our findings underline the importance of the institutional context in explaining the internationalization of Brazilian firms.
Date: 2016
Author:
Sheng, Hsia Hua
The March Group | Leading Mergers & Acquisitions Firm PresentationThe March Group
The March Group is a leading global investment banking firm for the private middle market offering unique coverage across the U.S. and around the world.Our primary focus is North American private companies with revenues up to $200m and profitable operations. With over 23 years in middle market operations, The March Group is proven as today's leading M&A firm.
What perspective on diplomacy best defines the character of trade diplomacy i...Amougou Aristide Agbor
This paper argues that the character of trade diplomacy in the 21st century, consisting of multiple actors interacting on multiple agendas in multiple arenas, is better framed by the post-globalist perspective. Contrary to statist narratives, governments have been compelled to “share their space” on trade governance with other actors such as civil society and economic agendas have gained as much importance as political issues. However, the globalist argument depicting the demise of the state is inconsistent with the prevailing situation characterised by governments being the sole legitimate signatories of international trade agreements as well as the principal authorities within the geographical delimitations of trade regimes.
Trade deficit tax losses violates constitutional law. This presentation has sound and provide and indepth overview of the trade deficit. It provides an understanding of equal trade as a corrective action. It also invites the reader to sign a petition at the website www.CitizensForEqualTrade.org.
The impact of government equity investment on internationalization: the case ...FGV Brazil
We examine the impact of government equity ownership on the degree of internationalization of emerging market firms. Our analysis of 173 Brazilian publicly traded firms from 2002 to 2011 shows that the higher the equity held by the state through the state investment bank and the pension funds of SOEs and privatized SOEs, the higher the firm’s degree of internationalization. Firms in which the government shared control with families, and with both families and foreigners, had a higher degree of internationalization. Our findings underline the importance of the institutional context in explaining the internationalization of Brazilian firms.
Date: 2016
Author:
Sheng, Hsia Hua
The March Group | Leading Mergers & Acquisitions Firm PresentationThe March Group
The March Group is a leading global investment banking firm for the private middle market offering unique coverage across the U.S. and around the world.Our primary focus is North American private companies with revenues up to $200m and profitable operations. With over 23 years in middle market operations, The March Group is proven as today's leading M&A firm.
What perspective on diplomacy best defines the character of trade diplomacy i...Amougou Aristide Agbor
This paper argues that the character of trade diplomacy in the 21st century, consisting of multiple actors interacting on multiple agendas in multiple arenas, is better framed by the post-globalist perspective. Contrary to statist narratives, governments have been compelled to “share their space” on trade governance with other actors such as civil society and economic agendas have gained as much importance as political issues. However, the globalist argument depicting the demise of the state is inconsistent with the prevailing situation characterised by governments being the sole legitimate signatories of international trade agreements as well as the principal authorities within the geographical delimitations of trade regimes.
Trade deficit tax losses violates constitutional law. This presentation has sound and provide and indepth overview of the trade deficit. It provides an understanding of equal trade as a corrective action. It also invites the reader to sign a petition at the website www.CitizensForEqualTrade.org.
By Jason Galanis
For several years, there has been concern in the Corporate Bond Markets that investors may lack the ability to get out of their positions, because of liquidity issues.
Stretagies that fit Emerging Markets,
International Business Strategies which are suitalbe for developing countries to attract the international investors
The Opening Bell - Disclosure Dilemma Part IIGus Okwu
Please find attached our weekly column, The Opening Bell. We value your feedback and opinion. So, please feel free to contact us with any questions and thoughts. Please send us a short email if you would like to be removed from the distribution list. Thanks for your interest and enjoy your weekend.
Arbuthnot Latham: Global Markets Report Q1 2019Siôn Puckle
Our report discusses general developments within global markets over the first quarter of 2019, with a focus on the issues influencing portfolios. Following an economic and market summary, we expand upon a number of themes before concluding with a review of the major asset classes.
1
3
Simon Property Group
Angel Bloodworth
Strategic Planning for Organizations MGT450
University of Arizona
14 March 2022
Achieving a high level of financial stability while operating a profitable company is one of the most challenging tasks a business can face. After all, any firm facing cash flow and budgetary challenges will eventually collapse if these issues are not handled as soon as possible. One organization that has been having financial issues recently is Simon Properties Group. The company's financial woes, which partly has been caused by Covid-19, have damaged the company's reputation, and the public is slowly losing trust in the company's capabilities. Additionally, the fear of bankruptcy has adversely affected the company's long-term creditworthiness. This paper necessitates an analysis of Simon Properties Group, including its leadership, potential competition, and a recent news item posing a challenge to its strategy.
Organization
Established in the United States, Simon Property Group is a real estate investment trust specializing in outlet malls, retail malls, and lifestyle complexes. The company was founded in 1982 and currently has its headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Simon Property Group was founded in Indianapolis by brothers Herbert and Melvin Simon, who started by developing strip malls in the city. The company has locations around Europe, North America, and Asia, where the firm serves thousands of people every day and earns millions of dollars in sales each year. The company's portfolio includes properties that have gained national and international attention - assets that have proven to be the preferred destination for retailers (Jie & Jianwei, 2021). Simon is also known for its strong financial position, a senior management team that has been in place for many years and is highly regarded, as well as its innovative mindset, which is reflected in the company's history.
The industry
The corporation operates in the real estate business. Real estate has a lengthy history in the United States. The federal government sold and gave the property to private individuals for their own use after the Revolutionary War when it was no longer under the control of England. As the nation grew westward, this practice continued, most notably with the passage of the Homestead Act in 1862, which authorized individual ownership of U.S. property in return for maintaining and developing the area for at least five years (Katzler, 2017). Through the Homestead Act, the United States government granted more than 300 million acres of public land to private landowners, laying the groundwork for the real estate industry, which is currently worth $203.1 billion.
Mission and Vision
The company’s mission is to become the top retail real estate developer, owner, and manager globally.
The company's vision statement is that it wants to be the unchallenged leader in the business.
Values and purpose
Integrity, innovati ...
1
3
Simon Property Group
Angel Bloodworth
Strategic Planning for Organizations MGT450
University of Arizona
14 March 2022
Achieving a high level of financial stability while operating a profitable company is one of the most challenging tasks a business can face. After all, any firm facing cash flow and budgetary challenges will eventually collapse if these issues are not handled as soon as possible. One organization that has been having financial issues recently is Simon Properties Group. The company's financial woes, which partly has been caused by Covid-19, have damaged the company's reputation, and the public is slowly losing trust in the company's capabilities. Additionally, the fear of bankruptcy has adversely affected the company's long-term creditworthiness. This paper necessitates an analysis of Simon Properties Group, including its leadership, potential competition, and a recent news item posing a challenge to its strategy.
Organization
Established in the United States, Simon Property Group is a real estate investment trust specializing in outlet malls, retail malls, and lifestyle complexes. The company was founded in 1982 and currently has its headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Simon Property Group was founded in Indianapolis by brothers Herbert and Melvin Simon, who started by developing strip malls in the city. The company has locations around Europe, North America, and Asia, where the firm serves thousands of people every day and earns millions of dollars in sales each year. The company's portfolio includes properties that have gained national and international attention - assets that have proven to be the preferred destination for retailers (Jie & Jianwei, 2021). Simon is also known for its strong financial position, a senior management team that has been in place for many years and is highly regarded, as well as its innovative mindset, which is reflected in the company's history.
The industry
The corporation operates in the real estate business. Real estate has a lengthy history in the United States. The federal government sold and gave the property to private individuals for their own use after the Revolutionary War when it was no longer under the control of England. As the nation grew westward, this practice continued, most notably with the passage of the Homestead Act in 1862, which authorized individual ownership of U.S. property in return for maintaining and developing the area for at least five years (Katzler, 2017). Through the Homestead Act, the United States government granted more than 300 million acres of public land to private landowners, laying the groundwork for the real estate industry, which is currently worth $203.1 billion.
Mission and Vision
The company’s mission is to become the top retail real estate developer, owner, and manager globally.
The company's vision statement is that it wants to be the unchallenged leader in the business.
Values and purpose
Integrity, innovati ...
Similar to Ey an-analysis-of-trends-in-the-us-capital-markets (20)
To the Point - Companies should consider seeking relief from SEC disclosure r...Julien Boucher
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) officials are actively encouraging companies to use Rule 3-13 of Regulation S-X. We believe this means the staff is amenable to granting more Rule 3-13 requests and to work with companies to relieve financial statement burdens imposed by Regulation S-X that are unnecessary to protect investors. However, the staff cannot grant relief that is not requested, so companies need to be proactive.
EY thought leadership - SEC issues guidance on cybersecurityJulien Boucher
our publication discusses the interpretive guidance recently issued by the SEC on cybersecurity. the guidance goes beyond the 2011 staff guidance by addressing the importance of insider trading prohibitions and the application of disclosure controls and procedures to cybersecurity risks and incidents. The new guidance, which carries more weight because it was issued by the Commission itself, largely incorporates the staff’s previous guidance on cybersecurity disclosures.The Appendix to our publication provides relevant excerpts from the Commission’s guidance that we have organized into three broad categories: general disclosure guidance, specific disclosure guidance and corporate governance and compliance.
this latest edition of out quarterly publication summarizes SEC developments in the last quarter. Highlights include SEC staff guidance on tax reform, remarks by SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and members of the SEC staff at the recent AICPA Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments on the new accounting standards, critical audit matters and cybersecurity, and a discussion of Mr. Clayton’s concerns about initial coin offerings. We also discuss recent SEC rulemaking activities, SEC staff guidance updates and significant personnel changes.
EY - SEC Reporting update - Spotlight on cybersecurity disclosuresJulien Boucher
With the increase in cyber threats and attacks, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton has signaled that the SEC staff will increase its scrutiny of companies’ disclosures about cyber incidents and their cybersecurity programs. This publication outlines factors that companies can consider in making these disclosures and examples of what some companies have disclosed.
EY - SEC reporting update - 2017 trends in SEC comment lettersJulien Boucher
Our SEC Reporting Update publication highlights the SEC staff’s increased focus on non-GAAP financial measures over the last year and discusses emerging topics such as the new revenue standard and cybersecurity. The publication also explains the nature of the staff’s common comments on segment reporting, income taxes and management’s discussion and analysis. It also notes the continuing trend for the SEC staff to issue fewer comment letters than in the previous year.
In our SEC Comments and Trends publication, we discuss in detail the SEC staff’s focus areas in its reviews of public filings in the year ended 30 June 2017. We also identify the top comment areas by industry.
SEC Chief accountant provides guidance on how audit committees can be more ef...Julien Boucher
In a recent speech, SEC Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker discussed how audit committees can effectively discharge their oversight responsibilities. Among other things, he said it is important for audit committees to understand the financial reporting risks related to implementing new accounting standards, support controls over the disclosure of non-GAAP financial measures, understand changes in the business and operating environments, set a positive tone at the top to support effective internal control over financial reporting, and make sure the committee is not overloaded with responsibilities beyond its core mission.
In our comment letter, we recommend that the Commission consider making the periodic review required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act more transparent and more robust to encourage broader and meaningful participation by constituents. We believe an effective post-implementation review process should determine whether a rule has accomplished its objective, evaluate the compliance cost for all issuers and the benefits for investors, and provide feedback to inform and improve the rulemaking process.
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssetsAL/CommentLetter_00260-171US_FlexibilityAct_19January2017/$FILE/CommentLetter_00260-171US_FlexibilityAct_19January2017.pdf
Highlights of the 2016 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Dev...Julien Boucher
Our compendium summarizes comments of representatives of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) at last week’s 2016 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments in Washington, D.C. The highlights include:
• SEC staff remarks about the implementation of new accounting standards and related transition disclosures required under SAB Topic 11.M
• SEC staff observations on non-GAAP financial measures and recent comments
• Update from FASB and IASB representatives on standard-setting activities
• Comments from SEC and PCAOB officials on the importance of internal control over financial reporting
Pro forma financial information - A guide for applying Article 11 of Regulati...Julien Boucher
EY has updated its publication, Pro forma financial information — A guide for applying Article 11 of Regulation S-X. It summarizes the requirements for pro forma financial information and illustrates how registrants may apply the guidance to different transactions and pro forma adjustments.
EY Technical Line - update on non-GAAP financial measuresJulien Boucher
In the nearly six months since the SEC staff updated its Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) on non-GAAP financial measures, the staff has focused on compliance with that guidance in its reviews of earnings releases and SEC filings. The clear message is that companies need to reevaluate their use and presentation of non-GAAP financial measures. This publication discusses the SEC staff’s main areas of focus in comment letters seeking compliance with the updated C&DIs, changes companies have made to their disclosures and challenges companies are encountering with their non-GAAP disclosures.
EY SEC Comments and trends - An analysis of current reporting issues - Septem...Julien Boucher
Our 2016 SEC Comments and Trends publication provides an in-depth discussion of SEC staff focus areas in its review of public filings, including comments that focus on certain industries, initial public offering registration statements and foreign private issuers. Our publication is designed to help you understand what the staff is focusing on in its comments as well as best practices for responding to comment letters as you plan for the year-end reporting season
how to swap pi coins to foreign currency withdrawable.DOT TECH
As of my last update, Pi is still in the testing phase and is not tradable on any exchanges.
However, Pi Network has announced plans to launch its Testnet and Mainnet in the future, which may include listing Pi on exchanges.
The current method for selling pi coins involves exchanging them with a pi vendor who purchases pi coins for investment reasons.
If you want to sell your pi coins, reach out to a pi vendor and sell them to anyone looking to sell pi coins from any country around the globe.
Below is the contact information for my personal pi vendor.
Telegram: @Pi_vendor_247
how can I sell pi coins after successfully completing KYCDOT TECH
Pi coins is not launched yet in any exchange 💱 this means it's not swappable, the current pi displaying on coin market cap is the iou version of pi. And you can learn all about that on my previous post.
RIGHT NOW THE ONLY WAY you can sell pi coins is through verified pi merchants. A pi merchant is someone who buys pi coins and resell them to exchanges and crypto whales. Looking forward to hold massive quantities of pi coins before the mainnet launch.
This is because pi network is not doing any pre-sale or ico offerings, the only way to get my coins is from buying from miners. So a merchant facilitates the transactions between the miners and these exchanges holding pi.
I and my friends has sold more than 6000 pi coins successfully with this method. I will be happy to share the contact of my personal pi merchant. The one i trade with, if you have your own merchant you can trade with them. For those who are new.
Message: @Pi_vendor_247 on telegram.
I wouldn't advise you selling all percentage of the pi coins. Leave at least a before so its a win win during open mainnet. Have a nice day pioneers ♥️
#kyc #mainnet #picoins #pi #sellpi #piwallet
#pinetwork
What website can I sell pi coins securely.DOT TECH
Currently there are no website or exchange that allow buying or selling of pi coins..
But you can still easily sell pi coins, by reselling it to exchanges/crypto whales interested in holding thousands of pi coins before the mainnet launch.
Who is a pi merchant?
A pi merchant is someone who buys pi coins from miners and resell to these crypto whales and holders of pi..
This is because pi network is not doing any pre-sale. The only way exchanges can get pi is by buying from miners and pi merchants stands in between the miners and the exchanges.
How can I sell my pi coins?
Selling pi coins is really easy, but first you need to migrate to mainnet wallet before you can do that. I will leave the telegram contact of my personal pi merchant to trade with.
Tele-gram.
@Pi_vendor_247
how to sell pi coins in all Africa Countries.DOT TECH
Yes. You can sell your pi network for other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, usdt , Ethereum and other currencies And this is done easily with the help from a pi merchant.
What is a pi merchant ?
Since pi is not launched yet in any exchange. The only way you can sell right now is through merchants.
A verified Pi merchant is someone who buys pi network coins from miners and resell them to investors looking forward to hold massive quantities of pi coins before mainnet launch in 2026.
I will leave the telegram contact of my personal pi merchant to trade with.
@Pi_vendor_247
Even tho Pi network is not listed on any exchange yet.
Buying/Selling or investing in pi network coins is highly possible through the help of vendors. You can buy from vendors[ buy directly from the pi network miners and resell it]. I will leave the telegram contact of my personal vendor.
@Pi_vendor_247
Financial Assets: Debit vs Equity Securities.pptxWrito-Finance
financial assets represent claim for future benefit or cash. Financial assets are formed by establishing contracts between participants. These financial assets are used for collection of huge amounts of money for business purposes.
Two major Types: Debt Securities and Equity Securities.
Debt Securities are Also known as fixed-income securities or instruments. The type of assets is formed by establishing contracts between investor and issuer of the asset.
• The first type of Debit securities is BONDS. Bonds are issued by corporations and government (both local and national government).
• The second important type of Debit security is NOTES. Apart from similarities associated with notes and bonds, notes have shorter term maturity.
• The 3rd important type of Debit security is TRESURY BILLS. These securities have short-term ranging from three months, six months, and one year. Issuer of such securities are governments.
• Above discussed debit securities are mostly issued by governments and corporations. CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS CDs are issued by Banks and Financial Institutions. Risk factor associated with CDs gets reduced when issued by reputable institutions or Banks.
Following are the risk attached with debt securities: Credit risk, interest rate risk and currency risk
There are no fixed maturity dates in such securities, and asset’s value is determined by company’s performance. There are two major types of equity securities: common stock and preferred stock.
Common Stock: These are simple equity securities and bear no complexities which the preferred stock bears. Holders of such securities or instrument have the voting rights when it comes to select the company’s board of director or the business decisions to be made.
Preferred Stock: Preferred stocks are sometime referred to as hybrid securities, because it contains elements of both debit security and equity security. Preferred stock confers ownership rights to security holder that is why it is equity instrument
<a href="https://www.writofinance.com/equity-securities-features-types-risk/" >Equity securities </a> as a whole is used for capital funding for companies. Companies have multiple expenses to cover. Potential growth of company is required in competitive market. So, these securities are used for capital generation, and then uses it for company’s growth.
Concluding remarks
Both are employed in business. Businesses are often established through debit securities, then what is the need for equity securities. Companies have to cover multiple expenses and expansion of business. They can also use equity instruments for repayment of debits. So, there are multiple uses for securities. As an investor, you need tools for analysis. Investment decisions are made by carefully analyzing the market. For better analysis of the stock market, investors often employ financial analysis of companies.
Exploring Abhay Bhutada’s Views After Poonawalla Fincorp’s Collaboration With...beulahfernandes8
The financial landscape in India has witnessed a significant development with the recent collaboration between Poonawalla Fincorp and IndusInd Bank.
The launch of the co-branded credit card, the IndusInd Bank Poonawalla Fincorp eLITE RuPay Platinum Credit Card, marks a major milestone for both entities.
This strategic move aims to redefine and elevate the banking experience for customers.
when will pi network coin be available on crypto exchange.DOT TECH
There is no set date for when Pi coins will enter the market.
However, the developers are working hard to get them released as soon as possible.
Once they are available, users will be able to exchange other cryptocurrencies for Pi coins on designated exchanges.
But for now the only way to sell your pi coins is through verified pi vendor.
Here is the telegram contact of my personal pi vendor
@Pi_vendor_247
Empowering the Unbanked: The Vital Role of NBFCs in Promoting Financial Inclu...Vighnesh Shashtri
In India, financial inclusion remains a critical challenge, with a significant portion of the population still unbanked. Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) have emerged as key players in bridging this gap by providing financial services to those often overlooked by traditional banking institutions. This article delves into how NBFCs are fostering financial inclusion and empowering the unbanked.
The secret way to sell pi coins effortlessly.DOT TECH
Well as we all know pi isn't launched yet. But you can still sell your pi coins effortlessly because some whales in China are interested in holding massive pi coins. And they are willing to pay good money for it. If you are interested in selling I will leave a contact for you. Just telegram this number below. I sold about 3000 pi coins to him and he paid me immediately.
Telegram: @Pi_vendor_247
BYD SWOT Analysis and In-Depth Insights 2024.pptxmikemetalprod
Indepth analysis of the BYD 2024
BYD (Build Your Dreams) is a Chinese automaker and battery manufacturer that has snowballed over the past two decades to become a significant player in electric vehicles and global clean energy technology.
This SWOT analysis examines BYD's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as it competes in the fast-changing automotive and energy storage industries.
Founded in 1995 and headquartered in Shenzhen, BYD started as a battery company before expanding into automobiles in the early 2000s.
Initially manufacturing gasoline-powered vehicles, BYD focused on plug-in hybrid and fully electric vehicles, leveraging its expertise in battery technology.
Today, BYD is the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer, delivering over 1.2 million electric cars globally. The company also produces electric buses, trucks, forklifts, and rail transit.
On the energy side, BYD is a major supplier of rechargeable batteries for cell phones, laptops, electric vehicles, and energy storage systems.
Turin Startup Ecosystem 2024 - Ricerca sulle Startup e il Sistema dell'Innov...Quotidiano Piemontese
Turin Startup Ecosystem 2024
Una ricerca de il Club degli Investitori, in collaborazione con ToTeM Torino Tech Map e con il supporto della ESCP Business School e di Growth Capital
how can i use my minded pi coins I need some funds.DOT TECH
If you are interested in selling your pi coins, i have a verified pi merchant, who buys pi coins and resell them to exchanges looking forward to hold till mainnet launch.
Because the core team has announced that pi network will not be doing any pre-sale. The only way exchanges like huobi, bitmart and hotbit can get pi is by buying from miners.
Now a merchant stands in between these exchanges and the miners. As a link to make transactions smooth. Because right now in the enclosed mainnet you can't sell pi coins your self. You need the help of a merchant,
i will leave the telegram contact of my personal pi merchant below. 👇 I and my friends has traded more than 3000pi coins with him successfully.
@Pi_vendor_247
How to get verified on Coinbase Account?_.docxBuy bitget
t's important to note that buying verified Coinbase accounts is not recommended and may violate Coinbase's terms of service. Instead of searching to "buy verified Coinbase accounts," follow the proper steps to verify your own account to ensure compliance and security.
2. Foreword
It is an undeniable fact that the number of US public companies has declined considerably from the peak of 20 years
ago. The decline, over time, is so significant that it has been cited as warranting policy action.
At EY, we are market leaders in advising entrepreneurs and guiding companies through the initial public offering
(IPO) process. In order to inform policy debates, we believe policymakers should consider what lies behind the
decline in the total number of US public companies, the attractiveness of US public capital markets today, the
growing vibrancy of private capital markets and recent policy actions impacting capital formation.
More than half of the decline in the number of public companies since 1996 can be attributed to the post-dot-com
bubble era of business failures and delistings that immediately followed an extraordinary number of IPOs. In more
recent years, we find that a surge in private capital and the unique characteristics of many of today’s new companies
have made it easier to grow outside the public equity market for longer than historically was feasible.
As policymakers debate further actions, we believe it is important to consider objectives and potential
consequences. If policymakers’ objective is to generate capital formation, economic growth and job creation, it may
be less important whether capital formation occurs in public or private capital markets.
If the objective is to provide retail investors greater access to early-stage high-growth companies, policymakers may
face a choice between encouraging a faster pace for IPOs or easing restrictions of private capital market investment
opportunities. There are risk trade-offs with either choice — whether due to companies going public too soon, or the
relatively lower level of investor protections in the private capital markets.
Policy proposals are presently being debated based on these varied and often competing objectives, regardless of
whether they are recognized.
As context, this paper also observes the relative strength and attractiveness of the US public capital markets. It is a
mistake to believe that US companies regularly choose to conduct their IPOs outside US public markets. Last year,
there were only two. While it is important to consider the “90% rule,” whereby 90% of companies across the globe
choose to list on an exchange in the country in which the company is domiciled, among the small number of foreign
companies that do list on an exchange outside their home country, twice as many choose US markets as those that
list in any other jurisdiction.
We hope this paper will help inform and broaden the debate around the historical decline in the number of US public
companies.
Les Brorsen
EY Americas Vice Chair, Public Policy
3. Introduction
The capital markets landscape has changed considerably over the past two decades, including the expansion of
private capital markets and related regulatory changes. Policymakers should be mindful of these changes as they
consider their objectives for capital formation and the means to achieve them.
US public companies are fewer in number today than 20 years ago but much larger by market capitalization. They
are also more stable, and delisting rates are much lower than immediately following the dot-com boom. In general,
the total number of domestic US-listed companies has stabilized, especially post-2008, and the number of foreign
companies listed on US exchanges has steadily increased over the same time.
A lower number of IPOs than during a boom-bust cycle should not automatically be viewed as problematic. There
is ample evidence that today’s IPOs are creating stronger, healthier companies than at any time in the past. Growth
companies choosing to sell shares to the public today are typically stable and have solid prospects for growth.
Today’s healthy IPO market is a stark contrast to the post-dot-com bubble years, when companies with uncertain
business prospects that went public, often shortly after formation, later collapsed.
Some observers raise concerns about the prospect of companies leaving the US to list in international markets and
foreign companies potentially choosing other markets over the US. Those fears, however, are not borne out by the
data. Attracted to the stability and liquidity of US capital markets, foreign companies today overwhelmingly choose
the US when they list outside of their home markets. Companies based in the US rarely elect to list elsewhere.
Increased market volatility stemming from interest rate and geopolitical uncertainty likely drove down IPO numbers
in 2016. But one major and sometimes overlooked driver is the dramatic growth in private capital. Today’s emerging
companies have more options than ever to find private financing for a longer term and in greater amounts.
Legislation enacted over the past five years has made it easier for emerging companies to stay private longer by
relaxing certain regulatory requirements and encouraging more private financing. Investors with large amounts of
capital — including traditional venture capital and private equity as well as large corporate and institutional investors
— have turned to the private market in search of investment opportunities in high-growth companies.
In the following pages, we will discuss in more detail the public market, IPO market and private market trends
impacting the number of US-listed companies today.
4. Public market trends: US companies get bigger, more stable
US listings dropped after the dot-com bubble, but the market has largely stabilized, and US public companies today are
much larger than in the past.
During the dot-com peak in 1996, US listings hit a record high of more than 8,000 domestically incorporated companies
listed on a US stock exchange with an average market capitalization of $1.8b in today’s dollars.¹ The number of domestic
US-listed public companies decreased precipitously through 2003, with almost 2,800 companies lost because of M&A
activity and delistings.² By 2003, there were 5,295 domestic US-listed companies.³ The loss of domestic US-listed
companies in 1996–2003 represents 74% of the loss from 1996 to date.4 (See figures 1 and 2.)
Figure 1
Change in the number of US public companies
Since the 2008 financial crisis, the total number of domestic US-listed companies has largely stabilized again, ranging
between 4,100 and 4,400. During this same period, foreign companies listed on US exchanges have steadily increased in
number. (See figure 2.)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
-
1,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Number of domestic-listed companies and average market capitalization
Average market capitalization (constant US$)
Expon. (average market capitalization (constant US$))
Number of listed domestic companies
Expon. (number of listed domestic companies)
Source: World Bank, excluding investment funds and trusts.
¹ “World Development Indicators,” World Bank website, databank.worldbank.org, accessed on 7 February 2017 and EY analysis.
² “World Development Indicators,” World Bank website, databank.worldbank.org, accessed on 7 February 2017 and EY analysis.
³ “World Development Indicators,” World Bank website, databank.worldbank.org, accessed on 7 February 2017 and EY analysis.
4 “World Development Indicators,” World Bank website, databank.worldbank.org, accessed on 7 February 2017 and EY analysis.
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 3
5. Figure 2
Domestic and foreign US public companies
Domestic Foreign
Source: World Federation of Exchanges, excluding investment funds and trusts.
Public companies have also grown in size. A typical domestic-listed company today has a higher market capitalization
than in the 1990s, a trend that has accelerated in recent years (See figure 1.) As of early 2017, the average market
capitalization of a US-listed company is $7.3b, and the median is $832m.5
Also, the largest 1% of US public companies
represent 29% of the total market capitalization.6
About 140 companies now each exceeds $50b in market value,
representing more than half of the total US market capitalization.7
4,793 4,723 4,650 4,641 4,614
4,275 4,401 4,279 4,171 41,02 4,180
4,369 4,381 4,331
1,000
809 799 784 772 728 711 778 816 817 814 828 879 902 873
0
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
12/31/2003
12/31/2004
12/31/2005
12/31/2006
12/31/2007
12/31/2008
12/31/2009
12/31/2010
12/31/2011
12/31/2012
12/31/2013
12/31/2014
12/31/2015
12/31/2016
5 Audit Analytics, auditanalytics.com accessed on 7 February 2017.
6 Audit Analytics, auditanalytics.com accessed on 7 February 2017.
7 Audit Analytics, auditanalytics.com accessed on 7 February 2017.
8 “The U.S. Listing Gap,” SSRN website, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2605000, accessed 1 April 2017.
“The U.S. Listing Gap,” a June 2016 academic study using listing data from
major exchanges from 1975 to 2012, highlighted some of the delisting trends
beginning in the 1990s due to the dot-com bubble. Table 4, Panel A of the
study reveals that following the dot-com peak, 2,101 companies were
“delisted for cause” over the next seven years (1997–2003), unable to meet
the listing standards of their exchange; an average of 300 companies a year.
From 2003 to 2012, for-cause delistings fell to fewer than 100 per year.8
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 4
6. 218
393
554
448
402
488
358
511
404
91
88
84
238
208
204
214
35
65
162
124
133
226
291
174
112
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
20
40
60
80
100
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
IPO trends: keeping sight of the big picture
US IPOs are down from their peak in the 1990s, but companies conducting a US IPO today are raising more money
than ever before, and more foreign companies executing cross-border listings choose to list in the US, compared with
anywhere else in the world.
Public stock offerings of high-profile companies often gain intense public attention, but IPOs are just one of many options
for emerging companies to attract investors. While IPO activity has increased after the 2008 recession, the number
of public offerings has remained well below its mid-1990s levels. Among other factors, the growth of robust private
investment markets and alternative financing methods has extended the private financing stage of the corporate life
cycle.
In 2014, the number of US IPOs soared to 291 (see figure 3), the highest level since 2000, while the total amount of
capital raised through IPOs hit a record of $96b. However, 2015 and 2016 were down years for the IPO market. In 2016,
there were only 112 completed IPO deals, raising a total of $21b.
Figure 3
US IPO market 1991–2016
624
700120
Number of
IPOs
Capital
raised (US$b)
Capital raised (US$b)
Number of deals
Global financial
crisis
Source: Dealogic and EY analysis
Based on IPO activity on US exchanges, including cross–border deals; excludes special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) and business
development companies (BDCs).
Why the decline in US IPOs in 2016? Market analysts point to a number of contributing factors, including an early
2016 market correction (i.e., increased equity market volatility) stemming from historically high market valuations
and uncertainty associated with the US elections, interest rates and global macroeconomic issues. Additionally, the
availability of private capital allowed many companies to be more selective with the timing of their IPOs as markets were
less stable.
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 5
7. What makes a robust IPO climate?
• Macroeconomic strength
• Market and sector momentum
• Attractive comparable company valuations
• Low volatility
• Strong deal performance
What makes a challenging IPO
climate?
• Economic or geopolitical uncertainty
• Market declines
• A risk-averse investor mindset
• Poor recent IPO performance
Cross-border listing trends: US exchanges are the destination of choice
We believe it is important to recognize that the US remains the most attractive public equity market in the world. Stock
exchanges are located in all regions of the world, and over the long term, more than 90% of IPOs occur on an exchange
in the company’s home country. (See figure 4.) The common reasons for home-country bias include a strong base of
customers or a growth strategy that focuses on the home market, a future investor and analyst base located in the home
market, a higher comfort level with home-country regulation and compliance standards and cultural identity.
Figure 4
A foreign listing is where the domicile of the primary exchange (or the secondary exchange for dual listings) differs from the listed company domicile. Deals by Chinese companies
on Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEx) are not considered foreign listings.
Source: Dealogic, Thomson Financial, EY research.
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 6
96%
92% 92%
93% 93%
98% 98%
97%
93%
90%
89%
88%
91% 91%
90%
94%
93%
91%
90%
92%
94%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Historically, over 90% of IPOs have listed on their
domestic exchanges, and the trend continues
1996–2016 domestic IPOs as percentage of annual global IPOs
6% of global IPOs in 2016 were cross-border listings
8. It is also important to note that the profile of US IPOs has changed fundamentally over the past two decades. Although
there are fewer offerings, today’s US IPOs are fundamentally more stable and are raising more capital. At the 1996 peak,
624 US IPOs created $38b in total deal volume, averaging $61m. From 2012 to 2016, there were fewer than 300 IPOs
per year, but average annual IPO proceeds exceeded the 1996 peak.9 Investors are putting more money into emerging
companies, and those companies are likely to be more stable than in the past, as evidenced by the drop in delistings post-
2008.10
This trend toward IPOs of higher-quality, more sustainable companies is likely to benefit investors. Research provides
strong evidence that IPO companies with higher levels of revenue perform better in the long run. Among IPOs completed
from 1980 through 2014, issuers with annual revenue over $500m slightly outperformed the market. By contrast,
issuers with annual revenue under $100m underperformed the market by an average of more than 27%.11
The IPO outlook for 2017–18
After two weak years, signs point toward a rebound in the IPO market. So far in 2017, there has been an uptick in
IPO activity, with several high-profile US companies choosing to go public given strong market conditions. That trend
may continue with the robust pipeline of companies in venture capital and private equity portfolios seeking their
next round of funding.
Issuers have begun pricing IPOs again in April 2017, and volumes are expected to ramp up significantly in the
historically busy second-quarter window of May and June. Market and deal performance over the second quarter
will influence issuer and investor appetite for the second half of the year and will greatly inform the deal outlook
through year-end 2017 and into 2018. Financial sponsors continue to view the IPO market as a useful option on the
path to exits, and their portfolio companies will continue to be a key source of IPO deal flow.
There is increased anticipation for listings from a number of start-ups with $1+ billion valuations, also known as
unicorns, but most still have the luxury of picking the right timing based on their specific circumstances. As such,
there is unlikely to be a long parade of unicorn listings in 2017. However, it would not be surprising to see several
high-profile names pursue their much-anticipated IPOs if market conditions remain strong.
9 Source: Dealogic, EY research.
10 Craig Doidge, George Andrew Karolyi and René M. Stulz, “The U.S. Listing Gap,” page 41, Journal of Financial Economics (JFE),
Forthcoming; Fisher College of Business Working Paper No. 2015-03-07; Charles A. Dice Center Working Paper No. 2015-07, 1 June
2016, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605000.
11 Jay R. Ritter, “Initial Public Offerings: Updated Statistics on Long-run Performance,” 8 March 2016, https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/
ritter/files/2016/03/Initial-Public-Offerings-Updated-Statistics-on-Long-run-Performance-2016-03-08.pdf, accessed 19 April 2017.
12 Dealogic, Thomson Financial, EY research.
For foreign companies choosing to execute a cross-border listing, the US is the favored market. From 2012 through
2016, the US was home to almost twice as many foreign IPOs as its closest competitor, the United Kingdom. During the
same time frame, US IPO volume from cross-border listings totaled $66b, more than four times as high as British cross-
border IPO volume of around $12b. It’s clear that when a company decides to execute a cross-border listing, their
market of choice is usually the US.12 (See figure 5.)
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 7
9. US companies, meanwhile, rarely list elsewhere. (See figure 6.) From 2012 to 2016, only 18 US-domiciled companies
listed exclusively on foreign exchanges, raising only $1b collectively. In 2016, only two US IPOs listed exclusively on
foreign exchanges. Overseas listings also tend to be smaller. Over 15 years, 73% of the 90 US companies that listed
abroad raised less than $50m, well below the US non-accelerated filer and smaller reporting company thresholds of
$75m in public float.
21
10
8 8
22
0
5
10
15
20
NYSE and Hong Kong Australia
Nasdaq (HKEx and (ASX)
GEM)
NASDAQ
OMX First
North -
Stockholm
Other*
$6.7
$1.4
$0.4 $0.3
$0.8
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
NYSE and Hong Kong Singapore
Nasdaq (HKEx and (SGX and
GEM) Catalist)
South Other*
Korea
(KOSDAQ)
Figure 5
Among the key global IPO markets, the US IPO
market attracted more cross-border IPOs in 2016
2016 top stock exchanges for cross-border listings1
Number of IPOs Capital raised (US$b)
25
$8
China
38%
Bermuda
14%
Netherlands
10%
Switzerland
10%
6 other
countries
29%
1 A foreign listing is where the domicile of the primary exchange (or the secondary exchange for dual listings) differs from the listed company domicile. For dual listings, all
funds are allocated to the primary stock exchange. Deals by Chinese companies on HKEx are not considered foreign listings.
* Other cross-border IPOs by number of deals include: London (LSE & AIM) – 7; KOSDAQ – 6; Deutsche Borse — 3; Singapore (SGX & Catalist) — 3; Asia Pacific Exchange
(APX) — 1; Bourse des Valeurs d'Abidjan (BRVM) — 1; Euronext (Paris) — 1. Other cross-border IPOs by capital raised (US$m) include: NASDAQ OMX First North —
Stockholm — $224; Australia (ASX) — $178; Deutsche Borse — $149; London (LSE & AIM) — $131; Bourse des Valeurs d'Abidjan (BRVM) — $63; Euronext (Paris) — $37;
Asia Pacific Exchange (APX) — $3.
Source: Dealogic, EY research
Sector
# of Proceeds
IPOs (US$b)
High technology 17 $2.5
Health care 12 $1.3
Consumer products and services 9 $2.9
Industrials 8 $0.2
Financials 6 $2.1
6 other sectors 17 $0.6
Total 69 $9.6
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 8
10. 1 1
$0.02 $0.04 $0.45 $0.49 $0.36 $0.70 $0.17 $0.01 $0.28 $2.23 $0.02 $0.37 $0.24 $0.36 $0.02
4
8
14
2.0
12
10
14
5
3
6
7
5
4
6
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
NumberofIPOs
Capitalraised(US$b)
Figure 6
Very few US companies are listing abroad
14
162.5
Capital raised (US$b)
Based on IPO activity on non-US exchanges by US-domiciled companies, excluding dual listings
Source: Dealogic
Number of deals
Private market trends: multiple options for growing companies
“Why are more companies staying private, and for longer? Because they can.”
Testimony from Glen Giovannetti, EY Global Biotechnology Leader, before the Securities and Exchange
Commission’s Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies.13
The private capital market has grown aggressively recently, allowing emerging companies to access more capital without
going public.
To accurately measure the health of US capital markets, it is crucial to consider the availability and impact of private
capital. Venture capital firms and private equity funds are aggressively financing emerging companies, with the healthy
supply of private capital potentially delaying the timing for public offerings. In some cases, emerging companies are
being acquired by strategic and financial buyers rather than going public. Venture capital and private equity firms as
well as sovereign wealth funds have large amounts of capital to invest. Large companies are establishing venture arms;
institutional investors have funds focused on private investing; and both are actively searching for ways to invest sizable
amounts of capital.
13 “United States Securities and Exchange Commission Small and Emerging Companies Advisory Committee transcript,” SEC website,
https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec/acsec-transcript-021517.pdf, accessed 19 April 2017.
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 9
11. 14 Dow Jones VentureSource
15 Dow Jones VentureSource, accessed 19 April 2017.
16 Dow Jones VentureSource, accessed 19 April 2017.
The trend toward private investment has been accelerating. (See figure 7.) Venture capital investment in private
companies has exploded in recent years. In 2006, $31.2b of venture capital money funded 2,888 private US companies.
In 2015, $77.3b went into 4,244 companies.14 However, we do expect the investment level to revert closer to historical
norms as these markets ebb and flow.
Figure 7
There has been an upward trend in VC-backed*
company formations
Other forms of private financing have grown just as quickly. The difference of just a few years can be dramatic. For
example, Facebook raised $2.2b in private funding over seven years (2005 to 2011) ahead of its IPO.15 Over another
seven-year period starting five years later (2010 to 2016), Uber raised more than five times as much capital in equity
rounds — nearly $13b from venture capital and private equity firms, sovereign funds and corporations.16
For many companies, debt financing has also been an attractive option as companies are able to borrow at or near all-
time-low interest rates. Low-cost financing also enables strategic buyers to acquire private companies and smaller public
companies. Finally, debt financing allows private companies to avoid diluting shares and adding new investors, thus
keeping their shareholder count below the accredited investor limit of 2,000.
5000
Numberoffinancingrounds
Source: Dow Jones VentureSource.
*Venture capital (VC) includes all investments made by venture capitalists or venture capital-type investors — i.e., those making equity investments in early-stage companies from a
fund with multiple limited partners.
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Second round 206 175 206 235 376 463 556 887 1414 989 638 507 492 491 592 606 629 640 626 632 642 783 834 932 817
First round 288 290 339 473 682 814 969 1832 2792 1005 646 618 724 867 912 1124 1103 794 978 1257 1370 1439 1507 1497 1299
Seed 74 86 97 112 187 154 158 320 293 146 98 80 105 107 168 218 206 186 272 465 524 494 397 292 187
Total 568 551 642 820 1245 1431 1683 3039 4499 2140 1382 1205 1321 1465 1672 1948 1938 1620 1876 2354 2536 2716 2738 2721 2303
12. Some of the highest-value unicorn companies that are likely IPO candidates have sought additional financing through
debt. While unicorns, start-ups with $1+ billion valuations, do not represent typical VC-backed companies, the top two
unicorns as of January 2017 according to The Billion Dollar Startup Club (an interactive feature of The Wall Street
Journal in conjunction with Dow Jones VentureSource) have taken on a significant amount of debt funding.17
Modern emerging companies are different from in past cycles
The typical profile of today’s emerging company is often a better fit with the private market than in previous economic
cycles during which companies required heavy capital investments or had more predictable business models.
Some start-up technology companies today are able to build upon 20 years of innovation in technology and take advantage
of low-cost cloud-based services rather than having to build their own networks and other infrastructure. Other start-ups
are preferring to stay private until they have a more stable business model that will attract more IPO investors.
How much do unicorns matter?
While a significant amount of media attention is focused on so-called unicorn companies, it is important to
remember that unicorns will represent only a small percentage of the population of private, high-growth companies
looking to raise capital in the years ahead. The majority of companies that go public will not be unicorns.
Unicorn IPOs are a very small subset of the pool of start-up companies, representing just 3% of IPOs in the last three
years since the term “unicorn” was coined in late 2013, and 5% of capital raised. Of the 18 unicorn IPOs, 4 were
cross-border US listings of international companies, suggesting that US exchanges are the preferred venue for foreign
unicorns to go public.
While being a unicorn brings the benefits of additional cachet, media attention and investor interest, their high
valuations must be sustained by accelerating growth and financial performance along with the future liquidity
provided from strong public equity markets.
17 “The Billion Dollar Startup Club,” The Wall Street Journal website, https://www.wsj.com/, accessed 19 April 2017.
18 Dow Jones VentureSource, accessed 19 April 2017.
19 Dow Jones VentureSource, accessed 19 April 2017.
Company Last valuation Last valuation date Total equity funding Total debt funding
Uber $68.0b 16-Jun $12.9b $3.15b18
Airbnb $31.0b 17-Mar $3.3b $1.0b19
US exchanges IPOs # of unicorn IPOs (% of
total IPOs)
Total # of IPOs Unicorn IPO proceeds — Total IPO proceeds —
US$m (% of total IPO US$m
proceeds)
2014 8 (3%) 291 $5,369 (6%) $96,114
2015 6 (3%) 174 $1,902 (6%) $33,631
2016 4 (4%) 111 $690 (3%) $21,419
Total 18 (3%) 576 $7,961 (5%) $151,164
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 11
13. 20 “United States Securities and Exchange Commission Small and Emerging Companies Advisory Committee transcript,” SEC website,
https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec/acsec-transcript-021517.pdf, accessed 19 April 2017.
21 Dealogic and EY analysis.
During a February 2017 meeting of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Advisory Committee on Small and
Emerging Companies, it was observed that this generation of emerging companies and their founders prioritize control
and flexibility over wealth creation in a way that encourages private sector financing.20 Under private owners, disruptive
companies are able to take risks, sometimes in unregulated markets, outside of the public company spotlight. While
public markets crave predictability, many of today’s new companies benefit from the ability to take risks without intense
public scrutiny. Under private ownership, employees, founders and early investors are still able to sell shares via private
share exchange programs to investors looking for a growth equity stake. Sometimes the company itself will repurchase
shares to satisfy shareholder liquidity needs while remaining a privately held entity.
Companies with lower valuations or limited growth prospects have usually been more likely to explore an acquisition,
especially if they have technologies or products that are valuable to large firms. However, these acquisitions are
occurring in much greater numbers than in prior decades. In 2016, more than 4,800 private companies were acquired,
compared with about 1,950 during the IPO peak in 1996.21 (See figure 8.) These trends have been fueled by a robust
and sustained level of VC-backed company formations. (See figure 9.)
Figure 8
Acquisitions of US private companies
remain robust
1,953
3,959
5,774
5,425
4,660
3,598
3,118
2,791
3,721
4,438
5,967
7,000
6,502
4,526
3,022
3,821
4,799
5,989
5,135
6,028
5,333
4,817
1,000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Source: Dealogic and EY analysis.
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Numberofacquisitions
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 12
14. $1 $3 $4
$8 $25 $12 $31 $49 $100 $22 $12 $12 $27 $30 $40 $56 $27 $23 $43 $49 $47 $45 $88 $58 $82
97 110 116
0
100
$0
$20
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
NumberofM&As
Amountpaid($b)
Amount paid ($b)
Figure 9
US VC-backed M&A activity remains strong.
Valuations drive deal values up in recent years.
154
198
233
271
328
499
469
442
404
537
513
547 542
454 437
606
583
524
506
574
531
561
200
300
400
500
600
700
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Number of M&As
Source: Dow Jones VentureSource/EY.
Also, a large number of private companies with valuations in excess of $100m have been acquired in the past few years,
illustrating the fact that it remains a viable option for larger companies if an IPO is out of reach. (See figure 10.)
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 13
15. Figure 10
Acquisitions of US private companies
with values >$100m
Congress takes action: legislation extends the IPO runway
Emerging companies searching for private financing have benefited from legislation passed in Congress in recent years
that has allowed them to access private capital more easily. For example, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS)
Act of 2012, was intended to promote job creation and economic growth by improving access to the capital markets for
emerging companies.
The JOBS Act increased the accredited investor limit for registering with the SEC from 500 to 2,000 and excluded
employees receiving exempt equity awards from the investor count.22
Legislation passed in late 2015 created a safe
harbor for secondary private placements that are not registered with the SEC.23
These changes allow private companies
to remain private for longer, as long as their financing needs can be otherwise covered through private debt and private
equity capital.
There is continued interest among policymakers to ease regulations on raising private capital. Already in 2017, the
House and Senate have both taken up legislation to increase the cap on investors in a qualified venture capital fund from
100 to 250.24
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Source: Dealogic and EY analysis.
182
241
282
321
400
178
127
100
167
298
375
410
440
260
157
302
333
369
312
478
433
387
200
300
400
500
600
Numberofacquisitions
22
15 U.S Code 78l(g).
15 U.S Code 77d.
Supporting America’s Innovators Act (2017), H.R.1219, S.444.
23
24
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 14
16. “[O]ur public capital markets are less attractive to business than in the past. As a result, investment opportunities
for Main Street investors are more limited.”
Jay Clayton, during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee to serve as chair of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, 22 March 2017.25
The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, a comprehensive financial services regulatory reform bill authored by House
Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, includes identical language on venture funds.26
It also adds
several other capital formation provisions, including streamlining the Regulation D offering process and authorizing the
creation of “venture exchanges.”27,28
Regulators are also looking at taking steps to spur investment. In a February 2017 speech, Acting SEC Chairman
Michael Piwowar called for additional changes to the accredited investor threshold that would allow greater access by
retail investors into the private markets, stating that, “In my view, there is a glaring need to move beyond the artificial
distinction between ‘accredited’ and ‘non-accredited’ investors.”29
During that same month, SEC Commissioner Kara Stein posed a question regarding additional disclosures and regulation
around private market investment, noting, “We also need to understand why more companies are staying private for
longer periods of time. Should we apply enhanced disclosure laws to these private companies? Or perhaps they require a
unique set of rules.”30
Crowdfunding is another recently sanctioned private-financing mechanism. Crowdfunding regulations adopted by the
SEC in October 2015 allow start-ups and other private businesses to raise small amounts of equity capital (less than $1m
annually) from potentially large pools of investors over the internet through an intermediary such as a broker-dealer or
funding portal that must register with the SEC. This new platform yielded 163 offerings through the end of 2016.31
In addition, a rule known as Regulation A+ (Reg A+) expanded companies’ ability to make unregistered public offerings to
a maximum of $50m in any 12-month period. Through the end of 2016, there were 97 offerings under Reg A+, raising
$239m so far, with a typical company seeking to raise $19m.32
25
Written testimony submitted to the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Jay Clayton, 23 March 2017, US
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs website, https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/640c2f54-
9c7d-47c2-8dc7-7d4debd6a13d/559D4F50EF7D195B8291094DA7490CA4.clayton-testimony-3-23-17.pdf, accessed 19 April
2017.
The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, H.R. 10, Section 471.
The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, H.R. 10, Section 466.
The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, H.R. 10, Section 456.
“Remarks at the ‘SEC Speaks’ Conference 2017: Remembering the Forgotten Investor,” Acting Chairman Michael S. Piwowar, SEC
website, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/piwowar-remembering-the-forgotten-investor.html, accessed 19 April 2017.
“The Markets in 2017: What’s at Stake?” Commissioner Kara M. Stein, SEC website, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/stein-sec-
speaks-whats-at-stake.html, accessed 19 April 2017.
“U.S. securities-based crowdfunding under Title III of the JOBS Act,” SEC website, https://www.sec.gov/files/2017-03/RegCF_
WhitePaper.pdf, accessed 19 April 2017.
Remarks from the SEC’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis at the ‘SEC Speaks’ Conference 2017 on 24 and 25 February 2017.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 15
17. Additional costs to an IPO
An IPO is often the most important capital markets and wealth creation event in a corporate life cycle. Unmatched
access to capital at a lower cost is a clear benefit in favor of an IPO, along with corporate branding opportunities and
a host of other benefits. However, there are drawbacks to taking a company public that do not exist in the private
market. Conducting an IPO results in less control by management and investors and increased accountability to public
shareholders. In addition, the company will incur certain one-time costs and must plan for ongoing costs, including
increased management and board compensation, advisory and legal fees, liability insurance and regulatory compliance
costs. Management decisions and actions in public companies are more heavily scrutinized by investors, analysts and the
media. Additionally, management may have different views on the best course for their business than the investment
community. Disclosures required of public companies could mean transparency to competitors and the potential for
shareholder activism.
Conclusion
In our view, US public capital markets are fundamentally healthy and remain the preferred choice for US and many
foreign companies that seek to go public. The dynamics in the private capital market have changed significantly, at least
temporarily, and allow companies to grow larger and stay private longer. The amount of private investment has grown
immensely and takes many forms, including venture capital, private equity and debt financing. Companies that make it
to a public offering in recent years have tended to be more mature and have solid business prospects, in contrast to the
prior boom-bust cycles.
As policymakers respond to concerns about the decline in public company numbers, the implications to investors and
companies could be significant and raise important questions:
• What should be the guiding objective of public policy regarding the public and private capital markets?
• Is the ultimate goal to generate capital formation in the US, regardless of whether it is in the public or private market?
• Is there a desire for more companies to go public sooner, if only to afford retail investors greater access to high-growth
companies earlier in the corporate life cycle?
• Should regulations on private capital market investment be eased to afford more investors greater access, even though
doing so would serve to further companies’ ability to grow bigger and stay private longer?
• Should private capital market activity be regulated differently if restrictions on investor participation are changed?
These are only some of the questions we believe warrant consideration as policymakers consider proposals that could
have significant implications for investors, companies and the economy as a whole.
Authors
David Brown
Senior Managing Director
Head of Equity Capital
Markets Advisory
Ernst & Young Capital
Advisors, LLC
david.brown1@ey.com
Jeff Grabow
Director, US Venture Capital
Ernst & Young LLP
jeffrey.grabow@ey.com
Chris Holmes
National Director of SEC
Regulatory Matters
Ernst & Young LLP
chris.holmes@ey.com
Jackie Kelley
Partner
EY Americas IPO Markets
Leader
jacqueline.kelley@ey.com
Looking behind the declining number of public companies | 16