03.22.2019

Capital Formation: Same as it Ever Was?

By Jim Toes, President and CEO, Security Traders Association

Jim Toes, STA

Yesterday was a good day for our markets for several reasons, none more so than the large amount of attention that capital formation garnered throughout the trading day. As CNBC’s Bob Pisani put it, “Wall Street is excited that a major part of the capital markets business is finally starting to function after a bitter four-month hiatus.” Amen, Bob, and yes, we are excited.

It is great to watch capital formation play out before our eyes and based on reports, we are only at the beginning of an IPO wave. Assuming markets remain stable, an estimated 200+ companies will seek to go public in 2019 with the hopes of raising more than $100 billion in capital. If the experts are correct and their predictions come to fruition, 2019 will be a record year for capital raising, passing Y2K.

Even if the prognostics are wrong, Levi’s return to the public markets serves as an example of how differently our markets perform this function compared to 20, or 220, years ago. In other words, while our markets have been facilitating capital formation for over two centuries, it is constantly evolving how it does. This is after all, not our Father’s Buttonwood Tree.

Players are Bigger
In April 2018 SEC Chairman Jay Clayton laid out three primary objectives for equity market structure, one of which was creating a better ecosystem for thinly traded securities. As the industry engages in debate and decision making on what that ecosystem will look like, it is imperative that all parties understand today’s markets and the changes, both major and nuanced to its structure, that have occurred more recently. So what are some examples? First, participants who play major roles in capital formation are much bigger today. Consolidation among the asset management and broker dealer industries have led to fewer, but much larger players in the marketplace. Moving the needle of profitability at these companies requires sizable deals and transactions. Additionally, while the number of listing exchange families has remained roughly the same over the past 20 years, today’s Nasdaq and NYSE are multiple times larger than they were at the turn of the century due to globalization, new product lines and other reasons. As these participants have grown, the size of an IPO has also had to grow in order to attract their interest.

For the small to mid-size players who provide innovation and wealth creation, Congress and the SEC have drafted bills, and held hearings and roundtables, all with the goal of improving the ability of our one-size-fits-all marketplace to facilitate capital formation for smaller issuers. Most of us would agree that our markets need to improve in this area, and that will require decisions based on empirical data and consensus building.

Shift of Influence
The amount of influence that exchanges, asset managers and banks have with companies has shifted over the past two decades. For banks, research coverage was a means to build relationships with companies void of an investment banking service. As we read on a regular basis, the research model is experiencing a major disruption that is resulting in fewer companies receiving coverage. Less coverage translates to less relationships between banks and issuers.

For asset managers, the rise of dual share class structures has diminished their ability to influence the decision making of corporate boards. On the other side, exchanges have increased their levels of influence due to the range of services they provide to issuers like: investor relations, shareholder ID and industry research. None of this is necessarily bad or good, it’s just different than it used to be. Therefore, decisions on designing a market structure for thinly traded securities needs to take into account that exchanges have more influence with issuers today compared to banks and asset managers 20 years ago. With this shift of influence, new conflicts arise.

Loss of Liquidity Providers
STA continues to be of the opinion that the loss of liquidity providers and its potential impact on investors is of major concern. We believe those less active securities (the overwhelming number of publicly traded securities) and their shareholders do in fact benefit by the presence of market makers and enhanced liquidity providers. We believe both market makers and other liquidity providers dampen market volatility to the benefit of the marketplace and investor confidence. While we are not advocating a return to the past, we believe in the benefits of enhanced liquidity, and regulators need to find a modern way to incentivize its existence.

Related articles

  1. Switzerland’s stock exchanges lost equivalence with the European Union at the start of this month.

  2. Connecting to SEFs: An Industry Problem

    Post-trade tape for equities could be close at hand.

  3. Trading Europe From ‘Across the Pond’

    The Swiss loss of equivalence is a potential precedent for a no-deal Brexit scenario.

  4. Source Expands ETFs in Germany

    The bank is investing €13bn by 2022 in technology and innovation.

  5. J.P. Morgan is hiring senior bankers and traders as other firms cut

    BNP Paribas will provide continuity of service to prime finance and electronic equities clients.