The problematic JOBS Act

March 21, 2012
piece in the latest issue of Wired magazine on the problem with IPOs in general, and technology IPOs in particular. In it, the JOBS Act comes across rather well:

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google,mail" data-share-count="false">

I have a piece in the latest issue of Wired magazine on the problem with IPOs in general, and technology IPOs in particular. In it, the JOBS Act comes across rather well:

It’s about to get easier for tech CEOs to ignore the IPO’s siren song. Legislation wending its way through Congress would change SEC rules, meaning no tech company would find itself forced to go public in the way that Facebook has. The bills, which have been supported quite vocally by a number of CEOs at pre-IPO companies in Silicon Valley, as well as VCs who want more control over the timing of their companies’ IPOs, would not count employees toward a company’s 500-investor limit. The legislation would also raise that limit to 1,000 shareholders.

I do think these changes to the 500-shareholder rule make perfect sense. Right now, companies like Facebook (and Google before it) tie themselves up in knots when it comes to giving equity to employees, handing out variations on the stock-unit theme rather than actual equity, just to get around this rule. That benefits no one, really. And ultimately they’re forced to go public anyway, with the timing imposed upon them by SEC regulations rather than being a matter of their own choice.

But this doesn’t mean that I’m a supporter of the JOBS Act more generally, which has been vehemently opposed not only by the usual subjects (Eliot Spitzer, Simon Johnson) but also by the much more centrist editorial board of the New York Times, which almost never saw a bipartisan bill it didn’t like. Even Bloomberg View has come out strongly against the act, in an editorial which, it’s worth remembering, is meant to broadly reflect the views of Mike Bloomberg personally. The SEC opposes it, as do former SEC officials like Arthur Levitt and a long list of consumer organizations.

A lot of the act is very hard to defend. The crowdfunding (a/k/a crowdmuppeting) part, for instance, seems very badly thought out: it’s certain to create a whole new class of startups which raise substantial sums on some Kickstarter-like platform, without having anything like the controls and staffing necessary to do the investor-relations job they’re letting themselves in for. On top of that, of course, there’s enormous scope for outright fraud here, given the lack of real penalties for issuers who lie.

Higher up the food chain, companies going public in an IPO could not only put out incomplete information in glossy sales pitches for themselves; they could also outsource that job to investment-bank analysts hoping their bank will win lucrative mandates down the road. There’s no good reason at all for this: it’s basically a way for unpopular incumbent lawmakers who voted for Dodd-Frank to try to weasel their way back into the big banks’ good graces and thereby open a campaign-finance spigot they desperately need.

I don’t fully understand the political dynamics here. A bill which was essentially drafted by a small group of bankers and financiers has managed to get itself widespread bipartisan support, even as it rolls back decades of investor protections. That wouldn’t have been possible a couple of years ago, and I’m unclear what has changed. But one thing is coming through loud and clear: anybody looking to Congress to be helpful in the fight to have effective regulation of financial institutions, is going to be very disappointed. Much more likely is that Congress will be actively unhelpful, and will do whatever the financial industry wants in terms of hobbling regulators and deregulating as much activity as it possibly can. Dodd-Frank, it seems, was a brief aberration. Now, we’re back to business as usual, and a captured Congress.


Comments are closed.