Small tick sizes are hurting the markets
Photo by Luigi Rosa

Mr. Steiner is the Chief Operating Officer and Managing Director – Investment Banking at Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc.  The views expressed in this posting are Mr. Steiner’s personal views and should not be attributed to Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., its employees, affiliates or subsidiaries or to Gunster.   

While the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”) is a well-intentioned effort to assist smaller companies in their ability to raise capital (and ultimately increase hiring), it falls short with respect to one of the most pressing problems facing capital formation. One can not argue with relaxed rules in several areas such as (i) permitting solicitation for certain private placements; (ii) reducing the reporting requirements for Emerging Growth Companies (generally, newly public companies with less than $1 billion in annual revenue); and (iii) improving the largely unused Regulation A; however, while the burdens of becoming publicly traded have been eased for some smaller companies under the JOBS Act legislation, a major issue that was not addressed is the inability of small and micro-capitalization public companies to fully gain the benefits of their publicly traded status. Or more to the point – it might be easier to go public via the IPO process, but why be public in the first place? 

Regardless of size, a company’s status as being publicly traded is an asset. The manner in which a company maximizes the value of its public status is by maximizing the liquidity in its traded securities in the public markets. This results in easier, more predictable capital raising, the ability to use its stock as currency for acquisitions and hiring of key personnel, and less opportunity for “game-playing” by the unsavory
Continue Reading GUEST BLOGGER: Tick size remains large obstacle for middle market public companies

Penn State Freeh reportMr. Lamm is Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary at Pfizer Inc. and a Gunster alumnus.  The views expressed in this posting are Mr. Lamm’s personal views and should not be attributed to Pfizer Inc. or to Gunster.

While nothing good has come out of the Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse scandal at Penn State, I am not aware of anyone who has focused on the lessons learned, particularly the link between corporate governance and the scandal.  However, in my view, anyone who professes to be interested in corporate governance (or compliance) should read the report prepared by former FBI Director Louis Freeh and give it some thought.  It is comprehensive, well organized, well written and thoughtful; in short, it is an important document, notwithstanding the sordid subject matter and the massive human tragedy involved.

Of course, Penn State is an educational institution rather than a publicly traded company, and the facts of the Sandusky scandal are arguably not likely to be replicated in a public company setting.  However, many of the issues outlined in the Freeh Report apply equally to public companies – or to almost any form of organization – as much as to educational institutions, including the following (just to cover a few):

  • Boards of directors (or trustees, governors, etc.) tend to be blamed when bad things happen, even if they are not given the information they should be given and have no way of knowing that information.  Penn State’s trustees were excoriated in the press and other media for not dealing with the matter early on, despite the fact that they hadn’t been informed about the matter, didn’t even know of its existence and had no reason to know of its existence.  It’s really no different in the corporate world; the media tend to ask “where was the board?” even when the board could not possibly have known what was going on.  For example, was it really the board’s responsibility to review specific derivative trades that resulted in losses to financial institutions – particularly when the managements of the institutions provided information about the trades and assured their boards that the risks were minimal? If – as most corporate practitioners agree – the proper function of the board is to oversee management (rather than to supplant it), why should the board be blamed?
  • Of course, good directors understand that they have an obligation to ask questions, including tough questions, to test what they are being told and to ferret out more than what they’re being told.  Reading the Freeh Report, one gets the impression that
    Continue Reading GUEST BLOGGER: Lessons learned in corporate governance from the Jerry Sandusky tragedy