por admin » Lun Mar 21, 2011 10:56 pm
Y que paso con los IPO, ofertas iniciales publicas (lanzamiento a bolsa)
No hay que ser Sherlock Holmes para darse cuenta
El departamente del Tesoro quiere aparecer mas amigable con los negocios -milagros ocurren- y el Secretario T. Geithner sera el anfitrion de una reunion hoy dia para explorar por que hay tan pocas companias que se quieran lanzar a la bolsa. Mr. Geithner no dice es mea culpa, pero hay que ver si esto sera algo positivo.
El problema es real. La noticia de un posible lanzamiento de Groupon por $25 billones es una excepcion por que la tendencia es a la baja. El anio pasado 72 companias se hicieron publicas en US, en la ultima decada el promedio ha sido menos de 50 el numero nunca ha alcanzado 100.
No es realista que se repita el fenomeno de los 90 cuando lo de la internet, cuando el promedio anual era mas de 270. Pero que tal la epoca de los 90s cuando el promedio era 160, tres veces lo que es ahora.
Las nuevas companias son la sangre y la vida de la economia capitalista. Cada venture o nueva compania que crece lanzandose a la bolsa podria ser la proxima Google, Intel, Starbucks o Amgem. Inversiones venture agrega 0.2% al PBI (GDP) de US, pero las ventas de las companias fueron el 21% de la economia en el 2008. La menor habilidad de empezar una empresa con el lanzamiento a bolsa desalienta las inversiones en sus inicios. Los capitalistas que empiezan ventures saben que ellos necesitan la financiacion para tener exito en un mercado donde miles de companias no encuentran un mercado.
El debate hoy dia no sera acerca de como el sistema esta roto sino en quien lo rompio y como mejorarlo. El elefante en el cuarto es la ley de 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley que ha costado billones de dolares a las companias. Pero los contadores que se benefician de la ley y el Tesoro mantienen que la les es solamente uno de los factores para desalentar a las companias a lanzarse a la bolsa. Este punto de vista es el que mas se comparte en Washington por que Sarbox fue una ley bipartidaria, una reaccion exagerada a los escandalos contables de Enron y WorldCom y que fue firmada por G. Bush.
La coalicion quiere tocar otros temas, algunos validos. Por ejemplo los limites de los inmigrantes nos quita capacidad para competir. Las litigaciones son muy costosas en US. La regulacion de Eliot Spitzer sobre los analistas hacen que ellos no sigan a las pequenas companias y hace mas dificil que los inversionsitas pongan dinero en companias mas pequenias.
Todos son puntos validos, pero cuando una companias pasa en valor los $100 billones en ventas y decide permanecer privada - lo cual ocurre mucho ahora - no es por que los fundadores estan esperando un cambio en la politica de inmigracion. Cuando Facebook, que ya es uno de los nombres mas famosos en el pais, decide esperar no es por que los ejecutivos tienen miedo a los analistas.
Un sondeo en el 2009 habla volumenes. El SEC pregunto a las companias publicas acerca de la ley Sarbox, especificamente de la seccion 404, la cual mada una auditoria externa conocida como "costos internos" adicionalmente a las auditorias normales de los estados financieros. Eso es demasiada burocracia.
No es sorpresa, que el 70% de las pequenias publicas le dijeron al SEC que la seccion 404 los ha motivado a pensar en hacerse privadas nuevamente. y el 77% de las companias extranjeras dijo que la ley las habia motivado abandonar el listing en US.
La pregunta para las companias ahora es como siempre, si es que el costo de hacerse publicas vale la pena. Es indiscutuble que el costo ha subido en los ultimos anios en US. Aparte de la seccion 404 el Congreso ha hecho mas facil que los sindicatos participen incrementado los juicios, las empresas reciben multas por errores en lo que reportan, nada de esto hace mas atractivo el hacerse publica.
Con US sufriendo un desempleo del 9%, es tiempo para los dos partidos para hacer el calculo del costo/beneficio para que los IPOs tengan un mejor balance. Deben repeler la ley de Sarbor.
Whatever Happened to IPOs?
You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out
The Obama Treasury is trying to appear more business friendly—miracles happen—and so Secretary Tim Geithner will host a meeting today to explore why so few U.S. businesses are going public. Mr. Geithner has not said this will be a Washington mea culpa, but it ought to be if it's going to do any good.
The problem is real. Recent news of a potential $25 billion initial public offering for the Web-based bargain hunting company Groupon is an exception because the overall trend is down. Last year 72 venture-capital-backed companies went public in the U.S., according to data from Thomson Reuters and the National Venture Capital Association. Over the last decade, the annual number has never reached 100 and has averaged fewer than 50.
Yes, it's unrealistic to expect a repeat of the late-1990s Internet boom, when annual IPOs twice exceeded 270. But how about the early 1990s, before the dot-com mania skewed the numbers? The U.S. averaged 160 a year from 1990-1994, three times the current rate.
New companies are the lifeblood of a capitalist economy. Every venture-backed start-up that grows into a public company could be the next Google, Intel, Starbucks or Amgen. Venture investment adds up to 0.2% of U.S. GDP, but the revenue of companies created with such investment amounted to 21% of the economy in 2008. The diminished ability of start-ups to hit the long ball with an IPO discourages investments at all the earlier stages. Venture capitalists know they need some equity home runs to offset losses in the thousands of firms that never find a market.
At today's conference, the debate won't be whether the system of growing young firms into public corporations is broken but over who killed this market and how to fix it. The elephant in the room is the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law, which triggered billions of dollars in new compliance costs for public companies. But the accountants who profit from Sarbox and the Treasury maintain that the law is merely one of many factors discouraging new public companies. This view is shared by most in Washington because Sarbox was a bipartisan overreaction to the accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom and was signed by George W. Bush.
Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook Inc.
.The coalition that wants to change the subject whenever Sarbox is mentioned fingers other problems, some of which are real. Limits on immigration dull our competitive edge. Hyper-litigation is always a costly drag on U.S. GDP. Eliot Spitzer's settlement over stock research on Wall Street reduced the analyst coverage for small companies and thus made it harder to get their story out to investors. A decade ago, "decimalization" at the stock exchanges delivered small savings for investors on each transaction but reduced the profits for brokerages, especially when trading small-cap stocks.
Valid points all, but when a young company rockets past $100 million in revenues and decides to remain private—a common occurrence lately—it's not because the founders are waiting for a change in immigration policy. When Facebook, already one of the most famous brand names in America, decides to hold off on an IPO, it's not because its executives fear a lack of analyst coverage. And it's definitely not because decimalization has made Wall Street uninterested in trading the shares of a company already valued at $50 billion or more.
A 2009 survey from the Securities and Exchange Commission speaks volumes. The SEC asked public companies about Sarbox's infamous Section 404, which mandates an external audit of an internal audit of a company's financial practices, known as "internal controls," on top of the traditional audits of corporate financial statements. That's as much bureaucracy as any human should be forced to endure under the Geneva Convention.
Not surprisingly, 70% of small public companies told the SEC that Section 404 has motivated them to consider going private again, and 77% of small foreign firms said the law has motivated them to consider abandoning their U.S. listings.
The question for companies now, as ever, is whether the benefits of going public are worth the costs. It's indisputable that America has raised those costs in recent years. In addition to Sarbox's Section 404, Congress has made it easier for big labor to get proxy access, increased the opportunities for lawsuits, too often turned reporting mistakes into major fines or potential felonies, and meddled into corporate pay decisions. None of these make going public more attractive.
With America still suffering close to 9% unemployment, it's time for both parties to bring the cost/benefit calculus for IPOs back into balance. "Our members are working on improvements and exemptions," says a House Republican aide about potential Sarbox reform. White House leadership on this issue, as with so many others, may not be expected but it would be decisive. Mr. Geithner could help the economy, and his Administration's reputation, by calling for Sarbox relief.