Advertisement

June 19, 2013

Securities and Exchange Commission "SEC" Roundtable Discusses Decimalization and Tick Sizes

On February 5, the Securities and Exchange Commission hosted a roundtable discussion regarding the impact that decimal-based pricing increments (i.e., decimalization), which replaced fraction-based tick sizes in 2001, has had on US securities markets, investors, issuers and market professionals. Some have argued that decimalization is one of the principal reasons for the dramatic decrease in smaller initial public offerings. Participants in the roundtable included academics, representatives of securities exchanges, institutional investors, venture capital firms, market makers, retail brokerage firms and other market professionals.

Panelists discussed whether the current decimalization regime could be enhanced to promote capital formation and, in particular, revitalize the market for initial public offerings in the United States. The roundtable focused on the impact of decimalization on small- and mid-cap companies (generally, companies with market capitalizations below $1 billion), and the potential advantages and disadvantages of larger tick sizes in terms of liquidity, the availability of analyst research for small- and mid-cap companies, price discovery and transaction costs. Panelists also discussed the potential merits and design of a potential SEC pilot program intended to establish an empirical basis for action, if any, that the SEC may take with respect to tick sizes. While SEC staff members indicated that no final decision had been made to move forward with a pilot program, participants in the roundtable generally favored the concept of such a program.

The roundtable represents part of the SEC’s response to Section 106(b) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, which required the SEC to study and report on the impact that decimalization has had on the number of initial public offerings since its implementation, as well as the impact decimalization has had on liquidity for small- and mid-cap company securities. In the SEC’s July 2012 Report to Congress on Decimalization delivered pursuant to the JOBS Act, the SEC staff recommended that the SEC “solicit the views of investors, companies, market professionals, academics and other interested parties on the broad topic of decimalization,” including how to best study its effects. The staff also recommended that the SEC not then proceed with any specific rulemaking to increase tick sizes.

To view a webcast of the roundtable, click here.

©2013 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

About the Author

Partner

Mark Wood is co-head of Katten's Securities Practice, concentrating his practice in corporate and securities law. Mr. Wood represents issuers and investment banks in IPOs and other public offerings and private placements of equity and debt securities and in other securities matters. He also represents clients in complex corporate transactions, including tender offers, mergers, acquisitions, dispositions, going private transactions, private equity investments, joint ventures and strategic alliances, and is a leading practitioner in representing investors, public companies...

312-902-5493

About the Author

Associate

Jonathan D. Weiner concentrates his practice in corporate and securities matters.

Mr. Weiner earned his BA from Colgate University and his JD from Emory University School of Law. He is admitted to practice in New York.

212-940-6349

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.