U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

63–126 PDF 2011

A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE OFFERING 

LIMIT UNDER SEC REGULATION A 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 8, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 111–168 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

JOHN ADLER, New Jersey 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

December 8, 2010 ............................................................................................. 1 

Appendix: 

December 8, 2010 ............................................................................................. 27 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 00, 2009 

Cutler, Scott, Executive Vice President and Co-Head of U.S. Listings and 

Cash Execution, NYSE Euronext ....................................................................... 11 

Eshoo, Hon. Anna, a Representative in Congress from the State of California . 3 

Hambrecht, William R., Founder, Chairman, & Chief Executive Officer, WR 

Hambrecht + Co. .................................................................................................. 8 

Lempres, Michael T., Assistant General Counsel and Practice Head, SVB 

Financial Group ................................................................................................... 10 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Cutler, Scott ...................................................................................................... 28 

Hambrecht, William R. .................................................................................... 31 

Lempres, Michael T. ......................................................................................... 49 

(1) 

A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE OFFERING 

LIMIT UNDER SEC REGULATION A 

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barney Frank [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Frank, Maloney, Watt, Moore 

of Kansas, Hinojosa, McCarthy of New York, Baca, Lynch, Miller 

of North Carolina, Scott, Klein, Foster, Himes; and Castle. 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. Our Republican 

colleagues are caucusing, and we will begin. I know our colleague 

from Delaware, Mr. Castle, is on the way, but unexpected traffic 

problems have caused a problem. 

This hearing was called—we haven’t been doing much in the 

lame duck session, but we thought that this was a topic that was, 

frankly, not a partisan or terribly controversial one in a lot of ways. 

As I understand it, the Securities and Exchange Commission 

would have the power to do what we are talking about today, 

which was to raise the level on Regulation A. I know people keep 

talking about it as ‘‘Reg A,’’ but that led some people to think that 

there would be Caribbean music and dancing. And I don’t want to 

attract the wrong—not the wrong, but a different crowd to this particular hearing. My legislation on the legalization of marijuana will 

be heard in another committee. So I did want to keep the distinction clear, although both of these have a certain support in northern California. 

The question is whether or not we should be urging—our colleague from Delaware has been able to join us, and we appreciate 

it—the SEC, as a practical matter, to increase this limit. The argument, clearly, is that it is helpful for capital formation for smaller 

companies and, in fact, is no detraction from a reasonable regulatory scheme. 

We invited some witnesses, and we worked with the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Eshoo, who is here, who is a major 

proponent of this. We did not specifically invite people we knew to 

be opposed, but we haven’t heard from people who are. But let me 

make clear that the record stays open, if there are groups. And I 

know that sometimes when we deal with questions—for instance, 

on the reach of Sarbanes-Oxley, there are various groups representing investors or pension funds who express concerns. We 

have heard of none in this case, but this hearing may elicit some. 

2 

And the hearing record will be open if there are any who would 

like to exercise different views. 

I do have—where is that paper—two statements I wanted to 

mention now. 

One, the National Venture Capital Association has offered a 

statement in support of this, arguing that it will enable more small 

companies to attract capital. And if there is no objection—and 

there does not appear to be any—that will be put into the record. 

And, without objection, the record will stay open for any further 

comments that people might have on this proposal. 

I should note also that it was Speaker Pelosi who first called this 

to my attention. Earlier in the year, we were a little busy with a 

couple of other matters people may remember. But it is something 

that the Speaker has taken a great interest in because of her interest in job creation. So we are glad, finally, to have this hearing. It 

may be in the next Congress that legislation could happen; it may 

also be that the SEC might be persuaded by some of what they 

hear today to do this. 

I, finally, will apologize for the fact that at 10:25, I will be leaving and turning the hearing over to the gentleman from Kansas, 

Mr. Moore, because I will be required to attend the meeting of the 

Democratic Steering and Policy Committee to make the case as to 

why I should remain the ranking member—or not remain, but return to the position I once had of ranking member. 

With that, I will recognize our colleague from Delaware. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I really don’t have an opening statement. I think we should get 

right to our witnesses, with the time limitations, except to welcome 

Anna Eshoo and the other witnesses who are to testify today. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, wanted to make a 2- 

minute statement. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say a couple of points about this issue. It is of some 

interest to me, and I just wanted to make for the record a couple 

of points that, certainly, I think should be made regarding the increase of the offering limit under SEC regulations. 

I think it is very important that the proposed increase from $5 

million to $30 million, though substantial, could indeed yield possible results if implemented appropriately. Because I think that 

this could help with job creation. And, as you know, on this committee I have been very, very much at the forefront of trying to appropriate our policy to place job creation at the forefront. And so 

I think that there is an advantage to this as job creation. And to 

facilitate the development of new technologies and products could 

also result from such an increase. 

We have seen the dollar limit increase incrementally 5 times 

from its original level of $100,000 to the current level of $5 million, 

which was established in 1980. Since 30 years have now passed, 

the effects of inflation alone could be argued as a reason to increase 

the offering limit. And such an increase could enable smaller companies, small businesses, many of whom are backed by venture 

capital firms, more timely access to funding. And, again, these are 

3 

the areas where jobs are created, our small businesses. And I think 

that this will be, certainly, helpful. 

So I am certainly interested in hearing from my colleague, Ms. 

Eshoo—I know of her great interest in this issue—in terms of what 

her opinions are in terms of what increase should be made to the 

offering, if any. 

Certainly, beyond any numerical increase in the limit, Congress 

should also consider the expected implementation by the SEC and 

whether such an increase would either be mandated or simply authorized. 

Those are some important points I wanted to make. I look forward to Ms. Eshoo. I certainly respect her opinion on these areas. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Maloney, 

is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. First of all, I want to welcome my good friend 

and colleague, Anna Eshoo. And I very much look forward to her 

testimony, so I will be very, very brief. 

The issue of giving smaller companies the tools and resources 

they need to raise capital and become the driving force of our economy is really critical for economic recovery. So I think that this 

hearing is very timely and important, as it pertains to job creation. 

And I look forward to her testimony about the benefits of raising 

the offering limit under Regulation A, as well as whether it will increase the use of the exemption for small issuers. So I welcome her, 

and I look forward to her testimony. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. And our colleague from California is now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANNA ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for inviting me to testify today to talk about this proposal 

to increase the offering limit under SEC Regulation A, which was, 

as you know, enacted during the Great Depression to facilitate the 

flow of capital into small businesses. 

As you know, I represent the innovation capital of our country, 

Silicon Valley. And we know there if we don’t constantly innovate, 

we stagnate. 

The larger policy context for raising the Regulation A limit from 

$5 million to $30 million is to create what we are so desperate for: 

good jobs. We need to promote capital formation, technological innovation, and job creation. And I think that we can achieve these 

goals by revitalizing what is essentially a nonworking section of the 

Securities Act. 

So you may all ask, what is the problem and why should we consider increasing today’s limits in Regulation A? The main problem 

is that hardly anybody uses it. Currently, there is little incentive 

to support the small initial public offerings under Regulation A. In 

fact, the current regulations are a disincentive, burdening a $5 million offering with $1 million to $2 million in underwriting expenses. So that is a pretty good reason why people aren’t using it. 

4 

At the same time, the threshold for traditional IPO funding has 

grown out of reach for most small companies, leaving them without 

the viable alternatives to raise money. 

Two firms in my congressional district, Silicon Valley Bank and 

Wilson Sonsini, have more than 9,000 private company clients between them—companies that are or will need an infusion of public 

capital. Under a revised Regulation A, small companies would gain 

access to capital, and it is a way to test the market to see if there 

is additional support. Regulation A will allow companies to seek 

small infusions of funds as they go along, and then investors can 

demonstrate their confidence with their checkbooks. 

But without this access to public capital markets, good ideas are 

really withering on the vine. And the impact of this recession on 

the venture capital market cannot be understated; it has been devastating. 

Raising the Regulation A cap from $5 million to $30 million, I 

think, is a jobs program, and we should think about it that way— 

good jobs that are focused on the cutting edge of innovation, creating new products, new markets, additional growth for our economy. And these would be jobs created here in the United States. 

In considering whether to raise the limits, it is useful to examine 

the history. In 1933, Congress set the dollar limit under Regulation 

A at $100,000. It has been raised several times since then: 

$300,000 in 1945; $500,000 in 1972; $1.5 million in 1978; $2 million in 1978; and $5 million in 1980. But, in 1980, the SEC waited 

until 1992 to actually adopt the same change in the rule. So it has 

been some time. 

In Silicon Valley, companies are seeking capital for the next 

breakthrough of technologies and finding the available capital— 

and this is what really gets me—in other parts of the world. We 

are falling behind as the world’s technology leader, and a few simple modifications could make Regulation A an engine for capital 

formation and economic growth. 

Congress, of course, must weigh the potential risks to investor 

protection and the potential benefits—that is our job—all associated with Regulation A. It is a meaningful capital conduit, as it 

was originally intended. And the SEC can and should use its recently invigorated, thanks to your committee and your leadership 

here, reinvigorated enforcement program to prevent abuses. 

But make no mistake: There is pent-up demand. The money is 

available, and investors are willing. And there are unnamed ventures today that have the potential to be the future: Googles; 

Genentechs; Facebooks; and eBays. And we can do something to 

help make this happen. 

So I think overall this is a modest proposal, but I think it has 

high potential for capital formation, for technological innovation, 

and for job creation in our country. And, for all these reasons, I 

urge the committee to give all due consideration to the proposal to 

raise the cap on Regulation A offerings. 

And I thank you for having me here today. It is an honor to appear before the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I am going to ask just a brief question. 

5 

One of the things you mentioned in the bill—what I am hoping 

is that, in the funding resolution that is about to go through, both 

the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission get the significant increases they have 

asked for. We give a number of regulatory bodies increased authority, but the FDIC, the Fed, and the Comptroller, the new version, 

are largely self-funded through fees, and the new consumer agency 

will be. But the SEC and the CFTC, which both get significant increased responsibilities over derivatives and other issues, need the 

extra money. 

In a small way, though, this would seem to me to contribute— 

if I am correct, doing this would considerably free up some SEC resources. That is, by increasing this level, you would theoretically 

allow people to—not theoretically—you would allow people to go 

forward, and the SEC would not have to divert resources. Not 

huge, but it would go in the right direction. 

Would that be accurate? 

Ms. ESHOO. It seems to me, on the face of it, that you have just 

stated the case; it would. It would free up resources. And— 

The CHAIRMAN. And allow the SEC to concentrate on— 

Ms. ESHOO. Exactly, on other things. 

And I think, too, Mr. Chairman, that when you look at how 

many IPOs there were in 2005 and you take it to 2009, there is 

a drastic, drastic falloff. 

So this is a wonderful tool. It is not government money; this is 

private-sector money that would go into the public capital markets. 

So it is an important tool. It is not being used. There is a pentup demand. 

So I think it is really an important proposal. And we are desperate to create jobs in this country. We know that. No matter 

where we go, people talk about it, ‘‘What are we going to do?’’ Here 

is a way of addressing at least part of it, a very important part of 

it. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. 

And I do say, those who are fully familiar with the works of Jonathan Swift might want to refrain from calling this a ‘‘modest proposal,’’ since his modest proposal was not a great idea, if people remember it. It was somewhat sarcastic. But that does not detract 

from the merits of this. 

With that, I will recognize the gentleman from Delaware, and 

ask the gentleman from Kansas to assume the chair. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have no questions of the Congresswoman, except to thank her 

for, I thought, a clear statement of advocacy for this. I don’t know 

what the other side is, but you did a good job on the pro side of 

it. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. CASTLE. So we thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Ms. ESHOO. It is lovely to see you, and we are going to miss you 

here a great deal. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. Thank you, Anna. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. [presiding] I understand Mr. Castle is 

finished. 

6 

Do you yield back? 

Mr. CASTLE. I do. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, sir. 

And do any other members have questions for Ms. Eshoo? 

Mrs. MALONEY. I do. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Yes, Mrs. Maloney? 

Mrs. MALONEY. Congresswoman, does the SEC need an act of 

Congress to raise the exemption, or could they do it by themselves 

and set the limit? 

Ms. ESHOO. I believe the SEC can take this on itself; they have 

before. But I think the oversight of the committee is very important, as well. And I know that the next panel, especially Mr. 

Hambrecht, can talk about or raise the issue of where there could 

be potential abuses and the protection of investors. But I do believe 

that the SEC can take this on themselves. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And how did you arrive at the $30 million number? How was that derived? 

Ms. ESHOO. It really is—that number was arrived at by the 

needs of what small companies really need to help get off the 

ground. In other words, it is a workable number. Is it hard and 

fast? I don’t think so, but I think that that range is very important. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And how does Reg A work now? 

Ms. ESHOO. It is not working. No one uses it. That is the problem. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But I am told that eight companies used it last 

year. 

Ms. ESHOO. Eight in our whole country. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. That says something in and of itself. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. 

Ms. ESHOO. When I have two firms in my congressional district, 

as I mentioned, Silicon Valley Bank and Wilson Sonsini—just between the two of them, they have about 9,000 company clients that 

are looking to make investments. So that is why this has collected 

dust. The ceiling on it simply doesn’t work in the 21st Century. 

And there is pent-up demand, and we should want to meet that demand. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. I have no further questions. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Any more questions? 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Eshoo, could you walk us through and give a 

good example of just how this is a tool for job creation and, specifically, how the $30 million in increase would turn over into an increase of jobs, as specifically as you could? 

Ms. ESHOO. It is a great question, because I think that, because 

we are so desperate for jobs, that whatever we do, we want to attach ‘‘and this will create jobs.’’ And it seems to be illusory, in 

many instances. 

It is important to understand how this money works. First of all, 

the regulation with a new cap would allow companies to seek these 

small infusions of funds as they go along. Then investors would 

demonstrate their confidence, as I said earlier, with their checkbooks. Now, what happens? Once these dollars are invested, that 

7 

is when the hiring starts taking place; that is how the companies 

actually start to grow. 

And it is important to know that, even against the backdrop of 

an economy where investment funds are scarce, at the high end, 

in deals of $100 million or more, there is a lot of action. But at the 

low end, deals of $50 million or less, the traditional IPO capital has 

really disappeared, and it hasn’t come back. And, as I said, in 2004, 

there were 40 IPOs at $50 million or less; in 2005, there were 38 

IPOs at $50 million or less; and in 2009, there was one. So, clearly 

the existing IPO structure is not getting the job done for smaller 

companies. 

And those innovative companies, those new companies that we 

want to be born and grow, as the dollars come in, they keep hiring. 

I remember when Eric Schmidt, when I saw him somewhere 

some years ago, I said, ‘‘Eric, what is new? What are you doing?’’ 

And he said, ‘‘Well, actually, I am going off to this outfit called 

Google.’’ And I said, ‘‘You have to be kidding.’’ It was the first time 

I had heard the word ‘‘Google.’’ 

So we need new companies to be born, but these are the ingredients that help them grow. And, at this lower level of investment, 

nothing is going on. Essentially, the IPO market is—I don’t want 

to use the word ‘‘dead,’’ but, in 2009, one IPO? That says something. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. I agree with you. And I think what you are saying in terms of almost any direct infusion of capital, the lead consequence has to be job creation. And it certainly does. 

Would you not agree that the argument that the increase in this 

$30 million would pose a potential risk to investors, that argument 

is kind of weak and that the upside is and the benefit is this job 

creation that would be created? Is that the best way we can respond to the argument that some people might feel that there may 

be a risk to investors in this? 

Ms. ESHOO. I think it is important for both the SEC and for Congress to examine what the risks could be. I think that is a very important thing to do. Here we are at the end of 2010. We know what 

the cost of risk is in this country. People in the country have paid 

a great price for risks that have been taken. 

So I think that Mr. Hambrecht can better answer that. I think 

he knows in a broad and deep way what the risks could be and 

what areas need to be examined. 

But I have no doubt that, if this is structured correctly, with the 

right oversight, and this committee has built in a lot of new enforcement mechanisms, that this can be carried out very well, without abuses, and rebuild the IPO market in our country—which, as 

I said, there is a pent-up demand for this, and I think that we can 

do something about it. And America will win. 

Mr. SCOTT. I agree with you, Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you. 

Any other questions? 

Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. It was lovely to be with you. 

8 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. And could the next panel of witnesses 

please be seated? 

Thank you for being here today for this committee hearing. 

And we will ask each of the witnesses please to give their statement, if they have a statement to make. We will start with Mr. 

Hambrecht, founder and chairman and chief executive officer of 

Hambrecht & Co. 

Sir, if you would, please. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. HAMBRECHT, FOUNDER, CHAIRMAN, & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WR HAMBRECHT + CO. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

to present our proposals to hopefully—how shall I put it—rebuild 

an IPO market that has basically been moribund for the past decade. 

I think, rather than read my remarks, I would like to—I have 

submitted our answers to the questions that were directed to us 

from the committee. If I may, I would like to highlight a few of the 

points. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Please do. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. And then hopefully, if you have any questions, 

I would be happy to deal with them. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. First of all, the jobs question, which is really 

why we are all here. 

I think there is significant data out there that very much shows 

that the major engine of job creation for the past 4 or 5 decades 

in this country has come from new entrepreneurial companies. The 

National Venture Capital Association has estimated that 90 percent of job creation has come from these companies. Living and 

working in Silicon Valley, it is so obvious that even the HewlettPackards and the Intels are really young companies. They started 

in our generation, and they have grown tremendously. 

And it continues to happen. There are still some great young 

companies that come along. In our testimony, we pointed out three 

examples. Google, of course, is the obvious one. Ms. Eshoo brought 

it up. But when they went public 5 years ago, they had 1,628 employees. Today they have 19,800 employees. 

Now, it is easy to say, well, Google is a very unusual company. 

And it is. But there are countless examples of it. Another one, 

Salesforce, which became public really, I guess, just a year or so 

before Google, they had 500 employees; they now have 4,000 employees. 

But the one I do want to bring up, because I think it is more applicable to the world we are talking about, is Adobe, Adobe Systems. They went public in 1986, $5.5 million, a tiny little offering. 

At that time, they had 49 employees. Today they have 8,600 employees. 

And that is the kind of company we are worrying about. The 

Googles and the Salesforces of the world will attract underwriters 

and will be able to go into the public market. But it is the small 

software company, like an Adobe, that does not have access to the 

public market. 

9 

Representative Eshoo, I think, described the IPO market for 

under $50 million better than I could. We have a chart in our testimony that shows it. It is basically a number of offerings—it is 3 

percent of all public offerings in the past decade. And so, clearly, 

it just isn’t working for small companies. 

To move to the Regulation A exemption, the reason we focused 

on it is that, first of all, it is part of the regulatory landscape. It 

was written into the 1933 Act. It worked pretty well until, actually, 

1996. And in 1996, under the Securities Markets Act that was 

passed then, it granted a blue-sky exemption to any company that 

was listed on an exchange. And what this did is it took the burden 

away of having to file with 48 different State regulators—a very expensive, very time-consuming process. And it streamlined the IPO 

process. 

But the problem is, you really have to have an offering of somewhere between $20 million and $30 million to qualify to list on any 

of the exchanges, including NASDAQ. So to get the blue-sky exemption, you have to have an offering of $20 million or more. And 

this is what basically drove the Regulation A exemption into just 

an unworkable position. 

When you look at it, it has some advantages. It is basically a 

simplified S-1 registration statement. For those of you who have 

read prospectuses, the way to describe it is it leaves the last 50 

pages out, which are largely schedules, backup data that apply to 

big companies but really, for the most part, don’t really apply to 

smaller companies. 

Secondly, it allows you to test the market. It allows you to go out 

and talk to investors to see if they are interested before you commit 

to the expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars or, in an S-1 

process, millions of dollars. You can find out whether you have a 

good chance of basically succeeding. This is particularly important 

now because, since 2007, over 30 percent of the S-1 filings have 

been withdrawn, they have been unsuccessful. So this was a tremendous burden on the companies that tried to do the deals. 

And thirdly— 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. If you can, please wind up your testimony. Your time has expired, but if you could— 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. Okay. Let me just close, then— 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Sure. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. —with one set of data that I would ask you to 

look at. This is the data on M&A transactions versus IPO transactions. We have it in our testimony. 

Effectively, what you will see is that the M&A number is a minimum of 10 times what the IPO volume is. And, as a result, virtually every M&A transaction results in job loss. It is the consolidation of two companies, and you have overlap of overhead, and people lose jobs. And that is what is happening in Silicon Valley today. 

That is the exit route people are taking because the IPO possibility 

is not there. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hambrecht can be found on page 

31 of the appendix.] 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, sir, Mr. Hambrecht. 

10 

And next, Mr. Lempres, if you would please make your opening 

statement. And you are assistant general counsel and practice head 

for SVB Financial Group. Sir, you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. LEMPRES, ASSISTANT GENERAL 

COUNSEL AND PRACTICE HEAD, SVB FINANCIAL GROUP 

Mr. LEMPRES. Thank you very much. 

As mentioned, I am here with SVB Financial Group and its subsidiary, Silicon Valley Bank. One of the things that is unusual 

about SVB is that we have an extraordinarily deep connection with 

emerging growth companies, not only in Silicon Valley but throughout the Nation and, increasingly, throughout the world. Our platform gives us insight into both debt and equity funding channels. 

Through our subsidiary bank, Silicon Valley Bank, we are the 

premier provider of financial services for companies in the technology, life science, venture capital, and premium wine industries. 

We serve more than 13,000 client companies through 26 U.S. and 

5 international offices. And we provide banking services for approximately half of the venture-backed technology companies in the 

world today. 

In addition to our core banking service, SVB, the holding company, also sponsors or has sponsored venture capital funds through 

our SVB Capital Division and made investments in certain thirdparty venture funds. 

One of the things we do is a survey of startup businesses annually. In our Startup Outlook 2010 survey, executives for early-stage 

growth companies cited access to capital as their number one concern. So the executives identified that as their biggest challenge 

going forward. 

This is an accurate observation, in many ways: Both debt and equity to raise capital exists, but nearly all funding channels are currently under stress. You have heard some of the statistics about 

that already. Revising Regulation A could fill a need. 

The impetus behind the creation of Regulation A was a very good 

one. Unfortunately, in recent years, as you have been hearing, Regulation A has not proven to be a useful capital-raising vehicle for 

small issuers. It was used only a total of 78 times during the 10- 

year period between 1995 and 2004. An average of 8 filings a year, 

with a maximum amount of $5 million each, really proves the irrelevance of Regulation A in today’s economy. It is simply not a viable 

vehicle as currently structured. 

The proposed revision of Regulation A strikes a better balance. 

If Regulation A is to become effective, the offering size will have 

to be raised. And $30 million seems an appropriate limit to increase Regulation A offerings. In our view, actually, $50 million 

would make the Regulation A offerings more useful to companies 

engaged in capital-intensive sectors. And, in the innovation economy, there are some very good examples of these capital-intensive 

companies. For example, clean-energy companies now require substantial capital at relatively early stages in order to establish that 

a new technology is commercially feasible. 

I would also like to stress that many new products, new technologies are developed and implemented by emerging companies. 

High-growth small companies are more nimble, more entrepreVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:24 Jan 14, 2011 Jkt 063126 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\63126.TXT TERRIE
11 

neurial, and less invested in the status quo than larger companies 

as a general rule. Thus, it is the emerging company that often implements improvements and disruptive technologies that help revolutionize the way we work and live. And that is truly where much 

of the job growth comes from in America today. 

I know the committee asked six specific questions, and I look forward to answering them in more detail, as we have in the record. 

But I do want to stress a couple of things. 

You asked specifically about drawbacks to raising the limit under 

Regulation A. I think it has to be noted that smaller companies do 

tend to present different financial risks than bigger companies. 

They have, typically, a shorter financial history. But I would also 

say that the benefits of raising the limit to $30 million or $50 million, in our view, far outweighs any risks that would be presented. 

In job creation alone, it would be a significant step. 

I just would like to thank you for this opportunity to present information on such an important topic. I believe the proposed revision of Regulation A could make a real difference to small businesses and the entire economy, particularly its innovation sector. 

With that, I thank you and look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lempres can be found on page 

49 of the appendix.] 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, Mr. Lempres, for your testimony. 

And next, the Chair will recognize Mr. Scott Cutler, executive 

vice president and co-head of U.S. listing and cash execution at 

New York Stock Exchange Euronext. 

Mr. Cutler, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT CUTLER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

AND CO-HEAD OF U.S. LISTINGS AND CASH EXECUTION, 

NYSE EURONEXT 

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee. 

I represent, as you said, NYSE Euronext, the world’s leading and 

diverse exchange group with businesses in equities, futures, options, and markets throughout the United States and in Europe. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I applaud your 

strong commitment, even in the late days of this Congress, to promoting legislation that will help more American entrepreneurs access the capital that they need to expand their businesses and create jobs. 

Across America’s economy today, small businesses are struggling 

to find capital. A record 41 percent of small-business owners cannot 

get adequate financing, according to the most recent data of the 

National Small Business Association, up from 22 percent in 2008. 

Regulation A was adopted to address this very challenge, specifically to provide small businesses with the opportunity to access 

capital markets without incurring the expense or meeting the regulatory burden of full registration under the Securities Act of 1933. 

Increasing the SEC’s Regulation A exemption from $5 million to 

$30 million would open the capital markets to more entreVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:24 Jan 14, 2011 Jkt 063126 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\63126.TXT TERRIE
12 

preneurs—a vital step towards fueling America’s most vigorous jobcreation machine. 

Oftentimes, the greatest acceleration in job growth occurs after 

a company’s initial public offering. In fact, the National Venture 

Capital Association reports that 92 percent of all job growth within 

publicly traded companies occurs after the company’s IPO. 

Consider a few examples. When Pixar released its first fulllength movie, a little animated film called ‘‘Toy Story,’’ the company employed fewer than 100 people. Going public provided the 

financing for Pixar to grow from a small animator to a major motion picture studio. By the time the company released ‘‘Toy Story 

3’’ last summer, the number of jobs at Pixar alone had grown more 

than eightfold. 

Another growing company, Vitamin Shoppe, went public last 

year in 2009. In the 9 months that followed, the company created 

nearly 300 new jobs and opened 29 new stores, the fastest expansion in its history. 

Congress has long recognized the benefit of helping small businesses secure capital through public offerings, yet, over the years, 

the Regulation A exemption has not been scaled to meet the demands of our modern economy. The $5 million exemption, which 

was last raised in 1980, is not indexed for inflation. It is now too 

small to warrant companies incurring the time and expense to satisfy the offering and disclosure requirements of Regulation A. As 

a result, between 1995 and 2004, as others have said, on average, 

only eight companies per year utilize Regulation A. 

While some believe that Regulation D, which is the mechanism 

that most companies use for private placements, offers a viable 

means for small companies to raise capital, this provision has critical limitations. Regulation D offerings can only be made to a small 

group of qualified investors, and securities sold in such transactions are subject to transfer restrictions. A Regulation A offering, 

on the other hand, is a public offering, providing access to a large 

pool of investors. 

Raising the Regulation A exemption to $30 million seems to be 

a reasonable maximum, although most full registration IPOs today 

involve significantly higher offering minimums. Thus, this still 

leaves a gap between the $30 million ceiling and the level at which 

a company can realistically access the full registration IPO market. 

So, in order to be effective, any modification of Regulation A 

must be implemented in a way that promotes capital raising by 

smaller companies while also protecting investors. This is why 

NYSE Euronext believes Congress should also direct the SEC to 

avoid imposing disclosure, governance, and other burdensome provisions that may actually increase costs and reduce the 

attractiveness of Regulation A. 

An exchange trading platform may have advantages for companies that issue securities in Regulation A offerings. Establishing a 

separate exchange trading platform may make these offerings more 

effective by providing some structural elements to improve liquidity, trading interest, and economics, as well as investor interest. 

However, we believe that further investigation would be required 

to determine if such platforms would be economically feasible. 

13 

We believe all the relevant data point to one direction: Entrepreneurs and small businesses cannot access the capital they need 

to grow and create jobs. And I urge you to revive Regulation A and 

dedicate it to the role Congress originally intended. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify, and I look forward 

to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler can be found on page 28 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, Mr. Cutler. 

And thanks to all of our witnesses, including Representative 

Anna Eshoo, for your testimony here today. 

And I would like to now begin my questions for Mr. Lempres. I 

appreciate the point you made on page 4 of your written statement 

that, ‘‘Small, growing companies need a variety of funding options, 

including equity-based financing, to compete and grow their businesses. Congress should continue doing all it can, as we have with 

legislation like the Small Business Jobs Act enacted into law earlier this year, to empower small businesses and give them every opportunity to succeed and create jobs.’’ 

On page 6 of your statement, sir, you indicate your support for increasing the Reg A threshold from $5 million to $30 million and 

even a further increase up to $50 million. It seems to me like an 

increase to $30 million make sense, but I think we should also 

make sure this increase is designed to help smaller issuers and not 

their mid-sized or larger competitors. 

Mr. Lempres, would you support legislation that raises the threshold to $30 million for now but then require the SEC to review this threshold every 5 years or so, and if there is sufficient 

evidence to provide for a higher limit, they would be given flexibility to do so? Would you support that, sir? 

Mr. LEMPRES. Yes. I think that is a good idea. I don’t think there is any magic to a $30 million or $50 million 

figure. But I do think that we should be aware that the world is 

changing and that there are companies now, as I mentioned earlier, particularly, for example, in the clean-energy sector, where it 

takes a great deal of capital to get going. We have some wonderful 

ideas, again, not just in Silicon Valley but around the country, and 

it is difficult to make sure those ideas are able to be fully funded. 

I think $30 million is a reasonable number. I think it is certainly 

more effective, and I think you would see some real activity at that 

level. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Hambrecht or Mr. Cutler, would you support providing the 

SEC with some flexibility on this threshold if they have strong evidence that raising it will benefit small issuers while not compromising oversight or adequate investor protection? Does $30 million 

strike the right balance? 

Mr. Hambrecht, do you have a comment on that? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. Yes, I believe $30 million would allow companies to use it. The vast majority of companies that don’t have access to the market, I think, could and would use the $30 million 

exemption. 

I might add, if I could, on the risk side of it, the one criticism 

of Reg A is that it doesn’t require audited financials. And I think 

14 

it would be important to have the SEC implement it with whatever 

else they think is necessary. Because virtually every company that 

raises money outside has audited numbers, so it doesn’t really 

mean anything. So I think applying a requirement for an audit 

would be a positive step, along with the $30 million. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Cutler, any comments? 

Mr. CUTLER. Yes, we would also be supportive of that. 

I would note that becoming a public company is important because it provides permanent access to capital. And we noted earlier 

that most companies today are not able to access the public markets and access to permanent capital without raising $75 million 

to $100 million. And so, having a much lower threshold to be able 

to attract permanent capital in the public markets at $30 million 

is an adequate level. 

I would note that still does create a gap between what is currently a standard IPO for most companies. And so I think we 

would be very supportive of that; as well, also supportive of what 

Bill had indicated. The need for audited financials and disclosure 

to protect investors for these types of offerings is also important. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Hambrecht, on page 4 of your testimony, you lay out a rough 

estimate of about 750,000 jobs that could, in theory, be created by 

raising the Reg A limit to $30 million. 

Do you have any sense of how long it might take to create that 

many jobs through adjustments to Regulation A? And is there anything Congress can do to speed up job creation through these or 

other adjustments to Reg A? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. First of all, I think it is important that this 

Regulation A adjustment be made as soon as possible. Right now, 

every day, you read more and more companies are being acquired. 

So I think it is a very real time problem today that has to be adjusted. 

How long it will take to get going, it is hard to say. We have 

talked to literally dozens of companies that are very willing and 

able to move ahead as soon as this is implemented. I would hope 

that basically, the small-cap market declined by about 4,000 companies over the last decade. So that says to me there probably 

should have been 4,000 IPOs over the last decade. Which, incidentally, would be 400 a year, which is about equal to what it was in 

the 1990’s and the 1980’s. 

So, to me, as soon as you can get it going, I would imagine—it 

is hard to imagine 500 offerings the first year, but I would be willing to bet it would happen over the next 3 to 4 years. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, sir. 

And I would like to ask the same question of the other gentlemen, except my time has expired. And I would ask you, if you have 

any comments on that, to submit those in writing, please. 

Next, the Chair will recognize Mr. Castle for 5 minutes. Sir? 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to try to take the conversation a little bit beyond some 

of the testimony and something that the chairman asked a moment 

ago that was the latter part of what he stated. But all of us here— 

it has been stated in both opening statements and by CongressVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:24 Jan 14, 2011 Jkt 063126 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\63126.TXT TERRIE
15 

woman Eshoo—we are all concerned about job creation. Obviously, 

the whole country is, and Members of Congress are. 

And my question to you is: Beyond the changes in Regulation A 

which you have discussed today, which seem to make sense to me, 

what could Congress do to enable our small companies to raise capital which would allow them to expand and create jobs? Or what 

else would you recommend Congress be doing in general for the 

creation of jobs and economic opportunity, perhaps even beyond the 

raising of capital? 

And I ask that question to any one of you or all of you, if you 

are willing to take a shot at it. 

Mr. LEMPRES. One answer I can offer up relatively quickly that 

undercuts the utility of Regulation A is the effect of State blue-sky 

laws on raising moderate amounts of capital. Complying with the 

various State blue-sky laws is a burden for companies that are 

seeking to access capital, particularly smaller companies. That 

should be addressed, it seems to me, as part of a look at Regulation 

A. 

I think, more broadly, Congress should take a look at what is 

happening to our venture capital markets, what is happening to 

our innovation sector. It does not look the way it did 5 years ago 

or 10 years ago, and there is much more being done overseas than 

there was. 

I think that a thorough review should look at the layers of regulations that have been added over the years to see if they are all 

still justified, because regulatory compliance does impose a burden, 

particularly on smaller companies as they begin to look to grow. 

But rather than provide a solution for you at this time, unfortunately all I can do today is point out the issue and say I think it 

is an important one. 

Mr. CASTLE. Very good. 

Mr. Cutler? 

Mr. CUTLER. I would comment that, when you look at the state 

of the capital markets, one has to have a global perspective. Today’s capital markets are global. We have capital that is being created around the world. And, more importantly, the companies that 

are created here in the United States that are employing hundreds 

of Americans are also competing globally. 

And so, any regulation that we can do to enable companies access to capital in a way that is efficient and cost-effective, where 

the regulatory and the tax burdens are competitive with what 

these companies are competing up against around the world, would 

certainly go a long way towards fostering more job-growth creation 

and innovation in our economy and also help allow the United 

States to compete globally. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Hambrecht, any thoughts? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. I know the Congress has been very active with 

the Small Business Act and have made more money available 

through the Small Business Act. My own personal belief is that if 

you really want companies to grow and be aggressive, you should 

allow them access to equity. Debt has to be paid back, and debt is 

something that controls growth and holds growth back. 

16 

And I think the great companies that have risen in Silicon Valley 

and elsewhere have largely done it with equity and have done it 

in equity markets. This was one of the great advantages we have 

had over the last 3 or 4 decades. And what we are trying to redress 

here is the fact that it isn’t working right now for small companies. 

I wish I had some other ideas. I keep asking, and, somehow or 

another you have to get the IPO market going. Congresswoman 

Eshoo asked me—that is what led to this hearing. She said, ‘‘How 

do you get the IPO market going?’’ This is the only way I know. 

Mr. CASTLE. If you have other ideas after you leave here, please 

feel free to write to me and suggest some. As I indicated, we are 

all looking for these opportunities, and it makes a difference. 

The other concern that I have is that, just listening to your testimony and the answer to your questions, while you are here to testify on behalf of $30 million, the concept of perhaps going higher 

than that is not something that you would object to; is that correct? 

Do any of you feel there should be a cap on how high we should 

go? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. I think $50 million would be great. Thirty million was arrived at by—that was the average size IPO in the 1980’s 

and the 1990’s. That worked well. That worked for so many of 

these companies. The $100 million and above was a creation of the 

Internet bubble that happened in the last 2 or 3 years of the 

1990’s. So, to me, $30 million would get us back to what used to 

be normal. It certainly wouldn’t hurt; it would help. It would add 

to the companies that use it, and they would have the same characteristics as the smaller company, yes. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. I thank the gentleman for his distinguished service and for his questions here, and the Chair next recognizes Mrs. Maloney of New York for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Earlier, it was testified that the SEC could raise 

it if they saw fit, and due to the fact that we are still reeling from 

economic challenges and the financial crisis, what is the downside 

of doing this? Does the investor community support raising the offering or not? What are the protections for investors by exempting 

them from filing with the SEC? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. May I? 

Mrs. MALONEY. Sure. Anybody. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. I think, first of all, the addition of an audit requirement would go a long way towards answering any questions 

people have about added risk into the marketplace. In our testimony we have some data that shows the historical performance of 

the small cap indexes in the market over the last 20 and 30 years, 

and while it is true that small cap markets are generally more 

volatile than larger ones, the performance has been as good as or 

better than large-company investors. So there are plenty of people 

out there, plenty of institutions that run very aggressive and very 

professional investment funds and small cap companies, and I 

think the protections that they have now in terms of transparency 

and reporting requirements has worked well, and I don’t see why 

you would need any more. 

17 

Mrs. MALONEY. Under the Dodd-Frank bill, I join many of my 

colleagues in sponsoring the amendment that would exempt smaller companies under $75 million in market capitalization from the 

404(b) audit—independent auditor requirement, because the small 

businesses in my district were telling me that it was onerous. So 

to replace the filing with an auditor requirement, I think we would 

hear the same type of resistance from small businesses. They were 

telling me this is very costly. 

Could you explain exactly what how Reg. A works? It is merely 

filing with the SEC, correct? Why is that going to cost a company 

$2 million? Something is wrong with the filing requirement if we 

are asking them to spend $2 million to file. We should look at that. 

And, if you could explain exactly how it works and why is it so onerous that only eight companies filed under Reg. A. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. The first basic difference is that under Regulation A, you file an offering circular, not a prospectus, and there are 

some liability differences there, not just—not major, and if you look 

at it, it looks just like a prospectus, except it doesn’t have all the 

supporting data in the back is about what it boils down to. 

One of the great frustrations of my career has been dealing with 

the legal and accounting costs of an IPO. They just continue to 

multiply. And it is a system that has scaled up along with the underwriters, and it is very difficult to fight. There is no reason in 

the world why you shouldn’t be able to file a Regulation A, almost 

without a lawyer. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Why do you think—and I will ask all of you— 

companies are choosing not to list in the United States? 

Mr. CUTLER. Companies that are domiciled in the United States 

are listing in the United States public markets. If they want to provide stock options to their employees, if they want to sell stock to 

U.S. investors, they have to list within the United States. So we 

are not actually seeing a trend of companies, entrepreneurial companies, from the United States listing in foreign markets. 

We do continue to see a trend of nondomestic companies coming 

to the United States markets because of what they represent to the 

world: fair, transparent, deep, and liquid markets. And we want to 

continue to promote that opportunity that the United States capital 

markets continue to be competitive with other markets around the 

world. 

Today, the leading markets for initial public offerings are actually Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong. The New York Stock Exchange is number two. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Your CEO, Mr. Cutler, recently said that this is 

the most robust IPO pipeline that we have seen in years, and I understand that companies are lining up to go public. Can you expand on this, what you attribute this to? 

Mr. CUTLER. We have seen in the last 2 months, in October and 

November, more capital raised in those 2 months than we had seen 

in all of 2009 and 2008—or 2008, and so we see a very deep pipeline, and I think that is reflective of recovery in the markets, recovery from the financial crisis, and it is global and across all industries. But I will still note that companies that are trying to raise 

capital below a $50 million amount, we are not seeing that. 

18 

Mrs. MALONEY. My time is up, and let us end with that positive 

statement that the capital markets are rebounding. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney. 

The Chair next recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina 

Mr. Watt, for 5 minutes, sir. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cutler, are there comparable limits on non-U.S. stock ex- changes, comparable to the $5 million limit? 

Mr. CUTLER. I am sorry, I don’t understand the question. 

Mr. WATT. On other stock exchanges, non-U.S. stock exchanges 

in other countries, are there comparable limits? 

Mr. CUTLER. There are opportunities in other countries that have 

smaller marketplaces that are less regulated. For example, we operate a marketplace in Europe called Alternext that has sort of a 

nonregistration element to it which is accessible by companies, 

raising $5 million to $10 million— 

Mr. WATT. I am talking about the regulatory structure now. Are 

there, on any of the other stock exchanges worldwide, comparable 

restrictions? 

Mr. CUTLER. Yes, there are initial listing requirements, minimum thresholds in terms of the dollars amounts or market capital— 

Mr. WATT. And what are they? I am just trying to figure out how 

we are comparing to other countries. 

Mr. CUTLER. Every exchange around the world in every country 

has those requirements. They all differ. The ones with the lowest 

standards would be those markets that you find in Shenzhen, London AIM, the Alternext market in Europe that are available for— 

Mr. WATT. And what are those limits? I am just trying to—what 

is the range of the limits? 

Mr. CUTLER. I would have to get back to you with the exact details, but— 

Mr. WATT. Okay. That is fine. 

Mr. CUTLER. Very small companies are going public on those markets, below $50 million in market cap. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Let me ask you to discuss, Mr. Hambrecht, the 

interplay between Rule 506 of SEC Regulation D and what is happening here. I take it the whole reason for registration is to protect 

potential purchasers of stock, right? That is the rationale for it, 

and I am sympathetic to job creation. I am sympathetic to capital 

formation, capital raising, but what we don’t want to do is compromise exposure of consumers, and rule 506 at least has some protections there. Should we be expanding those, the flexibility under 

rule 506, as opposed to raising this limit, or is that not an acceptable alternative? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. I think Regulation D basically regulates private 

placement, and as a result of a Regulation D filing, you do not get 

a public market afterwards. Stock is not freely tradable afterwards. 

This is the advantage of an IPO, and this is the process that leads 

a company to— 

Mr. WATT. Okay. So I should be comparing this with other public 

offerings, not rule D, Regulation D? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. Exactly. 

19 

Mr. WATT. That is fine. All right. So then are there—you mentioned audits, an audit requirement you think ought to be one of 

the requirements, but then you turn around two or three sentences 

later and said you ought to be able to do this without even having 

a lawyer. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. Right. 

Mr. WATT. I am a little perplexed about how you square those 

things now. You are not really serious about issuing a public offering of stock of any kind without the benefit of a lawyer, I assume. 

That was a little hyperbole, I take it. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. Yes and no. My philosophy has always been— 

Mr. WATT. Let me ask a more direct question. If you are expand- ing this from $5 million to $50 million or $30 million, what are the 

other things that you would want to impose to protect potential 

buyers, if any? You mentioned the audit requirement, but are there 

other things that you would want as a precondition for doing that? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. Yes. I think, first of all, the registration process 

now in place in the United States works well. There have been very 

few fraudulent IPOs in the United States. It is a good process. 

The reason I put the lawyer comment in is I have always felt it 

should be an investment document. It should be a document that 

gives the investor every fact that he should consider or want to 

consider before he makes his investment. That, to me, is the essence of a registration statement, and that is why they have to be 

done by the management and by the financial people, along with 

the lawyers to make sure they comply with the law. But it has to 

be an investment document. That is the whole point of it, because 

I think if the marketplace gets a complete information package, it 

will make good decisions. The market is pretty smart. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair will next recognize the gentlelady from New York, 

Mrs. McCarthy, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A number of my questions have already been answered, and just 

going over some of the background that I had in a meeting last 

night, I guess the question I would like to ask all three of you is 

that if we do specific terms and conditions that should be imposed 

in connection with an increase in the offering limit, should Congress stipulate those terms, or should we be looking at those terms 

and conditions and leave them to the SEC? Which basically would 

work out better, and what are the drawbacks, and what are the 

positive aspects on Congress or the SEC? 

Mr. LEMPRES. I can say from my standpoint, the imposition of 

terms and conditions is the kind of thing a regulatory agency, the 

SEC, is better positioned to do for a number of reasons. One would 

be they have greater flexibility. They can go through a regulatory 

reform process, issue proposed rules, take comments from the public, and adjust more readily than Congress can. I think that the imposition of these kinds of terms and conditions is the kind of detail 

that is appropriately left to the regulators. I think the SEC generally handles those kinds of things quite well. 

Having said that, I would stress that there is an important role 

for Congress here. The need for congressional involvement is shown 

simply by the state of Regulation A today, because the SEC does 

20 

have the authority to take the kinds of actions that we have been 

talking about, and it has chosen not to do so. I think it is very important for Congress to step in and say this is a priority. Congress 

can provide the impetus to get helpful reform going. But I do believe the SEC has real expertise, and it should be tapped. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY OF NEW YORK. Do you think that then the SEC 

would need more resources to basically go forward with that? 

Mr. LEMPRES. I can’t say off the top of my head that the answer 

is yes. My gut is probably not, but I think that one of the problems, 

we are measuring it against something that doesn’t exist now, because Regulation A filings are essentially not occurring, so they are 

not applying resources to them today. 

I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t think it would require 

any substantial increase in resources. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY OF NEW YORK. Being that there is a little bit of 

time left, which usually never happens, is there anything that was 

in your testimony that you couldn’t talk about that you would want 

to bring out in front now? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. I would just add one addition to the SEC. In 

the 1990’s, the SEC would process 500 to 600 S-1 registration 

statements a year. Now that—they are under 100. I know they are 

doing a lot of other things because of the financial crisis, but a Regulation A registration is much simpler. It has a 28-day reporting 

requirement back, and it used to work pretty well. They used to actually do them in their regional offices. I don’t know if they would 

do that now, but it is less of a burden than a lot more S-1. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY OF NEW YORK. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. I thank the gentlelady, and the Chair 

next recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for 

5 minutes, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank Mr. 

Castle as well for his leadership here, and I want to thank our witnesses for helping us with this work. 

I tend to think that the lack of applications or interest in this 

is more to do with the economy than some of the limitations at the 

current time, but I am with you. I believe that this is something 

that has not been changed since 1980, and I think that an increase 

is certainly a reasonable request. I am not so sure that $30 million 

is the number. 

But I am concerned about the fact that we are now going to open 

this up to unsophisticated investors, and while I know that in your 

testimony, you mentioned companies like Pixar and Twitter and 

Facebook, there are also a lot of dogs out there that probably 

weren’t thoroughly vetted and yet were launched. And so I am concerned about the consumer protection angle of this. I think we can 

strike a balance, however. 

Let me ask you, have you actually reached out to the SEC given 

the new responsibilities that we are giving them under the DoddFrank Act? Have you asked them about concerns that they might 

have in terms of raising this exemption from $5 million to $30 million? 

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, Congressman. 

What I would comment about that is if you look at the requirements of the offering circular under Regulation A, there is a section 

21 

in there that requires the issuer to identify risks associated with 

the offering, which are very similar requirements that you would 

see in an S-1 full registration statement. So the similar sort of 

identification of risks to the offering, risks to the issuer would be 

required in an offering circular under Regulation A as you do have 

under a full registration statement. 

So I think when we talk about additional risks to investors, I 

don’t think that we are adding any more risk than a regular public 

offering, which also discloses risk factors of the company. The only 

thing you are introducing is earlier-stage companies which, by their 

nature, are more risky investments by themselves as a class, but 

the adequacy of this disclosure on the risk factors is actually required in their offering circulated already under Regulation A. 

Mr. LYNCH. Right. You are getting to my point. The newness or 

the lack of history, financial history, here often makes these companies a real gamble, and I am just trying to figure out if there 

is a way that—in addition to the audited financials that you mentioned earlier, I think that is a great suggestion, are there other 

precautions that we might take proactively to say, okay, we are 

going to lift this limit; however, here are some additional safeguards so that we don’t end up with folks really going into this 

completely in the dark; that there is—it almost asks for some type 

of not a rating agency, but some type of vetting process given the 

larger amount that we are authorizing here under the exemption. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. The problem that I have always seen from trying to quantify the risk is—or set a set of standards, which a lot 

of countries do—a lot of countries will have certain numerical 

standards for companies in terms of operating income and history 

and everything else—it is difficult, very, very difficult, to do that 

in an economy that has moved as fast as the technology world has. 

Mr. LYNCH. Sure. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. To me, the answer has always been transparency. The answer has always been an absolute commitment to 

presenting every fact you have and everything you can about that 

company, and I find that the investors generally make pretty good 

decisions. The latest financial crisis really has had nothing to do 

with really small consumers. It was really markets that lacked 

transparency, dealer markets, and a lack of information, and frankly, as you know, poor rating agencies. 

Mr. LYNCH. Let me just close by saying I appreciate those remarks. I think you help your cause very much by having Congresswoman Eshoo speak on your behalf. I think the fact that she came 

forward today, she has a lot of credibility with the people on this 

committee on both sides of the aisle, and I think you are well 

served by having her speak on your behalf. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair next recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from 

Georgia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

We have heard a lot of very good information in the questionand-answer period. I think now, though, we might want to examine 

what do we do now and how do we craft the proper legislative vehicle to move forward. Do we language it in such a way as we authorVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:24 Jan 14, 2011 Jkt 063126 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\63126.TXT TERRIE
22 

ize the SEC to raise this limit, or do we require them to do it? And 

the history of the SEC and the Securities Act of, I think, 1930, 

1933, that language was not clear. At one point when we changed 

it last, I think about 1992, it took them a while before they actually 

implemented it. 

So I would like to get each of your thoughts on—I think we all 

agree this is great, we are going to do it, but it is up to us now 

to craft the best legislative vehicle to get the job done. So what 

would be your recommendation there, particularly on the language 

of whether we authorize them to do it or we require them to? 

Mr. LEMPRES. In my view, sir, the ideal solution would be a mandate from Congress to raise the offering limit for Regulation A and 

to set a minimum ceiling figure. I do like the idea of revisiting it 

periodically and deferring to SEC the terms and conditions. I also 

think, however, that through oversight and other means, Congress 

should keep an eye on those terms and conditions, because oftentimes the layering of very well-intentioned individual regulatory 

obligations can undercut a legislative goal. So in this case what I 

would urge is that Congress mandates the higher limits and permits the SEC to set the terms and conditions. 

Mr. SCOTT. All right. Mr. Hambrecht? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. I would agree with that. I have great respect 

for the SEC. They are a fine regulatory body. I do think, though, 

that there are some time pressures here, and that everybody would 

like to see this get going quickly. 

I think if the SEC has a rule change, they have to go through 

a process that could take some time, and I would think a congressional mandate would move it quickly, and then definitely leave 

the SEC to implement it and to change whatever they see fit to 

change to make sure that they live up to their regulatory responsibilities. 

Mr. CUTLER. I would say this is an opportunity to address an 

economic and political challenge, and that is creating a job growth 

opportunity engine, and the opportunity of the committee here is 

to recognize the role of the public markets in the creation of jobs, 

and mandating a part of a solution to encourage more efficient and 

more accessible public markets, and then leaving the discretion 

with the SEC in terms of how that is implemented. But the opportunity to act now, I think, is real. 

Mr. SCOTT. All right. How deeply do you think Congress should 

go in this? Do you think we should stipulate terms and conditions, 

such as a requirement for audited financials? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. I would leave that up to the SEC really. I think 

it would be beneficial. I would think that their natural reaction 

would be to do it that way. But they have dealt with Sarbanes, 

they have dealt with all the accounting issues. I would leave it to 

them. 

Mr. SCOTT. So, in other words, what you are saying, all of you, 

is that we should craft this legislation, we should mandate that 

they do it, but we should leave the discretion up to them in terms 

of the specific particulars. 

Mr. CUTLER. The only caveat I would add, Congressman, is the 

fact that we should be promoting investor protection, but at the 

same time avoiding imposing disclosure, increased governance or 

23 

burdensome provisions that would actually increase the costs of the 

application of Regulation A as it currently stands. That would be 

the only risk. 

Mr. SCOTT. And then finally, just for your opinions, do you feel 

that $30 million is the adequate figure we need? You have a chance 

here to make a statement on whether or not each of you feel this 

is the right number. Or is there any feeling among you that it 

needs to be larger? 

Mr. LEMPRES. As I have said, Congressman, from our standpoint 

the $30 million figure is a workable figure, but $50 million would 

be a better figure. After transaction costs, it would provide sufficient resources to startups, particularly startups in the innovation 

industry that sometimes are quite capital-intensive. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. The gentleman’s time has expired. I 

thank the gentleman for his questions. 

And the Chair has just been advised that there will be votes 

called between 11:30 and 11:45, so we will move right along here. 

We have time to give the two additional members time to ask their 

questions. 

The Chair next recognizes the distinguished gentleman from 

Florida, Mr. Klein. 

Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KLEIN. I have no questions. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. The Chair will next recognize Mr. Foster. 

Sir, you have 5 minutes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. 

Is there a best method for indexing this limit? Is it simple inflation, total market capitalization so you don’t have to revisit this 

every decade or two? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. I personally don’t think it is a question of inflation. It is much more a product of consolidation and of a change 

in the makeup of the distribution mechanism for equity. 

Mr. FOSTER. But still, $5 million was set in 1980, if I remember 

right. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. So simple inflation, we would be up near 10- or 15- 

, which at least would do something for you. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. The problem with that is that it still would not 

get you to a large enough offering to allow you for the blue-sky exemption and the exchange base listing. So you would still have that 

same problem of having a limited aftermarket, and it would help 

on the expenses, sure, but you would have the limited aftermarket. 

Mr. FOSTER. My next question is about the Alternext exchange 

and that sort of approach. Has it been tried and failed in the 

United States? Is it successful at providing an alternate exit route 

for startups and so on? 

Mr. CUTLER. In the United States, we have not had a regulation 

light exchange platform; that is, an exchange platform that would 

allow companies to sell to public investors in a lightly regulated 

fashion that exists in other markets around the world. I mentioned 

both the AIM marketplace in London as well as our marketplace, 

Alternext, which is really only applicable to the smallest of issuers, 

24 

and in some instances they are actually regulator overseen by representatives who represent them. 

Mr. FOSTER. My question is, is that an effective exit route for 

startups or not? What is wrong with that? Is that what you anticipate would happen if we raised it to $50 million, that there would 

be a much more active market here? Or what is the change, if any, 

that you anticipate in the structure of things? 

Mr. CUTLER. It essentially enables smaller companies’ access to 

the public markets as a public offering where today they don’t have 

the similar access. That is the big change. 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. If I may, for example, the AIM market has 

been looked on as an example of regulation light opening for small 

companies. And it is interesting, the performance of AIM—and I 

believe—they have had, I believe, about 1,800 listings in the U.K.— 

the performance of the investors has been not statistically different 

than the London Stock Exchange, pretty much the same. 

Mr. FOSTER. The business of testing the waters, what is the argument against that for very large IPOs; or is that something 

where there is sort of an insider abuse thing that people are worried about, and could that morph into existence if you raise it up 

to $50 million? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. Traditionally, the SEC used to be very sensitive 

to any pre-filing publicity. They still are. The rules are against it 

because they didn’t want, in effect, companies out there promoting 

their stock before a registration statement was available to investors. So the whole point is a quiet period where you are not allowed 

to talk. 

To be candid, most companies now try to read the market somewhat before moving ahead, but do it through investor relations 

firms, not underwriters. It is happening anyway, and I think the 

Reg. A rule is actually a very practical rule. It allows you to go out 

and talk to a small group of people or, you know— 

Mr. FOSTER. You don’t think we should be worried about some 

sort of abuses as that threshold goes up? 

Mr. HAMBRECHT. I would say, to be candid, it is being used in 

most S-1 registration statements now probably to the advantage of 

both parties. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. And I guess just one last question. It is sort 

of my impression, without having to tell you, that the whole malaise in the VC industry has to do with the fact that there are not 

that many great investments, and the overall return on investments has not been that great for the last decade. Is that just my 

impression, or is there some element of truth to that that is really 

driving a lot of the difficulty in raising money here? 

Mr. CUTLER. I would say that this is not related to venture returns, although that statement would be true. This is more about 

access to permanent capital in the public markets, and that it is 

related to how is it that we can help the venture capital industry. 

Mr. FOSTER. Exiting is very relevant, and so— 

Mr. CUTLER. And exit does provide liquidity for the initial investors, but probably, more importantly to this discussion, creates access to the long-term, permanent capital as a public company for 

the issuer to then be able to reinvest in the business, hire more 

people, expand operations. 

25 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to 

place their responses in the record. 

The Chair thanks the witnesses for their appearance today before this committee and for answering our questions. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

December 8, 2010 

28 


63126.001
29 


63126.002
30 


63126.003
31 


63126.004
32 


63126.005
33 


63126.006
34 


63126.007
35 


63126.008
36 


63126.009
37 


63126.010
38 


63126.011
39 


63126.012
40 


63126.013
41 


63126.014
42 


63126.015
43 


63126.016
44 


63126.017
45 


63126.018
46 


63126.019
47 


63126.020
48 


63126.021
49 


63126.022
50 


63126.023
51 


63126.024
52 


63126.025
53 


63126.026
54 


63126.027
55 


63126.028
56 


63126.029
57 


63126.030