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

82–860 PDF 2014

REDUCING BARRIERS TO CAPITAL 

FORMATION, PART II 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS AND 

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 10, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 113–38 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice Chairman 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman 

Emeritus 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

JAMES H. CLINGER, Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS AND GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey, Chairman 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia, Vice Chairman 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, 

Ranking Member 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 10, 2013 ..................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

July 10, 2013 ..................................................................................................... 41 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2013 

Leach, Raymond T., Founding Chief Executive Officer, Jumpstart, Inc., on 

behalf of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) ........................... 6 

Moch, Kenneth I., President and Chief Executive Officer, Chimerix, Inc., 

on behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) ........................... 8 

Nagy, Christopher, President and Founder, KOR Trading LLC ......................... 10 

Souza, Wayne G., General Counsel and Executive Vice President of Law, 

the Walton International Group (USA), Inc., on behalf of the Investment 

Program Association (IPA) .................................................................................. 12 

Thompson, Robert B., Peter P. Weidenbruch, Jr., Professor of Business Law, 

Georgetown University Law Center ................................................................... 14 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Leach, Raymond T. ........................................................................................... 42 

Moch, Kenneth I. .............................................................................................. 52 

Nagy, Christopher ............................................................................................ 60 

Souza, Wayne G. ............................................................................................... 64 

Thompson, Robert B. ........................................................................................ 72 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Moore, Hon. Gwen: 

Written responses to questions submitted to Kenneth Moch ....................... 77 

(1) 

REDUCING BARRIERS TO CAPITAL 

FORMATION, PART II 

Wednesday, July 10, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS AND

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Garrett [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Garrett, Hurt, Royce, 

Neugebauer, Huizenga, Grimm, Fincher, Mulvaney, Hultgren, 

Ross, Wagner; Maloney, Lynch, Scott, Himes, Peters, Watt, Foster, 

Carney, Sewell, and Kildee. 

Also present: Representatives Fitzpatrick and Duffy. 

Chairman GARRETT. Good morning, all, and welcome. 

The Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises is hereby called to order. Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘Reducing Barriers to Capital Formation, Part II,’’ which implies there was a Part I, and how many more we will have is anybody’s guess, but this is Part II. 

So, I welcome the panel. We will look forward to your testimony 

shortly. We will begin with opening statements, and I will yield 

myself about 5 minutes, and go from there. 

As I said, today’s hearing will focus on reducing barriers to capital formation for America’s small businesses. Following the most 

recent financial crisis, there can be little doubt that America’s big 

businesses are doing better than the small businesses. Under the 

Obama Administration, small businesses have become mired in a 

river of costly government red tape. 

Indeed, the steady flow of overly burdensome regulations coming 

out of Washington, D.C., these days is disproportionately affecting 

small businesses, imposing enormous compliance costs, and cutting 

off access to the critical sources of capital these firms need to be 

able to grow, and grow the economy and to create more American 

jobs. 

So it is no wonder that the National Federation of Independent 

Businesses’ Small Businesses Optimism Index fell in June, and 67 

percent of small businesses indicated in a recent survey that they 

do not have plans to hire in the next 6 months. That is a one-point 

decrease from the fourth quarter of 2012. 

Despite the regulatory headwinds facing small businesses today, 

there are some signs that the landscape for small business capital 

2 

formation is improving. For one thing, self-executing provisions of 

the JOBS Act are already helping small businesses gain access to 

the U.S. equity market. 

For example, IPO activity surged in the second quarter of 2013 

with emerging growth companies (EGCs) under the JOBS Act accounting for 77 percent of all IPOs as a price during this period, 

and a 79 percent of the EGCs IPOs during the second quarter 

made use of the JOBS Act confidential filing provisions. 

In addition, while the SEC has historically only paid some lip 

service to small business capital formation, as I speak, an open 

meeting is currently under way at SEC headquarters to finally vote 

on amendments to eliminate the band on general solicitation and 

general advertising in certain private sector securities offerings, 

which was mandated by the JOBS Act more than a year ago. 

I expect that the outcome of the Commission’s meeting today will 

provide a significant new avenue for small business capital formation while protecting investors by providing those who are accredited with additional investment options. 

American companies and investors also caught a much-needed 

break from overly burdensome SEC regulations last week when a 

Federal judge vacated an SEC ruling issued under the Dodd-Frank 

Act requiring disclosure of payments to government entities by 

companies engaged in resource extraction. 

As I mentioned before, whatever commendable goals this rule 

might have had, it has absolutely nothing to do with the causes of 

the most recent financial crisis; it was always outside of the SEC’s 

core area of expertise. 

Given the validity of a similar SEC ruling requiring companies 

to disclose their use of conflict minerals, which is still before the 

courts, I would like to take this opportunity to urge Chairman 

White not to revisit any rulemaking on resource extraction. 

Moreover, I urge her to instead focus on the SEC’s core mission 

by first completing more relevant congressional mandates including 

Regulation A, the overcrowding provisions of the JOBS Act, and removal of references to credit rating agencies in the Federal securities laws pursuant to Section 939(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

With the economy growing now at an anemic 1.8 percent during 

the first quarter of this year, it is imperative that Congress and the 

regulators continue to build off the momentum created by the 

JOBS Act and explore new ways to provide our startups and small 

businesses with the capital they need to grow their operations, create jobs, and breathe more life into the U.S. economy. 

At our hearing on this topic last month, and in the prepared testimonies submitted by our panel today, we have received a number 

of ideas to promote small business capital formation. 

These ideas include, among others: modernizing the regulatory 

regime governing business development companies (BDCs); expanding tick sizes to increase liquidity in the shares of publicly traded 

small cap companies; establishing a new parallel stock market for 

small public companies; increasing research analyst coverage for 

small and mid-cap companies; appropriately scaling Federal regulations governing M&A brokers; exempting small SEC reporting companies from the SEC’s XBRL filing requirements; and a variety of 

3 

other measures to update our security laws and generally improve 

the infrastructure of our capital markets. 

With all that said, I look forward to continuing to discuss these 

ideas and other ones which I didn’t go through as we move forward 

in drafting legislation that will hopefully further reduce barriers to 

small business capital formation and create more American jobs. 

I yield back. 

And I yield to the gentlelady from New York for 4 minutes for 

her opening statement. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

of the witnesses for being here today. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for really focusing on the important goal of job creation. 

The United States has the deepest and most effective capital 

markets in the world. The U.S. stock market is 13 times larger 

than the British stock market, and 14 times larger than the German stock market. 

The sheer size of our market is attractive for its investors because they know they will be able to sell their investment quickly 

if they need to. But unfortunately, small businesses still have trouble raising funds in this markets. Between 1991 and 2007, the 

number of small companies that went public in our securities markets declined by 92 percent. Providing incentives for greater investment in our country’s small businesses and entrepreneurs will 

allow these companies to innovate and grow our economy and create more jobs. 

That is why we passed the JOBS Act, which removed several 

regulatory barriers to small business investment. For example, the 

JOBS Act allows small businesses to use general advertisements to 

solicit investors, allows certain businesses to phase in SEC regulations over a 5-year period, and raises the number of shareholders 

that would trigger mandatory SEC registration from 500 to 1000. 

Of course, we need to monitor the implementation of the JOBS 

Act and make sure that small companies get access to the capital 

they need. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses what regulatory factors make financing for small businesses more difficult 

and what Congress can do to help. 

Small companies should not be forced to spend the majority of 

their limited resources complying with securities regulations. They 

should be spending their money hiring new workers or investing in 

new products. 

We need to keep in mind that one of the main reasons the U.S. 

capital markets are the envy of the world is the transparency and 

trust that comes from our disclosure rules. I have always said that 

markets really run more on trust than they do on capital, and we 

have the most trusted markets in the entire world. 

Less transparency in our capital markets will open the door to 

misrepresentation, which invariably targets the most vulnerable investors such as retirees. That is why we must ensure that we 

strike the proper balance between maintaining healthy financial 

disclosure and reducing companies’ compliance costs. 

I know that many of you have come forward with a variety of 

ideas. I have read your testimony, and I look forward to your testimony today. I do want to note that I have a conflict with the Joint 

Economic Committee, on which I am the ranking member. I must 

4 

run over there for a period, but I will definitely be back here for 

questions. 

I deeply appreciate your testimony and your being here today. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman GARRETT. The gentlelady yields back. 

I recognize Mr. Fitzpatrick for 2 minutes. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to offer a couple of remarks at this hearing. 

Today’s hearing is about regulatory reform. It is about capital 

formation, but ultimately it is about jobs, and I have had the opportunity to work with BIO and pharmaceutical businesses that 

create good paying jobs in my district in Pennsylvania and they 

have shared with me how regulatory relief related to capital formation would positively affect their research and their ability to hire, 

to create jobs, and to hire folks from Pennsylvania. 

For every dollar they must spend on compliance, that is money 

being taken away from research and development, and the problem 

isn’t that they are necessarily opposed to regulation; it is that they 

are being unfairly treated as large companies despite the fact that 

they are small and emerging growth companies. This one-size-fitsall approach to regulation is just the type of barrier to economic 

growth that we need to be tearing down. 

That is why I have introduced the Fostering Innovation Act of 

2013, and this is a bill which is identical to legislation that was 

passed by this subcommittee in the 112th Congress. 

The Fostering Innovation Act would help provide permanent regulatory relief for small and emerging growth companies by more 

accurately reflecting the difference in large and small companies. 

For instance, currently, a company with market capitalization or public float of $75 million or more is subject to Section 404(b) of 

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and that requires external audits of internal 

controls. This bill would raise that to a more accurate number of 

$250 million. 

Second, my bill would apply a much needed revenue test for determining which companies must comply with regulations like 

404(b). Currently, a company could have a public float exceeding 

$250 million but be making very little money and still be considered to be a large company by the SEC. 

As Mr. Moch from BIO can attest, this is actually something fairly common in the biotech industry and in fact, would apply to the 

two companies I have mentioned earlier that I am working with in 

my district. 

So I just wanted to come, and briefly highlight the Fostering Innovation Act. 

I would like to thank all of the individuals here to testify today 

for touching on this bill perhaps and I appreciate the chairman’s 

calling the hearing. This hearing is extremely important for, as I 

said, capital formation, but ultimately for job creation across our 

country. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the time. 

Chairman GARRETT. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

Mr. Scott is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. 

5 

This is a very important hearing as we discuss ways in which we 

can reduce barriers, and what is important is that we identify 

those barriers that we as policymakers can truly do something 

about. 

I think it is very important that small business companies have 

great potential for technological motivation and job creation, that 

we truly examine and find out from our distinguished panel what 

precise things they feel we can do. 

I think we have to go beyond—we have to look at what we refer 

to as burdensome overregulation. We need to truly examine that to 

see where we can make effective changes, but we also have to look 

at the bigger picture. What else is out there? 

We know that the Securities and Exchange Commission has a 

three-part mission to protect investors, maintain fair order and efficient markets, but also a part of their mission is to facilitate capital formation, and they have a pilot program going. I think we 

ought to examine that just a bit. 

Whether it is allowing for a larger size of increments of bids in 

what we call tick sizes for smaller companies, an option that is currently under consideration by the SEC, or some of the more controversial options, some of which I think they have discussions like 

increasing the size of companies exempted from Sarbanes-Oxley’s 

auditor attestation requirements or looking at ways in which 

maybe smaller companies might be exempted from the shareholders advisory votes on executive pay and compensation. 

These are all somewhat controversial, but they are standing in 

the way of us making sure that we have capital formation going 

out to our companies. 

And then finally we have to take a look at the JOBS Act, which 

was signed into law a little more than a year ago, and see what 

more we can fully do. 

With that, I yield back, and I look forward to the distinguished 

panel. 

Chairman GARRETT. Thank you, and the gentleman yields back. 

We now turn for 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding today’s hearing, the second in a series on exploring ideas for reducing 

barriers to capital formation. 

I thank each of the witnesses for being here today. 

One of the most important functions of this subcommittee is to 

promote initiatives to increase access to capital for our small businesses and startups. It is appropriate that the Capital Markets 

Subcommittee will again lead the way on initiatives to increase 

capital access and promote economic growth after a champion enactment of the JOBS Act in the last Congress. 

While the JOBS Act was an important step forward, these hearings show that more still needs to be done to ensure that we remove costly and unnecessary regulatory impediments that are restricting companies from accessing capital in the public and private 

markets. 

I especially look forward to testimony from our witnesses about 

the extensible business reporting language (XBRL), which was 

mandated by the SEC in 2009. 

6 

Despite the SEC’s intent of lowering the cost of capital for smaller companies and providing more efficient access to information for 

investors, this requirement has become another example of a regulation where the costs far outweigh any potential benefits. 

Companies expend tens of thousands of dollars or more complying with the regulation, yet there is evidence that less than 10 

percent of investors actually use XBRL, further diminishing its potential benefits. 

This is another example of an unnecessary and costly requirement that disincentivizes innovative companies from accessing the 

public markets. We must look at solutions to this issue and others 

to create a regulatory environment that is more efficient and conducive for long-term economic growth. 

I appreciate this committee’s continued focus on ensuring that 

our small businesses and startups have the ability to access the 

necessary capital in order to innovate, expand, and create the jobs 

that our communities need. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and I thank you 

again for your appearance before the subcommittee today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GARRETT. The gentleman yields back. 

Seeing no other opening statements, we will now turn to the 

panel. 

And again, welcome to the entire panel. Your entire written 

statements will be made a part of the record, and you will be recognized now for 5 minutes. In front of you, of course, is the timer: 

green when you start; yellow as a 1-minute warning light; and red 

for when you should be done. 

And the other admonition I always ask you is to make sure that 

your microphone is turned on, and the microphone is pulled closer 

than it is for some of you right now when you do actually speak. 

So with those introductory comments, I recognize Mr. Leach for 

5 minutes, and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND T. LEACH, FOUNDING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JUMPSTART, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL VENTURE CAPITAL ASSOCIATION (NVCA) 

Mr. LEACH. Good morning, Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member 

Maloney, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share with you today the venture capital perspective 

on the state of the capital market system. 

Venture-backed companies that go public are drivers of the U.S. 

economy. That is why the NVCA supported the passage of the 

JOBS Act in 2012, in particular, the IPO on-ramp provision. 

I want to thank you for your work on making the JOBS Act possible and for continuing to direct your attention to market concerns 

that affect companies once they have gone through an IPO. 

A successful IPO drives extremely positive economic outcomes. 

First, it allows companies to raise additional capital to invest in 

growing their business, to increase its revenues, and to create new 

jobs. Data shows that 92 percent of job growth from venture-backed 

companies occurs after going public. 

7 

Second, IPOs enable all types of investors to participate directly 

in the company’s growth and provide financial benefits to employees who have also earned equity in the company pre-IPO. 

Third, IPOs typically generate meaningful returns for pension 

funds, endowments, foundations, and other limited partners who 

pooled their money with VCs to invest in these firms. 

Lastly, companies that go public have the potential to transform 

regional economies and communities in significant ways. 

The decline of the U.S. IPO market over the last 15 years has 

been well-documented. From 1990 to 1996, 1,272 U.S. venturebacked companies went public in the United States on U.S. exchanges, yet from 2004 to 2010, only 324 companies did so. 

Most analyses have pointed to a complex series of changes in the 

regulatory environment and related market practices that have 

driven up costs and uncertainty for emerging growth companies 

looking to go public to the point where most such companies began 

to position themselves for acquisitions instead. 

Recognizing the dire implications for U.S. job creation and economic growth, Congress passed the JOBS Act 2012 to revive the 

U.S. IPO market in part by building the on-ramp by which small 

companies reached the public markets. 

Now, a little more than a year after its passage, the urge to assess the impact of the JOBS Act by examining the state of the IPO 

market today is understandable. 

In doing so, however, we must look at the entire picture and recognize the complexity of the factors at play in today’s markets. 

When the JOBS Act was signed in April 2012, we assumed that 

any significant uptick in IPO activity would likely trail the law’s 

implementation by at least a year or more. 

A top line review of IPO market numbers since April 2012 confirms our assumptions. Only 49 venture-backed companies went 

public in 2012, which was 2 less than in 2011. 

This year, only 8 such companies went public in the first quarter, 

however, the second quarter saw 21 venture-backed IPOs, bringing 

this year’s total to 29 IPOs. 

A year with 100-plus venture-backed IPOs would be considered 

a very strong year, so we are hopeful that this 20-plus IPOs per 

quarter momentum will continue because of the JOBS Act. 

These numbers may seem underwhelming, but they reveal only 

a fraction of the impact the JOBS Act is having. It is estimated 

that a record number of companies are currently in registration for 

IPOs. 

Since the law’s passage, more than 500 companies have registered with the SEC as emerging growth companies. That is 77 

percent of all companies who filed over this time. 

Of these, 63 percent have used the confidential filing provision. 

In fact, it is estimated that a record number of companies, more 

than 200 in fact, are currently in registration for IPOs. 

Finally, microcap IPOs, meaning firms with less than $250 million in market cap, have constituted 40 percent of IPOs so far in 

2013 up from 21 percent in 2012. 

Today, thanks to the on-ramp and other provisions, many companies are again committing to the time and resources required to explore IPOs as a viable option. 

8 

While the JOBS Act has reopened and smoothed the road to the 

public market for emerging growth companies, that market remains a very difficult place to grow a company. Today, market 

structures continue to favor the short-term, high-frequency trading 

of large cap stocks by investment banks. 

In this environment, small stocks struggle to achieve visibility 

and liquidity. In the prior market era, small issuers could help support their stocks by publishing analyst research and employing 

market makers to spur interest among investors. 

But current market economics no longer support these activities. 

This lack of information and liquidity has diminished the appeal of 

small cap stocks for investors. 

Unfortunately, with all of these issues that we have discussed 

today, we don’t believe there is a single simple solution to alter the 

current dynamics. With that being said, we are committed to working with a broad range of market participants to develop solutions 

that take all perspectives into account and that ultimately benefit 

all stakeholders. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues 

with you today. I look forward to answering any questions that you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leach can be found on page 42 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman GARRETT. And I thank you for your testimony. Thank 

you for being on the panel. 

Next, Mr. Moch is recognized for 5 minutes, and welcome to the 

panel as well. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH I. MOCH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIMERIX, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE 

BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION (BIO) 

Mr. MOCH. Thank you very much. 

Good morning, Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member Maloney, 

Vice Chairman Hurt, and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Kenneth Moch, and I am the president and CEO of 

Chimerix, a small, now publicly traded biotechnology company in 

lovely Durham, North Carolina. I am also on the board of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak about the pivotal role that the public market plays in financing the search for 

groundbreaking new cures and treatments. 

Chimerix is a venture capital-backed company that went public 

in April of this year, and our offering was greatly enhanced by the 

IPO on-ramp provisions in the JOBS Act. 

Leading up to the offering, we used testing-the-waters meetings 

to explore and evaluate the interest of potential investors. We were 

able to gather feedback on Chimerix and the interest of the potential public market investors that was critical to our decision to proceed with our IPO. 

The testing-the-waters meetings also allowed potential investors 

to do their homework on Chimerix in the time between our initial 

meetings and the IPO. We were able to conduct literally dozens of 

meetings with potential investors which provided invaluable conVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:41 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 082860 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\82860.TXT TERRI
9 

tact with the parties who later helped make Chimerix’s offering a 

success. 

I always say that biotechnology companies are research and development pipelines unencumbered by revenue. We conduct years 

and often decades of research and development and spend hundreds of millions and often over a billion dollars in investment capital before hopefully reaching FDA approval and generating product revenue. 

As I am sure you already know, beyond and further complicating 

the sheer magnitude of investment is the risk of developmental 

failure due to the complexities of human biology. 

Because of our unique business model, a successful IPO is of 

vital importance. Chimerix’s offering allowed us to set aside the 

significant funding necessary to conduct a Phase III trial of our 

lead anti-viral drug candidate, CMX001, which is being developed 

to prevent life-threatening infections in immunocompromised bone 

marrow stem cell transplant patients. 

In addition to the considerable benefits of testing-the-waters 

meetings, the 5-year SOX exemption allowed by the JOBS Act ensured that we will not waste valuable research dollars on unnecessary reporting. 

It cost Chimerix over $10 million in legal, accounting, and ultimately banking fees to go public, and the temporary SOX exemption allowed us to focus those funds that we raised in our offering 

rather than preparing for 404(b) compliance. 

I want to thank Congressman Fitzpatrick for introducing the 

Fostering Innovation Act to continue this important exemption for 

smaller issuers. 

Spending investment dollars on compliance can limit R&D and 

delay R&D so changes like the on-ramp, Congressman Fitzpatrick’s 

legislation, and Congressman Hurt’s audit firm rotation bill are important for growing biotechs without product revenue. 

I would also encourage the subcommittee to consider a small 

issuer exemption for XBRL reporting, which is a drain on both financial and personnel resources for growing businesses. 

Compliance expenditures are a direct transfer of R&D dollars to 

auditing and accounting. For companies such as Chimerix that 

write a few thousand checks a year and have small accounting 

teams, this truly isn’t a wise investment. 

In the years since the JOBS Act was enacted, other biotech companies like Chimerix have seen the promise of the IPO on-ramp: 

27 firms, merging biotechs, have gone public using provisions of the 

law—there may be a larger number now—and many more are on 

file with the SEC. 

Congress now has the opportunity to ensure a positive trading 

environment for these emerging innovators through market structure reform. 

Many small companies face liquidity and pricing issues that can 

be detrimental to their public float and cash flow. Market structure 

reform that addresses these issues could spur capital formation and 

support company growth. 

I urge the subcommittee to address tick size flexibility as it considers market structure reform. A pilot program that allows—to 

10 

allow small companies to choose a larger tick size for their stock 

would stimulate trading in growing businesses. 

Decimalization has harmed liquidity for smaller issuers, and reforming the current one-size-fits-all tick size regime, which has 

been successful in other financial markets around the world, would 

grant flexibility to growing companies and increase the liquidity 

and capital availability necessary for emerging biotechs to be successful on the public market. 

A functioning public market is vital to the success of the biotech 

industry and the American economy. At a time when venture capital financing of biotechnology is at a historic low and as an asset 

class truly appears endangered, the ability to access public capital 

is increasingly important. 

We have seen the appetite for capital formation on the public 

market in the wake of the JOBS Act, and Chimerix was a clear 

beneficiary of that law; however, capital formation does not end 

with an IPO. 

Congress has the opportunity to build on the success of the JOBS 

Act by exploring market structure reform to small-company growth 

in fundraising. 

For growing biotech companies with voracious capital requirements, successful market structure reform would lead to scientific 

advancements, novel medicines, and life-saving treatments for patients in need. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moch can be found on page 52 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman GARRETT. And I thank you as well. 

Next up from KOR Trading, Mr. Nagy is recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER NAGY, PRESIDENT AND 

FOUNDER, KOR TRADING LLC 

Mr. NAGY. Thank you. 

Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member Maloney, and members of 

the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on this important hearing on reducing barriers to capital formation. 

My name is Chris Nagy. I have spent the last 25 years working 

within financial services on Wall Street. Coincidental with the passage of the JOBS Act, I left Wall Street and corporate America to 

found KOR Trading, a startup advocacy and consulting firm. 

Secondly, I partnered with other entrepreneurs in another venture startup, PrairieSmarts, which will bring institutional quality 

risk metrics to individual investors, traders, and advisors. 

As you know, when the JOBS Act was signed, specific mandates 

were assigned to the SEC to promulgate rulemaking; however, 

nearly 1 year after its passage, the SEC has not finalized these 

rules. 

For many startups similarly situated like ours, Title II of the 

JOBS Act would open the doors to additional access to capital by 

allowing general solicitation and advertising to accredited investors. 

11 

We believe there is a much greater good by allowing more participation in capital raising for companies that are generating new 

jobs than the potential downside of an accredited investor losing 

money because of failed disclosure. 

I am pleased to hear that the SEC is voting on Title II as I 

speak. Crowdfunding is an important source of capital for startup 

companies. It is early-stage firms like ours, which do not seek a 

great deal of capital, that often face the largest barriers. We commend the House for allowing crowdfunding of up to $1 

million in 12 months. In our case, it is not quite enough, but it is 

enough to get us up and running. These resources, however, only 

become available if and when the SEC finalizes the initial regulations. 

We also expect to find further funding through the Small Business Investment Company program. Start-up businesses are hamstrung by the current profitability requirement when seeking SBA 

financing assistance. 

We are very excited to be a part of the SBIC investment program 

in the fall of 2013, and believe it will be successful to expand the 

reach of assistance to startups like ours. 

Title VII of the JOBS Act also requires that the SEC will conduct 

outreach programs and make information available to startups. I 

can tell you from my seat that I have yet to receive my information 

or outreach from the SEC on opportunities available under the 

JOBS Act and I would ask Congress to help the SEC along on provisions of the Act. 

With innovation many times comes the ability to patent a product or an idea. The patent process is designed to protect that idea 

and give the initiator a competitive advantage in the marketplace. 

Patent costs bear a considerable cost burden to the startup. Further, patent trolls lurk in the weeds waiting to jump on an opportunity to sue or potentially sue the startup which initiated the patent. 

I ask Congress to examine this issue and seek ways to help protect startups from unnecessarily and many times frivolous litigation by requiring the initiator of such actions to bear all the legal 

costs. 

We do support the initiative to seek widening spreads for small 

public companies. However, we feel that simply widening spreads 

may not achieve the full desired effect of increasing transparent liquidity provisioning. 

We believe that in conjunction with a pilot, the SEC should seek 

to incentivize liquidity as was recommended by the joint CFTC– 

SEC Advisory Committee. 

One such method would be the removal of Section 31 fees for 

small capitalized securities along with greater incentives to persons 

who regularly implement market maker strategies. We do believe 

that the balance has tipped in favor of dark pool operators, and we 

encourage the SEC to finalize its non-public trading rule proposal. 

We also note that internalized payment for order-flow programs 

have increased and would encourage the SEC to consider a tradeat pilot in small capitalized securities. Other countries such as 

Canada and Australia have implemented rules regarding trade-at 

with good results. 

12 

Finally, we believe that the SEC should seek to fortify Rules 605 

and 606 regarding execution quality. Greater transparency of order 

execution stimulates competition, keeps practices like payment for 

order-flow in check, and ensures that any pilot to widen spreads 

has empirical data behind it. 

I am hopeful Congress can help push the SEC on its mission to 

finalize their tasks under the JOBS Act, and help entrepreneurs 

like myself become successful and deliver innovation and jobs to 

our capital market system. 

Thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nagy can be found on page 60 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman GARRETT. And, thank you very much. 

Next, on behalf of the Investment Program Association, Mr. 

Souza is recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE G. SOUZA, GENERAL COUNSEL AND 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF LAW, THE WALTON INTERNATIONAL GROUP (USA), INC., ON BEHALF OF THE INVESTMENT PROGRAM ASSOCIATION (IPA) 

Mr. SOUZA. Thank you, Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member 

Maloney, and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Wayne Souza. I am general counsel and in-house executive vice president of law for the Walton International Group of 

Scottsdale, Arizona, and I am pleased to be here today to testify 

on behalf of the Investment Program Association (IPA). 

The IPA was created in 1985 to serve as a national trade association for the direct investment industry. 

Direct investment refers to the pooling of capital by individuals 

to make investments directly in tangible assets without taking on 

the responsibility of the day-to-day managing or operating of those 

assets. 

Examples include non-listed real estate investment trusts, oil 

and gas and equipment leasing programs, and business development companies. 

Direct investment products are designed to be medium- to longterm holdings, and because they are held for these longer durations 

they offer critically important capital in the form of debt investments and stable equity investments. 

By the end of 2012, direct investments represented more than $1 

billion in assets held in more than 1.5 million investor accounts 

with an average investment of $30,000. IPA members reported 

total sales of $13.3 billion for that same period of 2012. 

Direct investments are a critical source of capital for America’s 

small businesses. We are pleased to have this opportunity to discuss ways to reduce barriers to the capital formation and stimulate 

job creation for our fellow Americans. 

We commend Congress, and of course the subcommittee, for the 

enactment of the JOBS Act last year. The Act included a number 

of provisions that will foster the creation of new businesses, as we 

have heard today, and the growth of existing ones. 

13 

The IPA would, however, like to suggest two clarifications to the 

JOBS Act in particular that are intended to make it even more efficient. 

First, the Act makes it easier for private companies known as 

emerging growth companies to raise capital through an initial public offering. 

The Act allows companies to test the waters, as we have heard, 

by engaging in communications with qualified institutional buyers 

and accredited investors without becoming subject to the requirements that apply to the prospectuses under Section 10(a) of the Securities Act. 

However, in certain arenas, we have began to implement the 

JOBS Act and there have been many concerns raised as to whether 

these testing-of-the-waters materials are exempt from the requirements that apply to public offerings generally. 

The lack of clarity in some sectors of the market is having a 

chilling effect on IPOs as companies may be reluctant to use the 

Act’s provisions. The scope of the exemption should be made clear 

by Congress by amending Section 5(a) of the securities act. 

Secondly, the JOBS Act requires the SEC to develop rules to ensure that securities sold by general solicitation or general advertising are sold only to accredited investors. 

And subject to your comment this morning, Mr. Chairman, concerning the meetings currently being conducted over at the SEC, 

Congress should clarify that the Act neither requires nor permits 

the Securities and Exchange Commission to add requirements not 

found in the Act regarding disclosure or content standards in the 

very materials used for solicitation or advertising. 

Beyond clarifying the JOBS Act, the IPA has two additional sections we believe would reduce barriers to capital formation. Business development companies (BDCs) are one of the fastest growing 

segments of the direct investment space and our membership at 

the IPA. BDCs are similar in function to venture capital and private equity firms, however, their ownership structure allows the 

general public to participate in them. 

Currently before your committee are H.R. 31 and H.R. 1800, 

which would improve the ability of BDCs to provide capital to 

small businesses across this country. The Investment Program Association supports each of those bills. 

A continuing challenge to our members is the patchwork of existing State laws that govern the acceptance of electronic signatures 

and executing security subscription documents. These different 

State standards slow down and even in some instances block the 

free movement of capital between regions. 

We would recommend that Congress consider updating the securities laws to allow for acceptance of electronic signatures on security subscription documents in all jurisdictions. 

Again, on behalf of the Investment Program Association, we appreciate this opportunity to address you. I will be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Souza can be found on page 64 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman GARRETT. And I thank you as well. 

14 

Finally, Professor Robert Thompson, professor of business law at 

Georgetown, welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. THOMPSON, PETER P. 

WEIDENBRUCH, JR., PROFESSOR OF BUSINESS LAW, 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

My thanks to you, Chairman Garrett, and to Ranking Member 

Maloney and the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity 

to testify about removing barriers to capital formation. 

Even as we have seen the economy grow over recent reporting 

periods, the growth of capital formation, as measured for example 

by the number of IPOs, has been below some expectations. 

The JOBS Act lowered a variety of barriers to capital formation 

and more are still coming in the regulatory pipeline. At the same 

time, innovations in the capital markets have also lowered barriers 

to capital formation and shifted how capital is raised. 

My brief comments today will focus on those two topics. 

JOBS added five deregulatory features to our national securities 

laws: two new exemptions, Crowdfunding and Regulation A-plus; 

revisions to a third exemption, 506, that will greatly expand its 

use; and then two major changes to the 1934 Act regulatory burdens, the on-ramp that has already been discussed and an increase 

in the threshold of Section 12(g), which quadruples the number of 

record shareholders before a company becomes subject to the 1934 

Act reporting requirements. 

As the three 1933 Act exemptions remain waiting rulemaking 

from the SEC and as 12(g), the effect will not be felt for some time, 

my focus today is on the fifth deregulatory feature, the on-ramp, 

where we have seen the greatest changes in the year since JOBS. 

Most companies today, as has already been said, come within the 

definition of emerging growth companies and are eligible to use the 

detailed—less detailed regulatory requirements for up to 5 years 

after going public. 

The first year of JOBS did not produce much difference from the 

period before JOBS in the number of IPOs, but we can see evidence 

that those companies that have chosen to go public are taking advantage of the reduced requirements for capital formation, although not in a uniform fashion. 

A recent study by Latham and Watkins of the first year of JOBS 

shows a variety of taking advantage at different levels of different 

figures. 

For example, starting at the top, nearly all emerging growth 

companies are using 404(b), the audit requirement exemption for 

their EGC period. 

About three-quarters of emerging growth companies are taking 

advantage of reduced disclosure as to executive compensation. Almost half of emerging growth companies have provided 2 years 

rather than 3 years of financial statements. 

One-third of emerging growth companies began filing with confidential submissions and many more of those are in the pipeline. 

Only 20 percent of ETCs are taking advantage of the extended 

phase-in of accounting rules that could be put in place in the future, and there has been little use of the expanded definition of reVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:41 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 082860 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\82860.TXT TERRI
15 

search that would allow borrowers communication with perspective 

buyers. 

This diversity of EGC conduct in reaction to the new requirements is useful information both in terms of the provisions that 

they are adopting and also the ones that they see the benefit of 

continuing to make disclosures about. 

Investors and issuers understand that credible information is essential to permit investors to accurately price their investments. 

The burden of increasing disclosure obligations on smaller public 

issues including the conflict mineral resources that the chairman 

mentioned at the beginning suggest the value of considering two 

levels of public issuers: one to whom all public disclosure rules will 

apply; and the other only applicable to larger disclosures that 

would cover, that go beyond shareholder interest. 

The new Section 12(g) threshold which I described as having less 

of an immediate effect does impose one burden that merits current 

attention. 

The threshold for being public which had been 500 shareholders 

of record has been changed to 2,000, but it requires that companies 

know who their shareholders are and not just their number of 

shareholders, but the number of accredited investors. 

And they have to know that not just when they go public—not 

just at the beginning before they go public but every year until 

they go public. 

This information 1 year into the new regime, the method by 

which companies will get this data remains unclear. Companies are 

very good at figuring out who their investors are when they issue 

stock to them in a 506 or some other private offering. 

But as the years go by, they lose track of them. This is a burden 

that has not yet been solved. Congress needs to change the anachronistic of record label to something that is more suitable for the 

electronic age. 

My last point relates to the fact that institutional shareholders 

are our shareholder base, and if we talk about barriers to raising 

capital, we need to focus on how institutional shareholders are different than individuals and some needs that they bring to the 

table. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Professor Thompson can be found on 

page 72 of the appendix.] 

Chairman GARRETT. And thank you, Professor. 

And I thank the entire panel. 

We will now go to questions, and I will first recognize myself for 

5 minutes. 

So, where should I start? Right in the middle. 

Mr. Nagy, you mentioned one item that was of interest; unfortunately, it is outside of our jurisdiction, but still of interest to us is 

the patent trolls and frivolous litigation. So I will just make note 

that is something of interest to us, but I guess I will have to be 

put on another committee or something like that in order to deal 

with those issues. 

But maybe you could go into an area you touched on that we do 

have jurisdiction on. From your experience and what you are looking at, the exchange is—so you laid out some of the problems, you 

16 

laid out some of the things that Congress can be doing, can you lay 

out in the markets today, in the exchanges today, what are the 

participants on their own doing to ameliorate some of the problems 

that this panel has been looking at outside of Congress to improve 

in the area that we are looking at obviously trading in small cap 

companies? 

Mr. NAGY. In terms of small cap companies, that is the problem. 

Chairman GARRETT. Right. 

Mr. NAGY. The volume just isn’t there, so I would say, what are 

people doing? There has not been a lot done to really encourage robust liquidity in those names. 

Chairman GARRETT. Okay. 

Mr. NAGY. You have low trading costs and you have everything 

priced exactly how you have big securities priced, but what happens is particularly if you are a retail client or want to go in and 

buy the security you might see 100 shares offered—right—you 

want to buy 1,000 shares. 

The next price point is going to be maybe $0.05, $0.10 up so 

there isn’t enough liquidity to encourage somebody to even want to 

place an order to buy in a lot of those. 

And I would say that is where the problem begins. 

Chairman GARRETT. Right. 

Let me swing over to the gentleman to your right, Mr. Moch. You laid out some numbers here which are interesting, the $10 million 

cost to go public in some of the problem areas which was 404(b). 

Do you want to just comment on what the professor was talking 

about—from your view—as he put it, the diversity of the benefits 

by companies that they selected of the JOBS Act. You heard what 

he said. He just ran down how they were using it differently. 

Mr. MOCH. Which particular aspect? I’m sorry. 

Chairman GARRETT. So in other words, the professor was—and 

professor, you can chime in here—running through that we passed 

the legislation, it provided benefits, but apparently that the companies are looking at it from their own perspective, which is good, to 

pick out which ones best work for them, and you highlighted I 

guess in the one area, 404(b) as far as one of the benefits of being 

able to avoid that. 

Mr. MOCH. Right. We spent about $1.8 million in fees before 

going public or as part of the process and then the bankers fees 

were another eight when we finally went public, and we were able 

to not—in the going public process, one of the things that was important for our investors was not to spend too much money before 

we found out if we could go public. 

That is when the key things—by not having to be prepared for 

404(b) compliance before the public offering, we can avoid that 

preparation, which is about tens of thousands of dollars. And if you 

look at it from—even hundreds of thousands of dollars—the venture capitalist perspective, you are putting more capital at risk for 

an event that might not happen. 

So in a general sense, what we are trying to do is before we find 

out if we can even go public, not spend a lot of money getting ready 

for it. To be 404(b) compliant, for example, before a public offering 

requires you to be ready—get ready months if not years in advance 

and you can’t make the decision of when the window is going to 

17 

be available. So all of that spending money, basically transferring 

it from research and development to accounting. 

Chairman GARRETT. Okay. 

Mr. Souza, can you just elaborate a little bit on the disclosure requirements that you were talking about and the fact of whether or 

not to say—and I think I know the answer, but I will throw it out 

to you—as far as the SEC adding to or detracting from the disclosure requirements and the authority that they have in that area 

that you are talking about in your testimony? 

Mr. SOUZA. Are you talking in connection with testing-the-waters? 

Chairman GARRETT. Yes. 

Mr. SOUZA. Yes. The best thing in our judgment as the association to remedy that situation is to borrow a piece out of Rule 408 

in connection with free writing prospectuses. 

In the area of free writing prospectuses, everything that is in the 

free writing prospectus need not necessarily go into the registration 

statement; absent which you would have material misrepresentation and the same thing we believe would be appropriate in terms 

of testing-the-waters. 

That is, just because you may have some information in the materials one uses to test the waters and it is not in the registration 

statement, does not necessarily make it a material admission and 

remedying that would take care of that issue. 

Chairman GARRETT. Okay, I think I got that. 

Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Thompson—incidentally I think all of you gave very, 

very good information, very good testimony—I just want to focus on 

three basic areas to get an ascertainment on and some of you may 

want to jump in, but Professor Thompson, do you have any significant evidence about the impact of the JOBS Act? 

It has been a relatively short period of time, and in that time, 

have we given enough time for us here in Congress where we can 

get an impact on it before we even begin to think of what else we 

may want to do? 

Mr. THOMPSON. As to the name, the hardest impact to measure 

is jobs. It is very difficult to have any metric to say we have produced jobs. As to—secondly, as to capital formation, which does 

lead to jobs, we can measure how much capital has been raised in 

the last year and there has been testimony from the panel about 

that already and it is going up. The second quarter has been very 

good, but still not so great. 

As to the specifics, what I mention and the chairman referred to, 

it hasn’t been one-size-fits-all. Companies that think about going 

public are looking at the JOBS Act and seeing what fits for them. 

Section 404(b) is there for almost everybody, so you know that 

is making a difference. Some of the other things are not being used 

as much and that is worth taking into account, and then there are 

things like testing-the-waters that are by definition testing-the-waters goes on behind closed doors. 

18 

It is pretty hard for us on the outside to see what is going on, 

and the SEC is going to adapt as it goes along, so there hasn’t been 

enough time yet to see exactly how that is working. 

Plus, there is still more stuff coming online; 506 perhaps today, 

crowdfunding down the road, there will be other things going on, 

so we will know more than we know today and the question is, 

when do you know enough that you want to go ahead with something else? 

Mr. MOCH. Would it be helpful to personalize that to Chimerix’s 

effects—useful? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. 

Mr. MOCH. We absolutely use parts of the JOBS Act in our decision-making process to go public. We really started the process of 

going public a year ago; we went public in April, so the early part 

of last year. 

We needed to raise money for a very expensive clinical trial, the 

drug I mentioned, CMX001, so we had to start talking to investors 

to see if they were interested and a year ago, there was no real 

public market. So today, yes, it is very nice. A year ago, it wasn’t 

there. 

So testing-the-waters was very important, and not having to 

spend money on something like 404(b) to get ready for a market 

which might not exist was critical to this decision-making process. 

Again, had there not been a public market, we would have been 

wasting money and time. 

Mr. SCOTT. So the answer to the question would be that Congress might need more time to fully implement and evaluate the 

effects of the JOBS Act before pushing for any additional experimental, small business capital formation proposal. Is that pretty 

much the consensus of the group? 

Mr. MOCH. Yes, but there are things you can already see to be 

helpful. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, now I spoke earlier about are there any identifiable undue regulatory burdens that we need to look at that are 

standing in the way of capital formation? 

Mr. Moch? 

Mr. MOCH. I can certainly clarify—one of the comments was 

made about clarification of things like testing-the-waters meetings. 

This may be a minor part of it all, but I can tell you in talking to 

many other biotechnology CEOs, it is not clear how many people 

you can talk to, what you can or cannot leave behind, the depth 

of testing-the-waters meetings. So, every law firm gives a different 

piece of advice because there is no clarity. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, I have 40 seconds left. What about the SEC 

program, the tick size, the efforts to make other moves? Each of 

these points that have been brought up with what the SEC is 

doing? What kind of grade do you give that? Are there alterations 

that need to be made in that? 

Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. I think the ideas that have been discussed today and 

in previous conversations about piloting whether it is on tick size 

or other issues are things that the committee should look strongly 

at and shouldn’t wait because in many of these issues in terms of 

long-term economic impact are going to take years, not quarters to 

19 

get the full understanding. So I think additional areas to consider 

should be looked at and tested and further discussed. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GARRETT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Hurt, is now recognized. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, I thank each of the witnesses for being here. 

I wanted to direct a couple of questions to Mr. Moch and your 

experience with Chimerix as it relates to XBRL. You noted in your 

testimony that the costs about $50,000 to comply with that. Could 

you talk a little bit more about that in terms of the ongoing—is 

that an ongoing cost? 

And can you talk about the time that you are required—does 

that estimate include the time required by staff? Does that include 

the opportunity costs? That is, what could those resources be used 

for as it relates to other parts of your operation in how you invest 

those dollars? 

Mr. MOCH. There are two sides to that. One, the number—you 

described it accurately—the $50,000 would include external costs to 

the printer if you will, plus the internal legal—internal costs of our 

staff plus legal oversight and review. So we estimate that at about 

$50,000 a year, which is, if you think about it, a person. So we are 

trading XBRL for a person. 

Mr. HURT. Do you—and by the way, if I may interrupt, do you 

actually have one person who deals with that— 

Mr. MOCH. No. 

Mr. HURT. —or is that something that everybody has to—a number of people have to contribute to? 

Mr. MOCH. We have a very small accounting staff who does—we 

have been audited by one of the major accounting firms through 

our life, but we have a small focused accounting staff. 

The other side of it is the fact that most of the people who would 

look at biotechnology companies don’t look at us quite bluntly for 

our financials; they look at us for the progress of our science. 

And so the relevance of this rule to a company like Chimerix is 

one that I would question because it is not—they are not going to 

put our spreadsheet up and compare it to other biotechs. Let’s put 

it that way. 

Mr. HURT. Okay, that leads me to my second question. What 

does this do for investors? The investors who are looking to invest 

in your company, do you hear from them saying, what we see on 

this XBRL format is very, very helpful to us and this makes us 

want to invest in your company? 

Is it helpful to them? And is there a risk of having it be actually 

not accurate or not helpful? 

Mr. MOCH. I can’t answer the second part. I can tell you I have 

never heard anybody ask about XBRL. I was also the CEO of one 

of the smallest accelerated filers in the country after the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2003, and never once despite the fact 

that we were fundamentally tortured by the compliance process, 

did an investor asked me about the status of our financials. It is 

all about the status of the science. 

Mr. HURT. Very interesting. 

20 

Mr. Leach, I wanted to ask you about sort of the big picture in 

terms of the disincentives for companies to go public, and that obviously is something on which this committee is focused. How do we 

encourage more companies to do that? 

That was the purpose of the JOBS Act. One of the things that 

you note in your testimony is that as a consequence, a lot of these 

startup companies are really positioning themselves to be acquired 

as opposed to going public. 

Are there any negative consequences just to that dynamic in and 

of itself that a company is proficient need to go—to be acquired as 

opposed to going on its own and getting bigger? What are the sort 

of long-term applications for that, and are there negative consequences? 

Mr. LEACH. There are very, very significant negative impacts on 

job growth. Obviously, when you are—in our case, a technology-oriented firm that is being acquired typically by a much larger company that has internal capacities that now are duplicative, those 

young companies coming to the larger firm and jobs are lost, not 

gained. 

So this limitation and prevention of companies being able to access public markets has a very significant, negative impact on job 

growth and particularly—I am from Cleveland, so a place in the 

Midwest where there are lots of young startup tech companies. 

A lot of the acquirers of these companies would be from outside 

the Midwest. So not only is it a negative national job impact, but 

the jobs could be polled to other markets, whereas in our community, we are really looking for young technology companies to be 

drivers of job growth. So this is a major impediment to the longterm trajectory of jobs in the United States. 

Mr. HURT. Do you think that the XBRL issue that you all have 

touched on is—do you think that is in and of itself a disincentive 

or is it an example of the sort of a regulatory climate that is in fact 

of the disincentive to companies going public? 

Mr. LEACH. I would say it is, but it is one of many. That certainly isn’t the issue. I would also emphasize just because it has 

come up that the potential impact of crowdfunding, which is obviously for younger companies, earlier companies, than it is for firms 

that are preparing to go public, I think is also going to have an incredibly positive impact on job growth. 

I know this committee certainly isn’t losing sight of that, but it 

is a complex system. There are multiple levers to be pulled. All of 

them should be continued to be looked at and evaluated and tested 

for improvement. 

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet here, and that certainly 

is one of the challenges that this committee— 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Mr. Leach. My time has expired. 

Chairman GARRETT. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized. 

Mr. HIMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the panel for a really informative discussion today on some fairly technical issues. I have two questions. 

One is, a number of the panelists made the point that one of the 

barriers to capital formation in the IPO market is the post-IPO 

trading environment, and absence of research coverage, and abVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:41 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 082860 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\82860.TXT TERRI
21 

sence of market makers. There have been suggestions that there 

could be what feel to me perhaps heavy-handed mechanisms 

whereby we could address that. Of course, changing, mandating 

broader tick sizes is one of the proposals out there. 

My question is, why does the market not take care of this problem? In other words, if you have illiquid lightly traded shares, why 

don’t investors do their own work, because it’s an illiquid inefficient 

market, they discover real value opportunities and therefore make 

a lot of money. 

Why is there not a natural market solution to what appears to 

be an illiquidity problem in aftermarket trading? 

Mr. NAGY. I can take that a little bit. Essentially, liquidity in our 

country has been boiled down to the top traded securities and furthermore, to exacerbate it, investors like you are talking about 

have moved from doing the research on individual securities more 

into exchange traded funds which happen to be based on those bigger securities as well, too, right, because they are worried about 

the market volatility. 

When an investor takes a look at a very small capitalized security, they do not see a lot of liquidity there. There is no real incentive for them to want to buy it because it doesn’t have the liquidity 

of the larger names that are out there. 

So it is really important to push liquidity in those names and 

those smaller names also lack market makers and specialists to a 

big degree. There are a lot of firms that— 

Mr. HIMES. But if I could interrupt there, isn’t there just, if you do a $100 million IPO which is not an unusual size, there is just 

going to be a natural limitation on the liquidity. A big institutional investor can’t take a $200 million position in a $100 million IPO, right? Is there a solution to that problem? 

Mr. NAGY. So what you are talking about is if you do a small 

IPO, and only have a set number of shares out there, you are going 

to have a small amount of trades per day? 

Mr. HIMES. Yes. 

Mr. NAGY. There is nothing you can do in that case, so you are 

talking about what the actual float is in the marketplace. If you 

have a small float, right, shares that are trading in the public marketplace, then you are going to have much lower volume, but the 

real question is not volume; the real question is liquidity. 

So if I am an investor and I want to buy shares on a very low 

liquid stock, are there only 100 shares offered if I want to buy 

1,000, 2,000, et cetera, at that price. I think that is where the real 

issue is and also one that drives potential investors away. 

Mr. HIMES. Let me move on to my second question, because I will 

run out of time. 

During the whole JOBS Act debate consideration, the amount of 

money we were talking about, 404(b) compliance and whatnot, it 

ranged from—some companies saying it costs them $500,000 a year 

and others saying $1.5 million a year. There was a big range there. 

I was always puzzled by the fact that no issuer and the venture 

capital community never raised the issue of underwriter gross 

spreads, which 25 years ago when I was doing IPOs were 7.5 percent, and I think today are still pretty much 7.5 percent. 

Mr. MOCH. Seven. 

22 

Mr. HIMES. Seven, okay, it has gotten a little more efficient 

there. 

Doing my math, on a $200 million IPO, that gross spread is $14 million; much larger than the $0.5 million, $1.5 million annual we 

were talking about. And I understand that is an annual cost, but 

here is my question. 

In that industry, the inputs have gotten much more productive; 

I.T., people, et cetera. Why in a purportedly competitive industry 

in which we have seen productivity improvements are issuers still 

paying roughly the same gross spread that they were paying 20 or 

25 years ago? 

Let me ask the professor and Mr. Nagy, who said he was on Wall 

Street for a while, to maybe start with answers to that question. 

Mr. THOMPSON. That spread goes over the whole selling network. 

The core point, and it doesn’t answer it entirely, is that when you 

do an IPO, you don’t know what the price is. There has to be price 

discovery, and for price discovery you can’t go to a market and 

watch it. You can’t watch the tape. You have to talk to people. You 

have to—and you have to sense what they are doing and a middle 

man, a middle person does that. 

And that process is still a—electronics hasn’t helped us on that 

point as much as it has a lot of other things that we have done. 

So I think there is still debate, but there is still a question that 

process has to have an intermediary who has a reputation on the 

line who is going to be able to come back and be a repeat player 

and who is going to be held accountable over the long haul for what 

they do. 

And so, that is a cost of going public. It produces value beyond 

it because we see companies go public. But if it doesn’t, companies 

will look for their money from venture capital to private equity or 

some other source. 

Mr. NAGY. Yes, I would tell you that if you went back to work 

today it would be eerily similar in that regard, because the markets 

in that aspect haven’t changed a lot from the underwriting aspect. 

One of the things that has happened though over the past decade 

and a half is we have seen this decoupling of the distribution network versus the underwriting network. So back in the day when 

I first got into the industry, those were actually intertwined. 

You had the distribution network coupled with the underwriting 

network and now that distribution network has been pulled out. 

We see that—in the form of online brokerages and where we see 

the investment thinking in the big banks. So there is a big decoupling there which doesn’t allow those revenues to flow back and 

forth. 

Just quickly, I was thinking about the last IPO that was done 

differently, Google, which did a Dutch auction out to their investors 

and there was a lot of criticism over the pricing of it. But it was 

fairly innovative in trying a different method for that. 

So at the end of the day, the methods that are out there are still 

old. The market has changed quite a bit, and thus the reason why 

things are the same in that regard. 

Mr. HIMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GARRETT. Sure. Thank you. 

Mr. Huizenga for 5 minutes. 

23 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your time, and I know that especially for those of 

you from the private sector, this is taking away from some valuable 

time as you are out trying to grow businesses and that kind of 

thing, and it seems to me that this is a key element to our economic rebirth and our growth. 

I come from a very entrepreneurial area over on the western side 

of Michigan, in the Grand Rapids area, and we have a lot of entrepreneurs, a lot of those small businesses, and I know they are looking for ways to take their ideas and move them to the next level. 

I am concerned frankly that the SEC is spending more time and 

resources on discretionary issues, other things for example, the corporate political disclosure, Dodd-Frank rulemaking, the discretionary side rather than some of those more capital—I’m sorry, concrete measures that are going to help small businesses access that 

capital. I am kind of curious to get your temperature. 

Absent of the JOBS Act, does anybody believe the SEC staff 

would have proposed any rules to the Commission to enhance capital formation, particularly small capital startups, private companies. Do we see that sort of a visionary movement out of the SEC 

or do we need to have a body like this to prompt them along? 

Mr. NAGY. I will take that question. The answer is yes, you need 

a body like this to move them along. I would submit to you that 

it is interesting when you look at within the SEC some of the initiatives that they undertake. 

I will give you an example. At no fault of theirs, it is just that 

the process to continue to move regulation that would. But I will 

talk about regulation SCI, Systems, Compliance, and Integrity, 

which was just proposed on March 8th. It actually goes back to an 

issue with a large market maker that happened in August of 2012, 

so I am drawing a timeline here. 

So in August of 2012, you had an issue, a very large monetary 

issue with market maker on the street. On October 2nd, the SEC 

held a fairly large roundtable, and then on March 8th, the SEC 

proposed a 400-page set of rules regarding that issue. 

Take that back to the JOBS Act—I said, I am a startup, I need 

crowdfunding to come in, we don’t have anything on the table, it 

has been over a year, right. So I think it is a lot of where the priorities really are in terms of addressing the issues. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. I want to say thanks for the answer, but that 

confirms something that I am not real thankful of, I guess, and 

that is a lot of the concern. 

And I know that the SEC does the forum on small business capital formation and advisory committee. There has been a tremendous number of suggestions that have come out of that. I am not 

seeing a lot of implementation of that. Has anybody else seen what 

is coming of those things? 

Professor? 

Anybody else? 

Mr. Souza is grabbing the microphone. Go ahead. 

Mr. SOUZA. I happen to have the pleasure of serving as a securities subcommittee co-chair for the American Bar Association, and 

this topic came up at our very recent meeting. These forums have 

been continuing for some time at the Commission, but there apVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:41 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 082860 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\82860.TXT TERRI
24 

pears to be a general market frustration about the implementation 

of positive or any actions in response to them. 

Said another way, it is a good dialogue and it needs to take 

place, but there doesn’t appear to be much movement following the 

meetings— 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Not to interrupt, but are you saying actions 

speak louder than words? 

Mr. SOUZA. Often, they do. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Okay, all right. That is good to hear, and I know 

we had the pleasure of having Mary Jo White here in front of the 

committee. One of those recommendations—I have to put a plug in 

here for my bill, H.R. 2274, having to deal with mergers and acquisitions. 

It seems to me as you are seeing a lot of those small businesses 

looking to move along they are going to have to sell themselves or 

at least part of themselves and there has been a real problem with 

the brokerage definitions of who that is and we are hoping to solve 

that with that particular piece of legislation. So I would love for 

you to take a look at that, H.R. 2274, you can write it down. 

But I am also curious, is there anything else that we should be 

doing to help facilitate this, because this is so vital as we are trying 

to revive our economy? I am looking for suggestions. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. NAGY. I would just say that SEC funding is an important 

consideration, getting people to give the SEC the proper bandwidth 

that they need to be able to complete a lot of the rules. 

Just visiting the SEC quite a bit, it was obvious they were 

bogged down from a lot of the implementation activities with DoddFrank. So a lot of other things went on the back burner which kind 

of makes it a little bit harder when they don’t have enough staffing 

in place. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. I appreciate it. 

I know my time is up—maybe Mr. Moch, if the chairman will 

allow but it seems to me is about priorities as well, right? 

Mr. MOCH. Yes. And I just wanted to add that, to reinforce the 

concept that one-size-doesn’t-fit-all and that is really where we as 

a small company and over the course of my five companies we got 

hit with application of rules that are made for a bad act done by 

somebody in a very large company that then applied universally 

you to small companies. When we first encountered SOX compliance, the guys said look, I have to treat you just like IBM because 

that is what the law says. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Maybe we are here from the government, and 

maybe we can help, so we will try. 

Mr. MOCH. It would be nice. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. All right. Thank you. 

And with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GARRETT. The gentleman is recognized moving right 

down the aisle— 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GARRETT. —for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. I appreciate all of you being here, and your testimony, and I have a question really for the entire panel if anybody 

wants to jump in on this. 

25 

One suggestion of the SEC’s advisory committee on small and 

emerging companies was the creation of a separate U.S. equity 

market specifically designed for very small and emerging companies. 

Now as I understand it, several European exchanges created 

these types of so-called junior stock markets which were intended 

to promote equity finance by enabling small companies to go public 

and then to grow at that point. 

However, in many of these new companies that initially went 

public, investor participation in trading volume shortly thereafter 

fell quite significantly, and by the mid-1990s, the European exchanges decided to abolish these junior stock markets. 

So given that this is a recommendation from the advisory panel, 

could any of you comment on the European experience and how 

you think it might be different here in this country and make some 

sense for us? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Not just Europe, but London and Brazil and 

other places have tried it. As the ranking member noted in her 

opening remarks, we have the deepest stock market in the world, 

and so that gives us more liquidity even in that segment, as well. 

So there—in various—the experience might be different, but I 

think what the experience from the 1990s and 2000s shows is that 

the markets are creative. 

The markets are adapting to changes in technology and changes 

in who is owning shares and the question is, who ought to be the 

lead for that question? Should it be the government or should be 

the markets? And on that question, I think there is something to 

be said for letting the markets take the lead. 

Mr. NAGY. Yes, I would actually add to that, and I saw that recommendation of the advisory committee on small and emerging 

companies. The real question is if you do it, do you just have one, 

because I would like to put in the bid to be the one to run it, if 

that were the case. 

So competition is always a good thing. There actually are facilities out there today. I do think once some of the provisions of the 

JOBS Act are completed, we will see markets begin to emerge naturally on their own that will begin to bring some transparency into 

the pricing of securities that are not yet IPOd. 

Mr. SOUZA. I would observe for you that I think many companies 

are looking at the Toronto Stock Exchange to essentially do that 

in some form. They incubate there, they get a following and then 

they migrate to the larger exchanges in the United States and I 

have seen that occur a number of times. I am not suggesting that 

is the ultimate solution, but I have observed that. 

Mr. PETERS. Okay, very good. 

Thank you, and then a final question here to Mr. Leach. 

I know you have had some success in nurturing startup companies in the Cleveland area, and Cleveland is a city that shares 

some of the challenges of a city that I represent, the City of Detroit, and I would like you to discuss some of the factors that you 

believe could help create a startup ecosystem in cities like Cleveland and how that might be transferable to Detroit. 

Detroit, of course, has incredible intellectual capital. In fact, 

when the first patent office opened just a few years ago outside of 

26 

Washington, D.C., for the first time in history it wasn’t opened in 

Silicon Valley, it was opened in the City of Detroit because of the 

incredible intellectual capital there, and yet we don’t have the venture capital community in the City and in Michigan like some 

other areas. 

Do you have some suggestions as to things that we should be 

doing that you would recommend? 

Mr. LEACH. Absolutely. My organization is actually a nonprofit 

that partners with public, private, philanthropic, and institutional 

organizations that have a common vision to accelerate capital formation in the acceleration of young tech companies. 

So the secret for us in Ohio, and we have actually worked now 

in 15 other regions of the country, is how do you bring together the 

leaders, the stakeholders who already have a vested interest in economic growth and particularly the acceleration of tech companies 

and help those leaders in that community figure out a strategy, a 

collective strategy that will leverage off and benefit each other? 

We call it a collective impact strategy. There have been significant partnerships with Federal agencies as well as State and local 

governments, but more substantially, the private sector. 

As a good example, my organization has invested $30 million of 

State and philanthropic monies in startups, in Cleveland—Northeast Ohio—and those startups have now raised about $400 million 

of private capital. 

And along with that system, of those 70 companies that we have 

helped, we have also helped attract another $1.2 billion of private 

capital. 

So for the places that aren’t the usual suspects for this type of 

innovation, it really takes an all-in collective strategy, but most importantly tactics that institutions of research, the private sector, 

the corporate leadership, and the public sector can partner and of 

course the private sector can carry most of this weight if it gets 

some catalyst activity or momentum from the public sector in the 

philanthropic community. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And don’t forget the university segment in funding basic research that feeds into that same pipeline. 

Mr. LEACH. Absolutely, absolutely. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman GARRETT. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Royce? 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was going to ask a question to the panel and this goes to the 

founder of the SUBWAY® Restaurants chain, who I saw make a 

comment to the effect that if he tried to start his company today, 

there would be no SUBWAY® because of, in his words, ‘‘more and 

more regulations.’’ 

And I saw that the National Federation of Independent Businesses had this study which purported that on a daily basis, there 

are 10 new regulations a day. Now ignorance of the law is no excuse, but clearly for small businesses, you have to stay abreast of 

all of these new regulations. You have to stay current. It has an 

amazing impact in terms of litigation costs and everything else as 

you are trying to deal with all of this in compliance. 

27 

I thought I would ask the panel what, if anything, could be done 

because if we start counting up the new regulations out of DoddFrank, all of the new regulations that impact litigation, all of the 

regulatory superstructure that is being erected and all of the ways 

in which small enterprises try to stay up with this, given their 

economies of scale, what might we be able to do to streamline some 

of this? Maybe get rid of some of the red tape, create a safe harbor 

in order to do startups, because this is where most of the new job 

creation is, isn’t it, with starting the next little company and 

watching that grow and that is where the employment is created? 

But, Mr. Leach, do you want to— 

Mr. LEACH. Yes. It is a great question. The ideas of safe harbor’s 

ideas and opportunities like that I think to be looked at. I think 

the reality for most small companies, certainly firms that are about 

ready to go public, absolutely, they have a good sense of the regulatory environment today are working in, but the reality is most 

small companies really don’t, particularly in the earliest stages. 

So to really have for small companies, small firms to have a better sense as well as Congress, the committee, and the citizenry of 

what are all of the regulations that are relevant to these businesses. 

I think it is no one on the small business side. I think very few 

business owners have a full sense of—they are daunted by it, they 

are concerned by it, but we don’t have a full sense of the balance 

of the things of that are in the short-term and intermediate best 

interest of small business owners that are on the positive and on 

the negative side. 

I think it is just overwhelming for small companies today as they 

contemplate all of the different issues they are facing. So I think 

it is something that we need to get a much greater clarity on not 

only what is in place, but what could change to improve the situation for small companies. 

Mr. ROYCE. I think a cost-benefit analysis on some of this would 

certainly be warranted if you consider how few people work. And 

of course once you have that small business that begins to take off, 

then you are in a situation as Mr. Moch, the company that went 

public under Title I of the JOBS Act, your firm, and I was going 

to ask you, Mr. Moch, because once you get some momentum in an 

enterprise, you have an idea that is really clicked, and as a consequence now you need access to capital to expand that company, 

I was going to ask you, was some of what we did in terms of the 

JOBS Act, is that what led you to choose this avenue for any merging growth company for your firm? 

Mr. MOCH. To start off, our new company is actually already 10 

or 11 years old and that is biotech drug development, and now only 

now going into Phase III. 

Without the JOBS Act, it is an interesting question, and we were 

debating as a company what the course would be for us if the public markets were not open and we needed to raise $85 million to 

$100 million to run our Phase III trial, we would have had to do 

a private venture capital round. 

The way venture capital works these days, because it is such a 

complex industry, is the new rounds coming in crush the old 

28 

rounds, so the people who have been investors for 5 and 10 years 

would have had their returns crushed. 

When they went out to raise their next round of venture capital 

because their returns were bad, the pension funds and others who 

look at the asset class of venture capital would have passed on it. 

So there is a whole cascade of bad things that happen when public markets and financing markets don’t exist and the existence of 

the JOBS Act and the ability to find out that yes, we could go public and we spent a lot of time talking to investors and bankers was 

critical because the alternative was a very difficult washout financing that probably would have crushed the prior investors and made 

this company, survivability would have been a question. 

Mr. ROYCE. So after growing for 10 years to get to this point, the 

existence of the JOBS Act was then a critical factor in making you 

decide to access the public market and enter those public markets? 

Mr. MOCH. Yes, and for other companies. I talked to a lot of 

other CEOs as well, and many companies are looking at, do they 

sell or do they try and do a venture round or do they try to go public? 

If you sell a company, you cap the value and as was just mentioned by Mr. Leach, your company moves generally so their jobs 

are lost wherever you are. 

If you have to do a venture round, you are crushed, and if there 

is a public market and we happen to—we spend a lot of time with 

the bankers and investors trying to figure that out. 

People look at Chimerix and think that we helped open up this 

particular market, and I think that timing-wise we did, but without the ability to talk to everybody and make it happen, it would 

have been a very different outcome. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Moch. 

I thank the panel. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GARRETT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses for helping the committee with our 

work. 

Mr. Nagy, I was very encouraged by your statement regarding 

adequate funding for the SEC. I appreciate that. I am however concerned that the subcommittee’s recommendation underfunds the 

SEC, underfunds the present request by $300 million, and I think 

that the added responsibilities that we have placed upon the SEC 

and Dodd-Frank and on the regulatory infrastructure cannot be 

met with the existing funding. 

Professor Thompson, roughly 35 percent of all equities trading 

this year is taking place in dark pools or brokerage dealer internal 

pools of orders and other alternative training systems where prices 

are not publicly available in advance of the trade. They are only 

listed after trade. 

Can you talk about the consequences of that? We are talking 

about capital formation and we see more and more trading coming 

off of the transparent exchanges and more energy, more resources, 

and greater risk being directed toward these dark pools. 

29 

What does it say if that trend continues with respect to the overall goal of enhancing capital formation, especially for some of the 

smaller companies that we are talking about coming into business 

at this time? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Technology has really sped up the price of discovery process for any trader to the point that if you are a trader 

you are worried about entering into the market because the information is going to be—you are competing with someone who is having a different strategy and so you would rather be in a dark pool 

because you like the odds better of making money on your information. 

And so, we have to deal with the technology part that is a reality 

that just speeds it up so much, and so, it is pretty complex. I don’t 

have an easy answer for you, but there has been movement toward 

pushback on getting 2 second, millisecond advantages information 

before it is public, how to deal—because that is the kind of thing 

that drives you to a dark pool because you don’t want to deal—you 

don’t want to trade with someone who has an advantage over you 

and so it requires knowing technology and how that interacts with 

traders. 

And that requires an expertise that doesn’t usually exist in regulatory agencies or in the Congress and so it is a question of keeping 

up with technology and it continues to be a real challenge that the 

SEC is working on and we need to support them with having the 

guns to match what is going on in the private sector. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Just a follow-up question: I know that 

we received some testimony at a previous hearing from Chairman 

Schapiro regarding the attitudes of investors with respect to companies that are required to comply with Section 404(b) versus the 

confidence level in companies that are not required to comply. 

And I know that you have dealt with some survey information 

with respect to 404(b) compliance. Is there anything you can tell 

the committee with respect to investor confidence in terms of that 

compliance? 

Mr. THOMPSON. There is a general correlation between information and investor confidence and there is a trade-off between cost 

and investor confidence. 

I think the main point about JOBS is that emerging growth companies get 5 years of grace for 404(b), which is a large space to 

work out this cost point and to that extent, we can see how that 

works. Because we always have to balance the availability of information which usually helps consumers versus the cost of information to providers, but JOBS gives most companies, because remember most IPOs are emerging growth companies, it gets them 5 

years of grace to get that sorted out. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. MOCH. May I— 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman— 

Mr. MOCH. Can I just add to that— 

Mr. LYNCH. Sure. 

Mr. MOCH. —for the biotech industry, again, to be very specific 

where the lifecycle is so long and the probability of hitting revenue 

is often the future, even after 5 years, the applicability of the financial control that we are talking about in 404(b) isn’t necessarily relVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:41 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 082860 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\82860.TXT TERRI
30 

evant because again, it is just a wealth transfer from R&D to accounting. 

My first company, which I founded in 1982, didn’t have product 

revenue for 15 years, but it was public in 1986. You have these 

long lifecycles before you have a dime of revenue. So the general 

one size you have to have it after 5 years may not work and probably doesn’t in certain industries. 

Mr. LYNCH. No, that is a great point. That is a great point. That 

is something we should be able to address. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Chairman GARRETT. Thank you. The gentleman from South 

Carolina, Mr. Mulvaney, is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the chairman. 

Gentlemen, I have a couple of different questions on a couple of 

different topics, so I will move through it as quickly as I can. I will 

open the first one up to just everybody which is: Several of you 

have mentioned in your testimony, both written and verbal today, 

that the SEC still has rules outstanding. If you had to pick one 

rule from the JOBS Act that the SEC had not yet enacted that you 

would like to see take a priority, what would it be? 

Mr. Nagy, you mentioned, I think more specifically, so I will 

start with you, and then Mr. Leach, and I think Professor Thompson mentioned it as well. 

Mr. NAGY. Without wasting your time, Title III. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Title III? 

Mr. NAGY. Yes. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. Crowdfunding; I think it will have a very significant 

impact, a positive impact. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I would say 506, because crowdfunding, as it 

passed the Congress, put very serious limitations on how to draft 

a system that works. I still remain very skeptical about how they 

have been given a task to make crowdfunding work within the constraints of the bill is going to be a challenge. 

506 can maybe make this happen already. It can happen, it will 

change capital raising immediately when that happens. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Souza, do you agree? 

Mr. SOUZA. Absolutely, 506, but perhaps we will have some 

greater clarity today. 

Mr. MOCH. And from BIO’s perspective, it is really Reg A. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Okay. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Nagy, a question for you. In your written testimony, there 

is a line—and I will read it, it is only one sentence. It says, ‘‘Congress may want to consider permitting these firms,’’ which you are 

talking about SBICs, ‘‘to become more involved in providing capital 

to financial service firms.’’ That is currently the case. I have a bill 

that would allow BDCs to do exactly that. Could you tell us why 

you think that is important? 

Mr. NAGY. Maybe it is a little self-interested, but we are what 

will be considered the financial services firm and there are quite 

a few out there. The SBIC program— 

Mr. MULVANEY. But other than its benefit to your firm, how 

would it help access to capital? 

31 

Mr. NAGY. It would help to access capital simply because that 

program goes from—as it is today, you have to have net revenues, 

positive net revenues in order to receive money from that SBIC 

program. 

The new program changes that in terms of you do not have to 

have net revenue; you don’t need to be net revenue positive in that 

case, and I think that is really big. When you look at a startup 

coming in, the first thing they have are costs. Right? You have patent costs, you have hiring costs, you have developing costs. You are 

not bringing in any revenue because you haven’t launched your 

product. Then, you have marketing costs on top of that, so you may 

not be profitable, as in our case, for 2 to 3 years. 

Right? So, being precluded from that entire section of the market 

is very difficult. You have to go through different avenues to get 

funding in that regard which makes it harder. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Moch, do you want to check in on that one? 

Mr. MOCH. No, I was just enjoying being profitable for 2 to 3 

years. Remember the unencumbered by revenue. My experience is 

15 years on average is not before revenue, not profit. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I have started companies and if we couldn’t get 

net revenue positive in 6 months, we wouldn’t have existed. 

Mr. MOCH. My current company is about 200 and something million dollars of accumulated retained earnings negative. My last 

company that unfortunately didn’t work because of how much 

money was lost was about $225 million before we started the drug 

wasn’t going to work. 

That is what this business, the biopharmaceutical business— 

Mr. MULVANEY. That is a different world. 

Professor Thompson, you mentioned in your testimony regarding 

an anachronism, that the concept of the on-record shareholdings is 

an anachronism. Any suggestions on what we could replace it with? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Beneficial shareholders. Record shareholder refers to who is on the company’s record and it is always a depository 

company. This was designed to solve the back office crisis of a generation ago. 

When you go public, all shares are owned by a depository company or a broker-dealer. It measures nothing. If you do beneficial 

ownership, and computers let us do that, we get much more of a 

sense of who ought to be covered and who ought not to be covered. 

We ought to use beneficial owners only. 

Mr. MULVANEY. That is the second or third time we have heard 

that as a constant theme in this committee, that this concept needs 

to go away and companies need to be able to know who owns them, 

and it is possible to do today where it wasn’t in the past. 

I was going to talk a little bit about the tick bill, but I understand Mr. Duffy is here, and he and my friend, Mr. Schweikert 

both have separate bills, so I am going to leave that to him and 

then close with you, Mr. Moch. 

You mentioned that it cost you about $10 million to go public. 

Did you all have a feel for what that would have cost but for the 

JOBS Act? 

Mr. MOCH. You could probably add a couple million more in terms of prep costs, so be spent again, $1.8 million of legal fees and 

accounting fees—I am sorry, $650,000 in D&O insurance which is 

32 

required when you are public, but you could argue a million-plus 

more at risk for 404(b) preparation and other aspects of getting 

public in the old environment and that risk capital to venture capitalist is probably where we weren’t willing to put it up. 

Mr. MULVANEY. In the few seconds I have left, you also mentioned something that was very interesting to me, which is the percentage that you had to incur before you actually made the go, no 

go decision. Was that beneficially impacted by the JOBS Act as 

well? 

Mr. MOCH. Yes, because we could feel the market. Early on, we 

could see the market interest. And I might add that by the way, 

other biotech companies—which we have looked at this number— 

we are low on the extent scale because I am a tightwad, but other 

companies going public have spent $3 million and $4 million to 

be—those are the costs of going public. So my $1.8 million is just 

low. 

We are the third lowest out of 21 recent IPOs, to those $3 and 

$4 million and we certainly by knowing that there was interest in 

the market, we talked to investors, they would get feedback to the 

bankers, the bankers would tell us. We knew we had a path. 

And the market was not open at the time we did this. So it is 

absolutely important for our decision-making process. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GARRETT. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Foster, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Leach, I guess, could you say a little bit more 

about the net job creation in an IPO versus an acquisition scenario? Because it seems to me that in an ideal market where everyone knows, everyone has complete information, the value of a startup might be higher in an acquisition scenario simply because redundant jobs can be eliminated and the merged entity would be a 

more efficient economic object. And that a lot of the increased value 

from—in the IPO scenario—has to do with the lack of complete information that you are introducing a much larger pool of less informed investors. And a lot of the increased economic value that is 

seen at the BC end and the startup end is due to the large pool 

of less informed investors. And where this is a fundamental tradeoff and—anyway, how do you see that whole— 

Mr. LEACH. So today, approximately 20 percent of the U.S. economy is being driven by venture backed companies and as we discussed earlier, 92 percent of job growth is coming post-public markets. I think many of these firms have been industry creators. So 

as we look forward, what venture capital does is it invests in firms 

that create new industries as opposed to perhaps we are in more 

of a—we haven’t had a dramatic new innovation in a—whether it 

is the Internet or biotech industry in previous decades that have 

been huge job creators and wealth creators going forward. I think 

that is an interim period where yes, M&A might have some greater 

efficiencies to the points that you raised, but looking forward, 

where the large—where I believe the large growth is going to happen is going to be from firms that are creating new innovations, 

whether that is out of things in the biotech sector, in genetics or 

other areas, those are going to be firms that if we are going to 

33 

maximize the economic impact and potential of these new innovative firms, a more optimum approach would be to be able to access 

the public markets. 

Today, the public markets are decreased or depressed mainly because there isn’t confidence and access to it in the general downturn of the economy. So I understand your point, and I think there 

are some inefficiencies there, but looking forward, increasing access 

to the public markets is really what is going to enable these new 

innovative firms to create more jobs as opposed to more of an efficiency play which would occur more in the M&A space. 

Mr. FOSTER. I come from the point of view of someone who start- ed a startup with $500 from his parents that is now $150 million 

a year and it has been a very successful ongoing concern—when we 

had to grow, we simply brought in additional well-informed partners as investors and never were attracted by the public markets. 

And it seems to me that there is some merit to having well-informed investors be the primary elements in this and avoiding the 

potential, the large number of the things you worry about on things 

like crowdsourcing when you are bringing in large numbers of lessinformed investors. 

And so I think we have to just be very careful that this is real 

economic value that we are optimizing for and not just transfer of 

wealth from a large number of less informed investors. 

And a related thing, it seems to me that the issue of liquidity for 

small cap IPOs is a fundamental problem that I think Representative Himes touched on that the cost of obtaining information on a 

small cap object is relatively high. 

You are never going to get—technical traders will not be interested in that because there are not a large number of competing, 

well-informed investors on these things because it is not worth 

their time. And so you are—I think you are never going to get larger volumes of technical trading and—or even a large number of 

well-informed investors. 

And so I was just wondering if any of you can describe any scenario where we really have high true liquidity for small cap IPOs 

and then whether fixed size is really going to affect that fundamental problem? 

Mr. NAGY. I can take that. When you talk about high and true 

liquidity for small cap security, when you look at many small cap 

securities today, they trade with large spreads. They are not trading at penny spreads, although we have a one-size-fits-all approach 

in the market. So they are bound by the exact same rules that the 

S&P 100 stocks trade by. 

Now the disadvantage there is that when you look at that stock, 

you don’t see a lot of size amount security. And I spoke about this 

before where you might see the offer side maybe 100 shares, the 

next level up might be a nickel or a dime up. When you look at 

an S&P 100 security, you are looking at a penny spread in that 

stock, hundreds of thousands of shares on each side. 

If you widen the spreads, what you do is you encourage the liquidity provider to essentially commit more capital because they 

have carry costs, trading costs, everything else that goes in association with that, you encourage them to commit more capital for 

their implicit and explicit trading costs. 

34 

Thus, you go from 100 shares being offered at the inside to 

maybe 1,000, 2,000 shares being offered at the inside. That then 

incentivizes somebody who is looking at the stock to say, ‘‘Well, 

there is enough liquidity in it for my trade.’’ 

Mr. FOSTER. Who is the best entity to choose the tick size? 

Should that be the company or should it be rules-based? What is 

the best scenario for that? 

Mr. NAGY. That is a really good question. The SEC held a roundtable, a decimalization roundtable late last year, and that was up 

for debate, should it be a nickel, should it be a dime? The JOBS 

Act amendments call for a dime. 

Really what needs to happen and what is lacking in the market 

today is just empirical evidence. Do a pilot, figure out what the 

exact right amount is, and then perhaps apply that to different securities, different tiered securities. Other countries such as Canada 

and Australia, although they are far less liquid than the United 

States, all have tier sizes with their trades. 

So if your stock price is X, then you trade at a different price, 

or if capitalization is X, you trade at a different price. That is really 

what has to happen. Any pilot needs to be followed up with empirical evidence to see whether or not it really made a difference. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. 

I see I am out of time. I will yield back. 

Chairman GARRETT. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from California has joined us. 

You are recognized. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It is always good to be as close as possible to the 

gentleman from Georgia. 

The SEC advisory committee has urged that we not take into 

consideration policy objectives or humanitarian or social objectives. 

I would point out that they don’t have the expertise to see what 

the effects are on the ground, particularly in Africa, and to weigh 

those with whatever inconvenience there is for the public sector 

companies. 

I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee and to think that we 

would diminish our efforts to deal with conflict minerals and that 

decision would be made on the basis of input from those who have 

not studied the conditions on the ground there does concern me. 

A lot of the small companies were trying to get financing or 

spend money on R&D and under FASBR #2, Financial Accounting 

Standard Boards Release Number 2, they have to write it off. So 

if you build a laboratory, a building, and you capitalize that, it 

doesn’t reduce your bottom line at all, but if you spend money inside that building, even if the research is successful, you have to 

list that as an expense. 

Now if you are a real high tech high flyer company, investors recognize that, but we want research to be done by companies that 

don’t have the word ‘‘research’’ in their name. To what extent are 

companies that aren’t known for their research, that are companies 

where you buy on the basis of earnings-per-share, being discouraged from investing in research because it is an expense that hits 

the bottom line rather than a capitalized asset? 

Does anyone have a comment on that? 

35 

Mr. NAGY. I will take a stab at it. In our country, we do a onesize-fits-all approach in the markets. So if you are a public company or a trading company, you pay the exact same price if you are 

a small company versus being a large company. Now if you look at 

just personal taxation, that is dependent upon the income that 

you— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Nagy, I am not sure you understand my question. My question was about our accounting principles, which I 

think everybody agrees should be the same for large and small 

companies. I wasn’t raising a question about taxation. 

Mr. NAGY. Oh, sorry. Sorry, Congressman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. 

Does anyone else have a comment? 

Next, one of the things—the really small companies, people who 

are seeing me every day in my district aren’t looking to go public 

or even to talk to a venture capitalist. Their goal is to get a $1 million loan and they come to me, and they have talked to this bank 

and that bank and the other bank. To what extent would it help 

if we allowed credit unions to make business loans? Does anybody 

have a comment? 

Mr. LEACH. My organization gets involved in a whole range of 

small business activities. Of course, the entities that we spend the 

majority of our time with are things that are ultimately venturebacked but there are real challenges in terms of access to capital 

in the traditional small business space as well and this is something that we see by the dozens every day and that is all of the 

options to accelerate the growth and the economic impact of small 

business Congress needs to evaluate and look at. 

So specifically, to the credit union issue, I am not privy to the 

details of the regulatory issues there, but we still have real challenges on access to capital across all small business. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Souza, you have members who are business 

development corporations. How would they be helped if we allowed 

them to issue preferred stock and that stock would count as capital 

in calculating their equity ratio? 

Mr. SOUZA. I believe that would help tremendously, along with 

a number of other measures that are proposed in H.R. 31 and H.R. 

800. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back. 

Chairman GARRETT. Mr. Carney? 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

this panel today and thank you to each of the panelists. I have 

found your testimony today fascinating, very interesting. The JOBS 

Act, which I worked on with Members from the other side of the 

aisle—many of us did. This was the most productive work, I think, 

that we did in the last Congress, certainly in this committee. 

We did it with Democrats and Republicans working together. I 

worked on the on-ramp part of the JOBS Act with Mr. Fincher so 

it is great to hear the testimony of Mr. Leach and Mr. Moch, in 

particular your willingness to come here and share your personal 

experiences is very, very helpful. 

One of the things you said really, really hit me. You said you 

want to try to avoid all costs—I like the fact that you are a tightwad too, I try to be one; I am one of nine kids, so I think that is 

36 

the source of it—you avoid costs before going public, an event that 

may not happen, and the preparation cost for the 404(b) audit you 

mentioned in particular was one. 

You seemed to suggest a moment ago that maybe a 5-year onramp is not long enough, maybe for certain companies. Would you 

like to elaborate on that at all? 

Mr. MOCH. Sure. The fact is that we have no idea when we will 

have revenue. It could be a couple of years or it could be another 

5 or 10 years, and I have lived through that. 

My last company—two companies ago called Alteon was 20 years 

old, never had a dime of revenue, but that is the lifecycle of 

biotech. Sometimes the drugs go quickly and sometimes they don’t. 

Sometimes they fail in Phase III and you have another one. 

So to apply a rule that says after a certain period of time, you 

have to comply with a rule which isn’t really relevant to what people are interested in, just doesn’t make sense to me. 

Mr. CARNEY. So there are tradeoffs, as Professor Thompson mentioned. 

Do you have a view of that, Professor Thompson, with respect to 

this particular sector and to the trade-off between investor confidence and information and cost? 

Mr. THOMPSON. As to this sector— 

Mr. CARNEY. Yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. —I think there is reason for a difference and so 

revenue may not be the right standard. And so you have to come 

up with a targeted language that would—because investors look at 

the science because there is no—why? Because there is no revenue 

to look at. So you look at the science and try to get your information from there. 

But to me, it would be better—it would make more sense to try 

to develop targeted language as opposed to blanketly change the 5- 

year period. 

Mr. CARNEY. So in other words, that would be directed toward 

this particular sector. That would probably be difficult to do, but 

maybe it is something we ought to take a look at. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think language could be developed that said if 

you get so much of X amount of your business is a drug development—I shouldn’t be drafting for the industry. 

Mr. CARNEY. So are there other costs that we should look at? 

Mr. Leach, maybe you can answer this question. It is my understanding that most of the ideas for the IPO on-ramp evolved out 

of a meeting that started with Treasury and then an ad hoc group 

of industry participants and a series of ideas. 

Are there things that are still out there that weren’t in the original bill that we might take a look at? 

Mr. LEACH. I can’t speak to the specific gaps but there has been 

conversation both in the association and with venture firms. There 

are many ideas that I think can be brought to the table and discussed and evaluated to be able to reduce costs in this IPO onramp objective. 

Mr. CARNEY. So you would be willing to share those with us? 

Mr. LEACH. Absolutely. 

Mr. CARNEY. That would be great. 

37 

Mr. Moch, is there anything in particular from the real-life that 

you would like to share with us and that should be a target for it? 

Mr. MOCH. I don’t have any specifics right now, although I know 

that BIO is working on a number, and I guess I will look to them 

to maybe provide some further insights. 

I think that we did a pretty tough job of tightening down a lot 

of things and that was good, but there is still a lot of cost and there 

is still this huge uncertainty, so I am going to look to the BIO folks 

and we will— 

Mr. CARNEY. So last question—I am running out of time—on tax 

reform and tax policy. Are those considerations anything that you 

look at, Mr. Moch or Mr. Leach, in the companies that you deal 

with? 

Mr. MOCH. I really want to pay taxes someday. 

Mr. CARNEY. Say that— 

[laughter] 

Good point. 

Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. Clearly, the importance of capital gains to the investment in early-stage companies. You are hearing the time horizons 

and that these investors are making 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-year time horizons, so to benefit investors who are willing to wait that length of 

time, capital gains are very important. 

Mr. MOCH. Can an I speak for NDCA for a second? 

Mr. CARNEY. Please. 

Mr. MOCH. And I am not an NDCA person. I am critically concerned about the potential death of biotechnology venture capital 

investing. This is a tough, long-term asset class, and the changes 

in capital gains rates, and the complexities of investing in this 

business are such that the number of VCs focused on biotech is 

dramatically declining. 

It is almost—it is in a crisis—from I think 150 or so even just 

a couple of years ago down to the 60s if I have that number correct 

now. So the feed stock of new drug development is drying up, and 

I don’t know how you all face that and how you address it and 

what you do, but if you don’t, the development of new drugs will 

ultimately decline even further. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. MOCH. It is just that hard a business. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, all, very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GARRETT. I thank the gentleman. 

And for the final word, Mr. Duffy is recognized. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to join the committee in thanking the panel for taking 

time out of your days and providing such great testimony here 

today. I think it has been incredibly beneficial. 

I think everyone on the panel and the committee understands 

that the largest creators of jobs in America are small businesses, 

and it has been those small businesses that are experiencing liquidity issues that are due to a number of things including changes 

in our market structure. 

Since decimalization, all stocks operate under a one-size-fits-all 

trading regime. I think that has been beneficial to our larger, betVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:41 Feb 12, 2014 Jkt 082860 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\82860.TXT TERRI
38 

ter known companies, but it has been detrimental to our smaller, 

less visible companies. 

And to that extent, we have been talking about this, Mr. Carney 

and I have, introducing legislation that would offer tick-sized flexibility that would hopefully breed liquidity for, or help breed liquidity for our small cap companies. 

There is a wide range of topics that we are discussing, but we 

are looking at tick sizes anywhere from—or increasing tick sizes 

from $.05 to $.10 allowing companies to choose that size which 

works best for them. 

But with better liquidity, we think that we can see a growing 

economy, better job growth, and more opportunities for our American families. We think this is an important step in the right direction to address the problems that have been discussed here today. 

And I guess, to this end, does the panel agree that one tick size 

doesn’t fit all? Is there a consensus on that point? 

Mr. LEACH. There seems to be. 

Mr. NAGY. Absolutely. 

Mr. MOCH. Yes. 

Mr. SOUZA. Yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. DUFFY. Okay, and that is a good starting point. I think it 

is actually pretty interesting that we have Democrats and Republicans, small businesses, and the SEC all agreeing that we need to 

have movement on this tick size issue. 

Mr. Moch and Mr. Leach, how many analysts cover your stock, 

if any? 

Mr. MOCH. We went public. Four companies currently cover the 

stock and this actually made me think of something that might be 

relevant. 

In order to avoid some bad acts by a certain limited number of 

people multiple years ago, one of the rules that was promulgated 

by, I don’t know if it was Congress or the SEC, was that analysts 

and bankers can’t talk to each other ever because they will be shot 

if they do. And I think that from a standpoint of an IPO process, 

to go back to questions that have been asked, how can you make 

things better, I have to do double meetings with everybody. If I am 

talking to 20 banks, that is 40 meetings to try and get people up 

to speed, to have the bankers and the analysts make decisions 

independently because they can never talk to each other. 

So if you want to find a moment in time where you might change 

something and allow the system to be a little more fluid, that is 

a moment in time. Yes, people did bad things years ago, but the 

whole industry and the IPO market is jammed up because of that. 

So from the standpoint of analyst coverage, it is an incredibly difficult process because the bankers—the reason you want analyst 

coverage is so that people will follow your stock and the bankers 

don’t want to cover a company where analysts don’t like it, but 

they can’t talk to each other. 

So it is really made for a much more complex market that was 

done because one particular analyst did a stupid thing and made 

silly memos and I understand why you want to penalize that person, but it has penalized everybody. 

39 

So we have four right now. We will try and get more, but it takes 

a long time to work with the financial analysts. And that is the answer. 

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. I have nothing significant to add to that. It is incredibly challenging. 

Mr. DUFFY. How many companies? 

Mr. LEACH. I am a venture capitalist, so I invest in small tech 

companies. No one follows us. In terms of our companies, they are 

all pre-public. So it is really not a relevant question. 

Mr. DUFFY. Okay. 

And I guess, Mr. Moch, would it be helpful if you had more analyst coverage? Would that be a benefit? 

Mr. MOCH. Oh, yes. Absolutely. 

Mr. DUFFY. If we get this tick size bill right, if we do this correctly, do you think that will foster more research in companies 

like yours, Mr. Moch? 

And I don’t know, Mr. Nagy, if you want to jump in on this too? 

Mr. MOCH. I don’t know a lot about the compensation mechanism 

for analysts, but certainly things that create greater liquidity—and 

if they choose a stock and say this is a good stock and people start 

buying that stock, I presume there is a mechanism by which the 

analyst get compensated. 

I don’t know that specifically. That is only good for increasing liquidity. It is self-fulfilling, right. People follow the stock, more people will follow the stock, people will get compensated, they will follow the stock. It is just a nice cascade up. We block that right now. 

Mr. DUFFY. Yes. 

Mr. NAGY. Yes, trading cost is absolutely a very important part 

of why a specialist or a market maker will engage in the stocks. 

So you can—if you can incentivize them and provide further incentives downstream, I think that is really important. 

There are some proposals out there as well to allow companies 

to compensate, market makers to potentially compensate the analysts for coverage. I do think that is a workable idea and something 

that should be explored further. 

Mr. DUFFY. And maybe on that point, if we get the tick size bill 

right, will that also encourage brokerage dealers to start making 

markets in smaller cap companies? Will that be a net benefit? 

Mr. NAGY. Absolutely. 

Mr. DUFFY. Okay. 

Mr. NAGY. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. DUFFY. And just—I know my time is up—if I could ask just 

one quick question. 

If no one is trading in companies like Mr. Moch’s stock, or if 

there are stale quotes, who benefits? 

Anybody? Do the investors benefit? Does the company benefit? 

Does society benefit? Does anybody benefit when no one trades? 

Mr. MOCH. There is no liquidity and no trading? No, because the 

next time I try and raise money, I can’t. Remember, an IPO is just 

the first step. It is not a destination. It is a milestone along a long 

pathway, a milepost along a long pathway. Our IPO is not the last 

time we are going to raise money. 

40 

If nobody trades in the stock, and some small stocks trade by appointment, then you can’t raise the next round of money and then 

you are really trapped. So everything we can do to make sure the 

markets function fluidly will be important. 

Mr. NAGY. It is also about proper evaluation. So the market finds 

the proper valuation many times of what that company should be 

trading and if you are very limited with coverage, liquidity coverage on that, that can affect your valuation. 

Mr. DUFFY. And I guess as I am going to yield back in one moment—if any of you have any comments for Mr. Carney or myself 

in regard to what you would like to see in a tick size bill or not 

in a tick size bill, we welcome that input if you want to share it 

with our offices. 

Again, thank you for your testimony, and with that, I yield back. 

Chairman GARRETT. Did you have—I will just yield to Mr. Carney. Do you have any other comments with regard to that since 

you are working together on that? 

Mr. CARNEY. No, I just want to thank Mr. Duffy for working with 

us—for giving me the opportunity to work with him, I should say, 

and any advice that you can provide for us, we want to try to get 

it right. The idea is to do a pilot. You all mentioned that and see 

what might happen. 

Thank you. 

Chairman GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Carney. 

Again, thank you to the entire panel for being with us today. It 

was, as a number of people have said, very helpful and illuminating. 

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 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(41) 

A P P E N D I X 

July 10, 2013 

42 


82860.001

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises 

"Reducing Barriers to Capital Formation, Part II" 

July 10,2013 

Chainnan Garrett, Ranking Member Maloney, my name is Ray Leach. I am the founding CEO of 

Jumpstart, Inc., a Cleveland-based nonprofit that builds partnerships amongst public, private, 

philanthropic and institutional organizations who are focused on supporting and investing in a 

diverse set of Ohio startup companies. We typically seek out high-potential startups who 

demonstrate the potential to create significant new jobs, wealth, collective economic impact and 

direct financial returns. Along with such partners as the Ohio Third Frontier, the Economic 

Development Administration and the Small Business Administration, JumpStart works one-onone with entrepreneurs to assist them with critical business development activities including 

raising private capital, testing the commercial viability of their product or service and generating 

first revenues. While we have provided services to hundreds of Ohio companies, JumpStart has 

also directly invested $30 million into 76 Ohio startup technology companies which have gone 

on to raise more than $300 million in private capital and have created more than $1 billion in 

total economic impact in Ohio. In the process, these companies have created 2,000 total jobs and 

have generated millions of dollars of financial returns to date, which have then been reinvested 

into additional investing and support activities for entrepreneurs in Ohio. 

I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the National Venture Capital Association, on 

whose behalf I am testifying today. Venture capitalists are committed to funding America's 
43 


82860.002

most innovative entrepreneurs. We work closely with them to transform breakthrough ideas into 

emerging growth companies that drive U.S. job creation and economic growth. According to a 

2011 study by IHS Global Insight, companies that were founded with venture capital accounted 

for 12 million private-sector jobs and $3.1 trillion in revenue, or 22 percent in GDP, in 20 I O. 

Venture-backed companies also tend to generate more jobs and revenues than their non-venture 

peers. A recent study by the Institute for Exceptional Growth Companies (lEGC) and 

Pepperdine University's Graziadio School of Business and Management found that venturebacked companies generate 846 percent more revenue growth and 608 percent more jobs than 

comparable non-venture companies in the five years after they go public or merge with another 

company.! 

Indeed, venture-backed companies are true drivers of the U.S. economy. That is one of the 

reasons why NVCA supported the passage of the JOBS Act of2012 - and in particular, the "IPO 

On-Ramp" provision contained therein. My colleague Kate Mitchell, a former NVCA 

Chairman, testified before this very subcommittee in support of the bill in December of 20 II. 

want to thank this committee for its work on making the JOBS Act possible. r also want to thank 

the Members here today for continuing to direct their attention to regulatory and market concerns 

that affect companies once they have gone through an fPO. NVCA supports this continued focus 

on how to make participation in the public markets a better experience for small companies. 

For this reason, I would like to take the opportunity today to provide you with an update on 

where the market for initial public offerings, or IPOs, stands from the venture capital 

1 http://bschool.pepperdine.edu/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Paglia.Harjoto.PE-VC-l1.29.2012-

IEGC.pdf. 

2 
44 


82860.003

perspective, and what effects the JOBS Act has had on the IPO market and for our portfolio 

companies. 

The Value ofIPOs to America's Innovation Ecosystem 

To properly contextualize the importance ofIPOs to emerging growth companies and the 

investors who fund them, I will briefly review the process by which venture capital guides and 

funds the growth of innovative startups. 

Venture capitalists invest at the earliest stages of a company's development - often before a 

product or service is more than just an idea. This involves significant entrepreneurial risk, which 

severely limits capital sources for such companies. Yet, venture capitalists assume this risk 

alongside the company founders by providing capital in exchange for an equity stake in the 

company. During this investment stage, venture capitalists provide more than just money to the 

company. Typically, VCs take seats on the boards of directors and participate actively in 

company operations and management of personnel. This commitment includes providing 

strategic counsel regarding development and production, making connections to aid sales and 

marketing efforts, and assisting in hiring key management. As part of this process, the venture 

capitalist also guides the company through multiple rounds of financing. At each point, the 

company must meet certain milestones to receive fresh funds for continued growth. 

The venture investor's goal is to grow the company to a point where it can go public or be 

acquired by a larger corporation at a price that exceeds the amount of capital invested. We call 

this process an "exit." Typically, when a venture-backed company exits the portfolio, the VC 

3 
45 


82860.004

distributes the profits to the fund's investors, or limited partners, which most often are public 

employee pension funds, endowments and philanthropic foundations. 

Of these two exit options, a successful IPO provides some important advantages over a merger or 

acquisition. First, an IPO typically raises more capital for hiring, product development and 

expanded distribution. Our data show that 92 percent of job growth from these firms occurs after 

a company goes public. In contrast, mergers and acquisitions often result in job losses, at least in 

the short term, as the acquiring company looks to eliminate redundant positions between the two 

enterprises. Second, an IPO enables all types of investors to participate directly in the 

company's growth as they look to build their portfolios and retirement accounts. It also provides 

financial benefits to employees of venture-backed firms who have also earned equity in the firm 

pre-IPO. Third, IPOs typically generate meaningful returns for the pension funds, endowments, 

foundations and other limited partners who have pooled their money with that of the yes to 

invest. Lastly, a company that goes public has the potential to transform regional economies and 

communities in significant ways. Often, new innovation and entrepreneurship will "spin out" of 

these entities, creating an even more vibrant ecosystem in regions that otherwise would not be 

able to foster this growth organically. One only has to look to see what Medtronic did for 

Minneapolis, Dell for Austin, and Qua1comm for San Diego to understand why IPOs are so 

critical to these communities and regional economies. 

The IPO Market and The JOBS Act Today 

The decline of the U.S. IPO market over the past 15 years has been well-documented. From 

1990 to 1996, 1,272 U.S. venture-backed companies went public on U.S. exchanges, yet from 

4 
46 


82860.005

2004 to 2010, only 324 did so. Most analyses have pointed to a complex series of changes in the 

regulatory environment and related market practices that have driven up costs and uncertainty for 

emerging growth companies looking to go public - to the point where most such companies 

began to position themselves for acquisitions instead. 

Recognizing the urgency of this trend and its dire implications for u.s. job creation and 

economic growth, Congress passed the JOBS Act 0[2012. A multi-faceted, measured and 

nuanced approach, the JOBS Act aimed to revive the U.S. IPO market in part by rebuilding the 

pathway by which small companies reach the public markets. It did so in three innovative ways: 

first, it recognized emerging growth companies (or EGCs) as a unique category facing acute 

challenges in accessing public capital. Second, it provided a limited, temporary and scaled 

regulatory compliance pathway, which the IPO Task Force referred to as the On-Ramp, that 

aimed to reduce the costs and uncertainties of accessing public capital. As part of this pathway, 

EGCs could file with the SEC confidentially and "test the waters" before going through with an 

IPO. Third, it intended to improve the flow of information to investors about the initial offerings 

for emerging growth companies, so that they would be easier to understand and invest in. 

A little more than a year after its passage, the urge to assess the impact of the JOBS Act by 

examining the state of the IPO market today is understandable. In doing so, however, we must 

look at the entire picture and recognize the complexity of the factors at play in the markets today. 

We should also bear in mind that some provisions of the JOBS Act have yet to be enacted, and 

we encourage regulators to complete this important work. 
47 


82860.006

When President Obama signed the JOBS Act in April 2012, the NVCA assumed that any 

significant uptick in IPO activity would likely trail the law's implementation by at least a year or 

more. Even with the On-Ramp provisions, the process of preparing to file for an IPO is lengthy 

and complicated. Many of our portfolio companies had already put themselves on the M&A 

track, and that course is not easily altered. We also assumed that continued uncertainty in the 

financial markets could further delay or suppress interest on the part of emerging growth 

companies in going public. While the markets appear to be in the midst of a sustained rally, this 

development is still somewhat recent. 

A topline review of IPO market numbers since April 2012 suggests that OUf assumptions so far 

have been correct. Only 49 venture-backed companies went public in 2012, which was two less 

than in 2011. This year, only eight such companies went public in the first quarter. However, 

the second quarter has brought a significant improvement, with 21 venture-backed IPOsbringing the year's total to 29. A year with 100 or more venture-backed TPOs would be 

considered a strong year, so we are hopeful that the pace of 20 or more per quarter will continue. 

These numbers may seem underwhelming, but they reveal only a fraction of the impact that the 

JOBS Act is having within the small-company ecosystem. Since the law's passage, more than 

500 companies have registered with the SEC as emerging growth companies. That is 77 percent 

of all companies who have filed over this time. Of these, 63 percent have used the confidential 

filing provision2

• In fact, it is estimated that a record number of companies more than 200, in 

fact - are currently in registration for IPOs. Finally, micro-cap !POs - meaning those with less 

2 Source: latham & Watkins Report (April 2013); DeaJogic/NYSE Research, includes only companies who listed or filed to list on a national 

exchange. 

6 
48 


82860.007

than $250 million market cap have constituted 40 percent of IPOs so far in 2013 - up from 21 

percent in 2012. 3 

This surge of renewed interest in the public markets on the part of growing companies aligns 

with what my fellow venture capitalists and I see every day when we work with our portfolio 

companies. This contrasts starkly with prevailing attitudes among so many company founders 

and management teams just a few years ago. Back then, the obstacles on the way to going 

public, and compliance burdens they would incur if successful, hardly seemed worth risking their 

companies over. Today, thanks to the On-Ramp and other provisions, many companies are again 

committing the time and resources required to explore fPOs as an option. 

For just this fact alone - the revival of interest in IPO market on the part of small companiesmy colleagues and I consider the JOBS Act to be a major success. It remains an exciting first 

step on the path toward renewing the health and primacy of the u.S. public markets. 

After the IPO 

As the statistics suggest, many more companies are exploring the process of going public than 

are completing it. While the JOBS Act has reopened and smoothed the road to the public market 

for emerging growth companies, that market remains a very difficult place to grow a company. 

Today's market structure continues to favor the short-term, high frequency trading oflarge-cap 

stocks by investment banks. In this environment, small-cap stocks struggle to achieve visibility 

3 Source: Dealogic, ECM Analytics. Renaissance Capital estimate 

7 
49 


82860.008

and liquidity. In the prior market era, small issuers could help support their small-cap stocks by 

publishing analyst research about the companies and employing market makers to spur interest 

among investors, but current market economics no longer support these activities. This lack of 

information and liquidity has made it difficult for investors who want to invest in small-cap 

stocks as part of a long-term, fundamentals-based investing strategy to justify buying small-caps 

at an IPO and holding onto them in the aftennarket. This development hurts small companies 

and investors alike. 

We know that the committee is aware of these issues, and that a robust debate is already 

underway regarding what factors may be driving them. Each market participant sees these issues 

from their own perspective, and we support the committee's continued diligence in seeking out 

the full panoply of marketplace perspectives before considering any solutions. 

As venture capitalists, we tend to see the markets through the eyes of our portfolio companieseven though it is most often the point where YCs exit the picture. From that perspective, we 

view the current market challenges within the context of one overarching question: how can we 

encourage more investors to buy emerging growth company stocks at the IPO and hold them for 

the long term? 

Unfortunately, NYCA does not know the answer to that question yet. Nor do we believe that 

there is one single answer to it - or one single stakeholder who holds the key to providing it. 

What we do know, however, is that all marketplace participants must begin working more 

closely and deliberately together to find the answers - today. That's because the toll that the 
50 


82860.009

moribund IPO market has taken on our economy over the past decade - terms of lost innovation, 

lost job creation and lost economic growth grows each day. And each day, our international 

competitors come closer to capturing what we are in the midst of losing - be it through market 

reforms, capital formation-friendly policies and incentives, or developing their own cultures of 

risk-taking and entrepreneurship. 

That's why this footing of discussion that we have been on since the passage of the JOBS Act 

must move once again to a footing of action. We know from history that markets work best 

when they are vibrant and offer a fair shot to all participants. We also know from experience 

that when market participants work together as part of working groups, task forces and other 

similarly structured engagements, they can create the context for and generate the momentum 

toward meaningful legislation. That's what happened with the IPO Task Force in 2011 - in 

which NVCA played a critical role - and with similar groups, who ultimately helped provide the 

impetus for the JOBS Act. As the numbers suggest, that piece of legislation has done much to 

address the challenges currently complicating the first half of the IPO process. 

Now market participants must turn our attention to the second half of that process: life as a 

public company. As was discussed at the recent Treasury Department conference on Access to 

Capital, we believe that participants from the entire capital markets ecosystem not just the 

small- and mid-cap segments must participate. Once again, NVCA will gladly lend its voice to 

the discussion. 

9 
51 


82860.010

We are confident that such a process can work once again. Despite the apparent fragmentation 

and divergence of interests prevalent in today's environment, all of these players still share one 

key incentive: building a healthy marketplace in which the greatest number of Americans can 

participate with confidence and trust. 

Conclusion 

The U.S. capital markets system remains the most powerful engine for capital formation in the 

world. However, the health and vibrancy of the IPOmarket plays a critical role in the long-term 

sustainability of that system. Therefore, we must continue to work together diligently to 

understand the challenges facing this critical market segment and engage in dialogue that can 

produce solutions that benefit all stakeholders. Ifwe succeed in reviving the U.S. IPO market, 

we can re-energize U.S. job growth and ensure that new generations of innovative emerging 

growth companies will continue to grow into the leaders of tomorrow's economy. 

In closing, I want to personally thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues 

with you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have and, I thank you for 

your attention to this critical issue. 

10 
52 


82860.011

Biotechnology 

Industry 

Organization 

Kenneth I. Moch 

President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Chimerix, Inc. 

On behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Organization 

Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, 

Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises 

"Reducing Barriers to Capital Formation, Part II" 

July 10, 2013 

Executive Summary 

Chimerix is a clinical-stage biotechnology company based in Durham, North Carolina. The 

Biotechnology Industry Organization (BID) represents Chimerix and more than 1,100 

innovative biotechnology companies, along with academic institutions, state biotechnology 

centers, and related organizations in all 50 states. 

Chimerix undertook a successful IPO in April 2013 using key provisions in the Jumpstart Our 

Business Startups (JOBS) Act. Twenty-seven biotech companies have taken advantage of 

the JOBS Act to go public, and many more are on file with the SEC. 

A healthy public market is key to the success of the biotech industry, as growing innovators 

often turn to an IPO to fund late-stage clinical trials. BID supports targeted market 

structure reforms that will decrease the cost of capital and increase liquidity for emerging 

biotechnology companies trading on the public market. 

!?19~rts the Fostering Innovj3tion Act, which would amend the filing status 

classifications in SEC Rule 12b-2 to classify companies with a public float below $250 million 

or revenues below $100 million as non-accelerated filers. 

m(Ls_ull.Rm!~ tick size flexibility for emerging companies, which would increase small issuer 

liquidity and address the needs of growing bUSinesses hamstrung by decimalization. 

BID supports the Audit Integrity and Job Protection Act, which would prevent PCAOB from 

mandating that public companies periodically rotate their external audit firms. 

BID supports a small issuer exemption from XBRL compliance, which stalls the development 

process by unnecessarily diverting funds to reporting and away from R&D. 

BID supports effective and expeditious implementation of the JOBS Act, the capital 

formation impact of which has been blunted by delays at the SEC. 

BID Contact: Charles H. Fritts 

cfritts@bio.org 

(202) 962-6690 
53 


82860.012

Testimony of Kenneth I. Moch 

Gooe Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member Maloney, Vice Chairman Hurtl and 

1"1embers of Subcommittee. My name 15 Kenneth Mach, and I am President and CEO of 

Cntmerix, a small publicly-traded biotechnoiogy company in Durham, North Carolina. 1 am 

also a member of the Emerging Companies Section Governing Board of [he Biotechnology 

Industry Organization (BIO). I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 

today about the pivotal role that the public market plays in nnClncing lhe search for 

grounclbreaking cures and treatments. 

I have spent almost the entirety of my career in the biotechnology Industry. I started 

working for a small life sciences consulting firm in 1976 and co-founded my rirst 

biotechnology company in 1982. During my career, I have worked with companies at all 

stages of the biotcch life cyclc, from venture backed start ups to luter-stage public 

companies conducting costly and lengthy Phase III clinical triais \~·,rith the hope of earning 

their first FDA approval. Inlarqe part, qrowing innovators are the heart uf our induslry. 

Chimerix has just 50 employees, which is typical for an industry where 90 percent of 

companies employ fewer than 100 people. These smail businesses face a dual struggle -

the daily challenge of running a growm9 company combined with the roadblocks intrinsic to 

groundbreaking sc;entific advancement. B10 represents hundreds of Innovative companies 

like Chlmenx, all of whlch must overcome c:apital formation bRrriers in order to fund their 

next generation R&D. The financing challenges that biotechs face are but 

when our Industry is successful it has the potential to save and treat patients 

desperate need of hope. 

Bringing a breakthrough medicine from bench to bedside is a long and arduous process that 

of len lakes more lhan a t1ecadt: and costs over $1 billion. In the biotech industry! we 

undertake this research process without the benefit of product revenue, so viltually all 

funding must come from external Investors. DUring the early stages of R&D, private 

venture capitalists invest in promising companies, funding their initial studies[ which include 

toxicity tests and the first safely lrials involving human patients. A':::> the research 

progresses and drug candidates show promiset further testing is required to show safety 

and efficacy in broad human populations. A Single expElnsIve Phase III trial can cost 

upwardS of $100 mi!llon, to say of the high risk (and, thus, the high likelihood of 

costs ba:Jooning with additional tests trials) at every stage of biotech research. With 

late-stage trials beyond the capita! reach of private investors, companies entering their final 

stages of R&D often turn to the public mllrket for f1l1clncing, as we did (1t Chlmenx. 

The Jumpstart 01.11" Business Startups (JOBS) Act 

In the last year, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act has made the path to an 

IPO much srr;oother for emerging biotech companies. Chimerix went public in Aprii of this 

Yf'ar[ and our offpnng was greatly enhanr:ed by the provisions in the IPO On-Ramp. 

Leading up to the offering, we were able to use the "testing the waters" allowance in the 

On-Ramp to exp!or·e ami eva!udle the intere5t of potential investors! even before we filed 

our 5-1 registration statement. Before the JOBS Act passed, we would have been forced 

into a quiet period as soon i"IS we starred preparing the registration statement, which would 

have meant a complete ban on contact with investors until the prospectus was made public. 

Testing the waters made it possible to get the relevant facts i:l fronl of potentidl investors in 

order to generate interest :n our offering. We were able to conduc: literaliy dozens of 

meetings with potential investors In the months leading up to our IPO, VJhich provided 

invaluable contact with the parties who later helped miJke Chimerix's offering a success. 

2 
54 


82860.013

TIle pr"actical impact of these meetings was that the investors were able to do their 

homework on both Chimerix and their own portfolio in the time between our testing the 

w<Jtcrs meeting and the actual IPQ. This flexibility .Jllowcd them to gather the Inform<Jt!on 

necessary to make an investment in our company, In addition, these face-to-face meetings 

provided our Illanaqers and directors with important strategic infonnation regarding how 

investors viewed our busmess and prospects that informed decision-making with respect to 

not only the offering but our bUSiness in general. 

In our roadshow during the 10 days prior to the IPO launch, we met with 16 parties who 

had participaterl in testing the waters meetings, of which 12 ended Lip making investments. 

This high conversion rate was due in large part to the success of the JOBS Act. All told, 

nearly half of the investors with whom we met during one-on-ones placed an order - fully 

two-thirds of whom had previously Illet with our team during the testing the waters period, 

By any measure, our IPO was a success, raising $118 million by selling 8 million shares 

priced in the middle of our proposed range. 

Thanks to our successful IPO, we have been able to set aside the significant funding 

necessary to conduct a Phase III trial for our lead drug candidate, CMX001, which if 

approved by the FDA will help bone marrow stem cell transplant recipients fight off 

potentially life-threatening viral Infections. In particular, this therapy is Intended to combat 

virulent viruses such as cytomegalovirus, which is found in 65 percent of the U.S, 

population and can cause significant complications when the immune system is 

compromised or suppressed. 

As we move forward with our work on this ground breaking medicine, the IPQ On-Ramp will 

continue to support our research, The five-year exemption from the burden of SarbanesOxley (SOX) Section 404(b) Will forestall the diversion of valuable investment funds from 

science to compliance. Because Chimerix wil! not have product revenue during our latestage trials, we, like most biotech companies, must fund our R&D by raising investment 

dollars. If we were forced to spend that capital complying with the regulatory burden of 

sax Section 404(b), It would slow our development process and Increase the time it would 

take to reach important sCientific milestones, 

SOX requires an expensive external attestation of a public company's internal controls, 

which must be disclosed to investors on an annual basis. The true value of a biotech 

company is found In SCientific milestones and clinical development progress toward FDA 

approvals rather than financial disclosures of losses incurred during protracted development 

terms, The business model of biotechnology is simple - we take in rniilionsI jf not billions, 

of dollars to fund our research and often do not earn a single penny in product revenue for 

more than a decade. Our science is the interesting part of our bUSiness, and it is the most 

irnportant thing for investors to understand. At Chimerix, we strive to keep our investors 

informed of our progress, but wasting their valuable capital on government red tape instead 

of spending it on innovation and Jdvancemcnt does lot serve their needs nor those of the 

patients who are waiting for our therapies. During the IPQ process, the JOBS Act aliowed us 

to focus on our offering rather than spend valuable time preparing financial statements for 

SOX compliance. Going forvmrd r It will give us five years to spend time and capital on R&D 

rather than the onerous reporting burden of Sarbanes-Oxley. 

In the year since the JOBS Act was enacted, other biotech companies like Chimerix have 

seen the promise of the IPO On-Ramp. Twenty-seven emerging biotechs have gone public 

using provisions in the law! and many more are on file with the SEC. This May was the best 

month for life sCIences IPOs since 2000, with eight companies going publiC. (For 

comparison, there were only ten life sciences IPOs for the entire year In 2011.) Overall,IPO 
55 


82860.014

valuaUons of life scierlCes companies so far this year are up by 21 percent, on average, 

compared to 2012. This improved market for biotech offerings is due in large part to the 

flexibility allow~d by the JOBS Act. 

The JOBS Act could not have come at a better time for the biotech industry. Venture 

fundraising is at a historic low, as venture capitalists diversify their portfolioS and turn away 

from the risky nature of investment in biotech companies. Venture investment fell by 10 

percent from 2011 to 2012, and it was even worse for early-stage companies. A recent 

survey of VCs found that 40 percent plan to fUither decrease their biopharmaceutical 

investments over the next three years. The public market has always heen key to the 

biotech iife cycle, but depressed VC financing combined with the opportunity presented by 

the JOBS Act has made the current IPO window even more important for our industry. 

As these newly public companies find their feet on the market, the five-year IPO On-Ramp 

will smooth their transition and increase capital availability for innovative research. 

However, Congress has the opportuflity to uo rnore to ensure a positive trading environment 

for emerging innovators. Once pubHc, many small companies face liquidity and pricing 

issues thnt can be detrimental to their public float and cash flow. Without legislation to 

supplement the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies could be left to die on the vine, in 

reach of the vital capital available on the public market but unable to fully access it. J 

support targeted market structure reforms that wi!1 decrease the cost of capita! and increase 

liqUidity for Innovative emerging biotechnology companies. 

Tick Size Flexibility 

The SEC adopted decimFllization In 20001 chimging the standard spread between bid ilnd 

ask price (known as tick size) from 1/16 of a dollar (6.25 cents) to one cent, In an effort to 

increase trading dctivity for large issuers with millions of shares traded each day. However, 

as large companies enjoyed an influx of new investors, small issuers experienced a 

corresponding decrease in liqUidity. Without strong liquidity available for small public 

companies, emerging biotechs can have difficulties raising the capital necessary to fund the 

decade-long, billion-dollar development timeline intrinsic to groundbreaking R&D. 

Thiniy~traded stocks, like those of most small biotechs, often need market-makers to 

stimulate trading activity, and the decreased tick size removed their incentive to do so. 

Market-makers profit on larqe spreads, so the reduced tick size diminished their potential 

profit margin, changing their market-making habits and leaving small cap stocks stagnant. 

The public market plays a vital role in finanCing next generation R&D, but a sluggish market 

bereft of liquidity does nothing to spur capltal formation or fund research. The current onesize-tits-all approach to tick size does not reflect the realities of the market and subjects 

smaller issuers to the same trading framework as iarge, multinational companies WIth 

exponentlal!y higher trading volumes and market caps. 

r support flexibility in tick size for smaller issuers :n order to address the needs of small 

companies hamstrung by decimalization. A pilot program to allow small issuers to choose 

larger trading increments (either $0.05 or $0.10) would spur trading activity in emerging 

company stock. A pilot program could be targeted at companies that meet a celtain 

revenue, pubUc float, or trading volume test a revenue test is an especially important 

marker for growing biotecns that do not have product revenue to fund their vital research. 

Allowing an increased tick size would grant flexibility to growing companies and Increase the 

liquidity and capital availability necessary for emerging biolechs to be successful on the 

public market. 

4 
56 


82860.015

BIO and I support tick size reforms that take into account the unique nature of the trading 

environment that smail companies face as well as the high capital burden of biotech R&D. 

In order tor any such measures to be a s,Jccess, It is important that the increased tick size 

options apply to both trading and quoting Increments. Allowing for tick size fiexibillty will 

increase the effectiveness of the public market as a capital formation tool and speed lhe 

development of cures and breakthrough medicines. As the JOBS Act continues to spur IPOs 

in the biotech industry, changes to the current one-slze-fits-al\ trading regime must be 

made In order to alleviate the ongoing struggle to maintain healthy trading activl:y In small 

company stock. 

The Fostering Innovation Act 

As I have discussed, costly regulatory burdens have the potential to impede biotech 

research and delay the delivery of groundbreaking medicines to patients. Rep, Michael 

Fitzpatrick's Fosterlng Innovation Act would relieve smaller companies of the cost burdf:n 

caused by S;)rbanes- Oxley and other onerous regulations, The Fostering Innovation Act, 

which was approved by the Subcommittee 00 Capital Markets in the 112th Congress, would 

amend the filing status classifications in SEC Rule 12b-2 to provide a more accurate picture 

of the arowing businesses that are weigheo down hy the various reportIng requirements 

obligatory for public companies. 

Because the filing statuses for accelerated and large accelerated filers under Rule 12b-2 

carry With them onerous regulatory duties and compliance costs, finding a method of 

designation that fairly captures a comoany's profile is essential. The SEC understands that 

there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach to public company regulation, but the 

current filing classifications are outdated and do not reflect the true nature of many small 

public companies. 

Currently, only those companies with a public fioat ~elow $75 million are classified as nonaccelerated filers. Despite their Simple corporate structure and lack of product revenue, 

many biotech companies have a relatively high public float. Thus, biotechs often find 

themselves grouped with the accelerated fliers and obliged to comply with the numerous 

regulatory burdens attendant to that definition, including SOX Section 404(b). 

Rep. Fitzpatrick's legislation would raise the minimum public float requirement for 

accelerated filers to $250 million l classifying companies With a public float below that level 

as non-accelerated filers. This increase from $75 million to $250 million would allow startups to expand and change without fear of costly ;eguiations impeding their growth. Many 

biotechs have public tloats in or near that range, and the flexibility provided by the 

Fostering Innovation Act would allow them to focus on their innovative research rather than 

shifting funds to compliance costs, 

The f""ostering InnovatIOn Act would ai50 odd a revenue component to the accelerated filer 

definition. Under the blil, accelerated filers would be described as those with revenues In 

excess of $100 million, Thus, any company with revenues below $100 million would be 

considered a non-accelerated filer as long as it did not cross the $700 miilion public float 

threshold and become a large accelerated filer. As I have mentioned; the most damf3ging 

facet of Section 404(b) for the biotech industry has been the diversion of investment funds 

from science to compliance in the dbsence of producl revenue, Rep. Fillpatrick's bill reflects 

this reality by classifying low-revenue companies as non-accelerated filers, If enactedj the 

Fostering Innovation Act would ensure that critical innovation capita! is spent on 

groundbreaking research and development rather than regulatory burdens. 
57 


82860.016

XBRL Reporting 

Growing biotechs ill50 filce il regul<:ltory burden In the form of XBRL compliance. Public 

companies are required to provide their financial statements in an interactive data format 

using eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL). XBRL "tags" certain data points in 

an issuer's filing statement and exports them in a standnrdi7ed format. -rhe ostensible goal 

of XBRL is to provide more financial information to investors in a format that is easily 

comparable to other issuers' data. However, complyiny with XBRL places unneceS:':>dry 

burdens on emerqing biotech companies. 

In addition to instituting a new compliance burden for a small company's accounting 

department, XBRL is actually its own computing language one lhal requires specific 

expertise outside the bounds of traditionai financial or accounting training. Companies need 

experts in the XBRL language to properly tile the appropriate reports, so small issuers turn 

to external contf(}ctors to complete their XBRL fIlings. The cost of an external XBRL 

contractor is significant for an emerging company, reducing the capital available for more 

vila! functions !ike resear-ch and deveiopment. At Chimerix, we have estimated that 

compliance with XBRL will cost us approximately $50,000 annually. Those funds are 

investment dollars that will be spent on unnecessary accounting rather than vital scientific 

advancement. 

Further, the information included in an XBRt. rpport is often not indicative of th~ health of (l 

smaller issuer. A biotech investor would be better served by cOr!1puring clinical tria! results 

between companies rather than focusing on XBRL filings, which do not tell the whole story 

of a company's proqress. Because XBRL reporting does not provide much insight for 

potential investors in small companies, the high cost of compliance far outweighs its 

benefits. BfO and 1 support an exemption from XBRL compliance for smaller issuers (or 

modified compliance, with exemptions from onerous detailed tagging), freeing them from a 

costly regulatory burden that does more harm than good. 

The Audit Integrity and Job Protection Act (H.R, 1564) 

In 2011, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOS) issued a concept release 

that} if adopted, would require that small public companies periodically rotate the external 

nucilt firm cherged WIth verlfymg their Internal financial controls. Such a change would 

place an undue burden on emerging biotech companies, who have few audit firms available 

to them and no pmduct revenue to pay for expensive audit fees and other regulatory costs. 

Forcing small businesses to rotate their fluclit firm waulel inrrpi'lsf" costs oS ea,h new firm 

<1cdimiJted itself to the unique biotech business model/ leading to a 5ubst.Jntia! diversion of 

capita! from science to compliance. 

The JOBS Act provides a five-year exemption from ony such PCAOB requirement for 

emerging growth companies, Howeverj the extended biotech development timeline often 

means that companies a:-e on the pubiic market for longer than five years before generating 

product revenue to pay for expensive compliance burdens. Reps. Robert Hurt and Gregory 

Meeks have introduced legislation, the Audit Integrity and Job Protection Act, that would 

prevent PCAOS from adopting an audit firm rotation requirement for any public company, I 

want to thank the House or Representatives for approving this legislation, as it will provide 

stability for growing biotechs funding their R&D on the public market. 

6 
58 


82860.017

lOBS Act Implementation 

The TPO On-Ri'l.mp created by thp JOBS Act has been a clear success for tr.e biotech 

industry. As Congress moves forward with market structure reform, ensuring that the OnRamp Ct)flUnues to benenL yrowing public cornpanies is an important priority. Options to 

bolster the On-Ramp could include simplifying disc!osu;-e requirements for emerging growth 

compar:ies or permitting confinentia! filings for follow on offerings. 

However, the fIldjor·ity or iJiolech smal! busin€S5eS are PI ivate cornpanies. The JOBS Act 

included provisions to spur capital formation for these Innovators as weill but delays ?It the 

SEC have blun,ed their irnp?:lct. Over 70 percent of the biotech industry is private, so full 

implemcntction of the J08S Act Is vita! for OJr industry. Although Chlmerix is now public, 

we faced nurneruus fundraisinq chaiienqes as a private company, and I believe that the 

reforms to Regulation D and Regulation A in the JOGS Act wili support small company 

capital forr:>at:on once they iJrc implemented. 

Biotech c.ompanies have expressed a particular interest in the changes to Regulation D that 

wi!1 allow general solicitation in Rule ~06 private placements. The SEC issued a proposed 

Reg D rule In August 2012, and I am encouraged by recent reports thiJt the Commission is 

planning to approve a final :-ule soon. 

Even more delays have been seen with RAgulatlon A reforms, which wou!d permit dIrect 

public offerings of to $50 million under u new Reg A+< There was no deadline for SEC 

action in Title IV of JOBS Act, which dut.horiLeu the Reg A clldlltjesl so lhe SEC has not 

made sufficient progress on the rulemaking process. 810 and I support Rep. Patrick 

McHenry's bill l H.R. 701, to institute a deadline tor the SEC to Ir:plement Reg A+. The 

overwhelming b,purtisan pussugc of H<R< 701 by the full House of Representatives sent a 

clear message to the SEC that action is needed to fulfili the full potential of the JOBS Act, 

and I applaud the House for taking that stand. 

Biotech companies also benefit greatly from the JOBS Act's reforms to the Section 12(g) 

private shareholder rules. The exemption of employees from the shareholder limit gives 

private biotech companies the ability to hire the best available employees ard compensate 

them with equity interests, al!owirg them to realize the hnanciBI upside of a company's 

success< This process could be further enhanced amending SEC Rule 701 to Increase the 

annual employee stock and options cQmpensation (befot'e Lriggering a set of disclosure 

requirements) beyond the current $5 millio'! cap. 

Closing Remarks 

A functioning public market is vita! ro the success of the biotech ir.dustry and the American 

economy. At a time when venture capitai of biotechnology is at a historic the 

dbllily to acces::. public cdpild! I;:, im.:redsinyly We have seen lhe dear for 

capital formation on the public market in the of the JOBS Act and Chirnerix was a 

clcllr bencfici<3ry of that l<3w. The risc in biotech IPOs in the !<3st year is a dear indication 

that public fundraislflg is fundamental in the search for groundbreaking medica! 

advancerflents. 

Hm\,ever, capital formation Goes nor end wIth an IPO. A healthy public market bo!stered by 

strong sma!! company liquidity and reasonable :-eguiatory obligations wi!1 ensure the success 

of public financing throughout the decade-plus biotech development cycle, Congress has 

the to build on the success of the JOBS Act by enacting market structure reform 

will support small company growth and fundraising. AlJowing tick size 

7 
59 


82860.018

tiexlbil:ty, reducing rcgulatory burdens, and addressing the broad pOitfolio of other market 

structure issues, inciudlng off-exchanye tradIng transparency and high-frequency trading, 

will stimulale both trading and IPO activity and Improve the overall hClJith of the public 

market, For growing biotech companies, reducing barriers to capital forrni::lUon on the public 

market would lead to SCientific advancement, novel rnetJicines, and life-saving treatments 

for po,icnts in need. 

8 
60 


82860.019

TESTIMONY OF 

CHRISTOPHER NAGY 

PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF KOR TRADING LLC 

AND COO - MANAGING MEMBER OF PRAIRIESMARTS LLC 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS AND 

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

HEARING ENTITLED "REDUCING BARRIERS TO CAPITAL FORMATION, PART II" 

JULY 10, 2013 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member Maloney and members of the Capital Markets and Government 

Sponsored Enterprises subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on this important 

hearing to Reduce Barriers to Capital Formation; my name is Chris Nagy. 

I have spent the last 25 years working within Financial Services on Wall Street. Prior to my current 

roles at KOR Trading and PrairieSmarts, I was Managing Director at TD Ameritrade, where I 

oversaw all aspects of Order Routing. I worked extensively with market makers and specialists 

and served on the boards of many of our nation's Stock Exchanges, with the sole mission of helping 

retail investors secure the best possible prices across markets for publicly traded companies. As a 

result, I have a broad and deep understanding of stock market structure and capital flows. 

Coincidental with the passage of the JOBS act, I left Wall Street and corporate America to found KOR 

Trading, a start-up advocacy and consulting firm that helps exchanges and trading firms with 

market structure issues. Secondly, I partnered with other like-minded entrepreneurs in another 

venture start-up, PrairieSmarts, which will bring institutional quality risk metrics to individual 

Investors, traders, and advisors in a way never possible before. I thank Congress for its vision to 

harness the ingenuity of American workers like me in bringing innovation and job creation to the 

forefront; the passage of the JOBS Act was invaluable. Our continued concern is that the Securities 

and Exchange Commission "SEC" has not had the time to write the regulations that support the 

implementation of two very important facets of the JOBS Act. 

I'd like to focus on my area of experience as the Managing Partner of a start-up venture. Therefore, 

I will not speak to Title 1 as it is one of the few pieces of the JOBS act that is operational (and from 

what I understand, quite successful). PrairieSmarts, our start-up venture, currently has four 

Managing Members and 1 associate and we project that by 2017 we will have more than 250 

employees in newly created jobs. 

As you know, when the JOBS act was signed, specific mandates were assigned to the SEC to 

promulgate rulemaking not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Act in several 

areas. However, nearly one year after its passage, the SEC has not finalized these rules. 
61 


82860.020

Creating and running a start-up is no easy task. The basic building blocks are: 

1. The entrepreneur (risk taker) 

2. An outstanding product, service or idea 

3. Market demand 

4. Partnerships with the right people 

5. Money. 

PrairieSmarts is at the most critical stage of our business model: raising money to build the 

business. It is during these initial stages of business in which we are setting up the company, 

developing and testing the product, completing patent applications, establishing the marketing 

plan, that require upfront investment - and this all needs to be done pre-revenue. For startups like 

ours the initial stages are our most critical, but also where the greatest opportunity lies. Breaking 

down barriers to access capital is critical as financing at this stage often makes or breaks the 

viability and sustain ability of the enterprise. 

JOBS Act Title II 

For PrairieSmarts and many start-ups similarly situated, Title II of the JOBS Act would open the 

doors to additional access to capital by allowing general solicitation and advertising to "accredited 

investors". Advertising in general is an important component of demand generation, which will 

help facilitate the raising of capital for start-ups, early stage companies, and emerging growth 

companies. We applaud this exemption to the SEC rules regarding general solicitation (public 

disclosure) and the required filings. Overall, we believe there is a much greater good by allowing 

more participation in capital raising for companies that are generating new jobs than the potential 

downside of an "accredited" investor losing money because of failed disclosure. 

lOBS Act Title III 

We feel Crowd Funding is an important source of capital for start-up companies. PrairieSmarts 

expects (and needs) to raise $2 million to build the business over the next 18 months. It is early 

stage firms like ours which do not seek a great deal of capital, that often face the largest barriers. 

(Many of you may be familiar with the phrase "Valley of Death"). A significant portion of the initial 

investment is in jobs. In our case, we expect to hire software engineers, customer services 

representation, operations specialists and others. We commend the House for allowing Crowd 

Funding of up to $1 million in twelve months. In our case it is not quite enough, but without 

question it is enough to get us up and running, and we expect to utilize this resource in the very 

near future. 

But, as you know, these resources only become available if and when the SEC finalizes the initial 

regulations. 

2 
62 


82860.021

3 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION INITIATIVES 

We also expectto find further funding through Small Business Investment Companies eSBIC). In 

our minds this was a brilliant idea implemented by Congress. Start-up businesses are hamstrung 

by the current profitability requirement when seeking SBA financing assistance. Thanks to 

Congressional initiative, start-up, and small to medium size firms can access capital through Small 

Business Investment Companies. We are very excited to be a part of a SBIC investment program in 

the fall of 2013 and believe it will be successful to expand the reach of assistance to start-ups like 

ours. Congress may want to consider permitting these firms to become more involved in providing 

capital to financial services firms than is currently the case. 

OUTREACH 

Title VII of the JOBS act also requires that the SEC will "Conduct outreach programs and make 

information available to startups." I can tell you from my seat that I have yet to receive my 

information or outreach from the SEC on opportunities available under the JOBS act and ask 

Congress to help the SEC along on Provisions of Title VII of the Act 

LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS 

With innovation many times comes the ability to patent a product or an idea. At PrairieSmarts we 

did just that The Patent process is designed to protect that idea and give the initiator a competitive 

advantage in the marketplace. Patent costs are not cheap and bear a considerable cost burden to 

the start-up. Further, "Patent Trolls" lurk in the weeds waiting to jump on an opportunity to sue or 

potentially sue the startup who initiated the patent Our current legal system requires that each 

side bear the attorney costs to fight what in many instances are frivolous actions brought by large 

corporations to stifle and drain the revenues of the start-up in hopes that they eliminate a 

competitive threat. While this Committee does not have the ability to change laws regarding legal 

actions against start-ups, I ask Congress to examine this issue and seek ways to help start-ups from 

unnecessary and many times frivolous litigation, by requiring the initiator of such actions to bear all 

the legal costs. 

Requirements like these would significantly aid start-ups from unnecessary costs many times 

initiated by large companies to stifle competition. 

STOCK MARKET STRUCTURE 

We have ambitions to someday seek an IPO and publicly Jist within the US markets. In doing so we 

believe there would be merits to wider spread increments to facilitate larger pools of liquidity in 

the markets. We support Section 106(b) of the JOBS Act, the initiative to seek widening spreads for 

small public companies. However, we feel that simply widening spreads may not achieve the full 

desired effect of increasing transparent liquidity proviSioning. While the SEC has delivered their 

report to Congress as required under the JOBS act, a pilot recommendation is overdue. We believe 
63 


82860.022

4 

in conjunction with a pilot that the SEC should seek to incentivize liquidity as was recommended by 

the joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee following the market events of May 6th, 2010'

. One such 

method would be the removal of Section 31 fees for small capitalized securities along with greater 

incentives to persons who regularly implement market maker strategies. We also believe that the 

balance has tipped in favor of dark pool operators and encourage the SEC to finalize its non-pUblic 

trading rule proposal from 20092• We also note that internalized payment for order-flow programs 

have increased dramatically over the past few years and would encourage the SEC to consider a 

"Trade-at" pilot in small capitalized securities as it will ensure that volume happens on our 

transparent exchanges. Other countries such as Canada and Australia have implemented rules 

regarding trade-at with good results. Finally, we believe that the SEC should seek to fortify rules 

605 and 606 regarding execution quality, which today are severely outdated. Greater transparency 

with the quality of order execution stimulates competition, keeps practices like payment for orderflow in check, and ensures that any pilot to widen spreads has empirical data behind it. 

I am hopeful Congress can help push the SEC on its mission to finalize their tasks under the JOBS act 

to help entrepreneurs like myself become successful and deliver innovation and jobs to our Capital 

Market System. 

I invite Congress to follow PrairieSmarts as a real life example of a start-up. We expect to raise 

money through either Crowd Funding and/or the SBIC programs. We believe both programs 

expand access to invaluable capital. The JOBS act can help us (but to date has not helped us) as we 

progress to our goal and your goal to bring innovation and jobs to our great country. 

Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions you have. 

1 See: http:{/www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@aboutcftc/documents/file/iacreport 021811.pdf 

2 See: http:{/www.sec.gov/rulesiproposed/2009/34-60997.pdf 
64 


82860.023

Written Testimony of 

Mr. Wayne Souza 

General Counsel and Executive Vice President of Law 

Walton International Group 

On Behalf Of 

The Investment Program Association 

July, 10 2013 

IPA 

Before the Capital Markets Subcommittee on Capital Markets 

and Government Sponsored Enterprises 

Hearing Entitled "Reducing Barriers to Capital Formation, Part 11" 
65 


82860.024

Good morning Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member Maloney, and members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Wayne G. Souza, and I am General Counsel and Executive Vice 

President of Law of the Walton International Group of Scottsdale, Arizona. I am pleased to be 

here today to testifY on behalf of the Investment Program Association. 

The Investment Program Association (IP A) was created in 1985 to serve as a national 

trade association for the Direct Investment industry. We offer leadership, education and 

advocacy services to more than 150 corporate members, who include securities product-offering 

sponsors, broker-dealers, and Direct Investment service providers. 

"Direct Investment" refers to the business activity of individuals who pool their capital 

with other investors to make direct investments in tangible assets without taking on management 

or operational responsibilities. The IPA's members facilitate the transfer of capital between 

investor and business without the intermediary function of a stock exchange or bond underwriter. 

Examples of direct investment products include non-listed real estate investment trusts (REITs), 

oil and gas programs, equipment leasing programs, private placement securities offerings in real 

estate, and business development companies (BDCs), with BDCs constituting a fast-growing 

segment of the IPA's membership. 

The vast majority of direct investment products are designed to be medium- to long-term 

holdings, and are therefore seldom traded as compared to various exchange-traded investments. 

Because they are intended to be held for longer durations, these products offer critically 

important capital in the form of stable equity and debt investments, reducing volatility in the 

marketplace. Direct investment products own dozens of types of tangible assets that touch the 

daily lives of Americans and facilitate job creation and retention. These investments are 

represented in the ownership of hotels, drug stores, skyscrapers, timberland, master-planned 
66 


82860.025

community developments, theme parks and senior living facilities, to name just a few. At yearend 2012, direct investments represented more than $100 billion in assets under management, in 

more than 1.5 million investor accounts, with an average investment of $30,000. The IPA's 

members reported total sales of $13.3 billion in 2012, with the vast majority of that, $10.3 

billion, in non-listed REITs and $2.8 billion in business development companies. 

My own organization, the Walton International Group, is a real estate investment and 

development company that focuses on the research, acquisition, management and development 

of real estate assets across North America. Our goal is to achieve the highest and best 

development potential of the land while maximizing returns for our investors. Walton currently 

manages more than $3.5 billion in assets, including more than 74,000 acres of land in North 

America, and our affiliates have managed privately offered real estate programs involving North 

American lands for more than 85,000 investors worldwide. 

The direct investments facilitated by Walton International and the other members of the 

IPA are an invaluable and irreplaceable source of capital for America's small businesses, and 

that capital creates and sustains employment in America. Therefore, we are especially pleased to 

have this opportunity to discuss ways to reduce barriers to capital formation, and we applaud the 

Subcommittee for taking the time to consider this topic. No topic is more important to small 

businesses, which as you know are the primary source of new jobs in the U.S. economy. 

The JOBS Act's Impact on Direct Investment 

We commend Congress and this Subcommittee for the major work you have already 

done to stimulate the growth of small to midsized companies through the enactment of the 

Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act last year. The JOBS Act included quite a few 
67 


82860.026

provisions that will foster the creation of new businesses and the growth of existing ones, and 

facilitate the movement of capital within the marketplace. 

Key provisions of the JOBS Act reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on direct 

investment products and their providers, and make it easier for small businesses to find new 

investors and new sources of capital. Specifically, we applaud the creation of the new category 

of "emerging growth companies," with a streamlined route to initial public offerings (IPOs); the 

removal of the ban on general solicitation and advertising for certain offerings under Regulation 

D, Rule 506 and Rule 144A; the increase in the amount of capital that small businesses can raise 

without triggering the SEC's registration requirements; and the expansion of the number of 

shareholders a small business may have without being required to commence a SEC registration 

process. All of these provisions make it easier for small businesses to raise capital within their 

communities and from other interested investors. 

In considering additional legislative changes to pursue those goals even further, the IP A 

can suggest some clarifications to these provisions that will make them even more effectivc. 

Clarify the "Testing the Waters" Provision 

Title I of the JOBS Act offers an "IPO On-Ramp" that makes it easier for private 

companies designated as "emerging growth companies" to seek capital through an initial public 

offering (IPO). The creation ofthis new category is a valuable change that will make new capital 

more readily accessible to thousands of growing enterprises. 

Among the provisions that empower these emerging growth companies is Section I 05( c), 

the so-called "testing the waters" provision. This section allows an emerging growth company or 

its authorized representative to engage in oral or written communications with qualified 
68 


82860.027

institutional buyers or accredited investors without becoming subject to the requirements that 

apply to prospectuses under Section lO(a) of the Securities Act. 

As we have begun to implement the JOBS Act, however, it has not been sufficiently clear 

that these "testing the waters" materials used by emerging growth companies are exempt from 

the requirements that apply to public offerings. This risk is one of perception rather than reality, 

but the lack of clarity creates a chilling effect in the marketplace, as emerging growth companies 

may be reluctant to avail themselves of the Act's provisions. 

Existing law offers a precedent for clarifying this perception. Rule 408(b) under the 

Securities Act of 1933 explicitly states that "the failure to include in a registration statement 

information included in a free writing prospectus will not, solely by virtue of inclusion of the 

information in a free writing prospectus ... be considered an omission of material information 

required to be included in the registration statement." This provision clarifies that the 

information in a free writing prospectus is not necessarily identical to that in an eventual 

registration statement. Similar language applied to the "testing the waters" provision of the JOBS 

Act would reassure both emerging growth companies and the market, and encourage the use of 

this provision. 

Clarify Provisions on General Solicitation and General Advertising 

Title II of the JOBS Act required the SEC to develop rules to establish steps for issuers of 

securities to make sure that securities sold through a general solicitation or by general advertising 

are sold only to accredited investors. The Commission's rulemaking process has proven 

complex, and is taking considerable time to complete. 
69 


82860.028

Certain members of the regulatory community have urged the SEC to include content and 

disclosure requirements as part of its rules governing solicitation and advertising to accredited 

investors. We respectfully submit that Title II of the JOBS Act grants the SEC no new authority 

to set content standards. In our view, the Congressional request was clear: the SEC is to establish 

steps by which an issuer can verify that sales of securities resulting from solicitation and 

advertising have been made only to accredited investors. The authority to impose these 

verification steps does not include the authority to impose content standards for solicitation and 

advertising materials. Congress should facilitate this process by clarifying provisions in Title II 

of the JOBS Act to make clear Congress's intent that the Act neither requires nor permits the 

SEC to adopt any disclosure requirements or content standards with regard to advertising and 

solicitation materials for accredited investors. 

It might also be helpful for Congress to provide guidance on the disqualification and 

other treatment of so-called "bad actors" who violate these requirements under Dodd-Frank. 

Reduce Compliance Burden on Business Development Corporations 

One of the fastest-growing segments of the IPA's membership is business development 

corporations (BDCs), which are publicly traded and privately held private equity organizations 

that invest in growing US-based businesses. They are governed by the Investment Company Act 

of 1940. BDCs are similar in function to venture capital and other private equity firms, but their 

ownership structure makes them accessible to the general public, and allows them to offer small 

investors a way to participate in the capital markets. BDCs can play tremendously important 

roles in their community by moving capital quickly to businesses with urgent needs, as we saw 

the New York Business Development Corporation do in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. 
70 


82860.029

A provision to streamline BDCs' registration statement filing requirements with the SEC, 

by allowing them to incorporate by reference from reports already filed with the SEC, would 

reduce duplication of effort and unnecessary regulatory burden. It would free up time, attention 

and compliance costs to make those resources available for additional support to emerging 

businesses. 

We note that this suggestion is one of several provisions included in both H.R. 1800, the 

Small Business Credit Availability Act, introduced by Representative Michael G. Grimm, and 

H.R. 31, the Next Steps for Credit Availability Act, introduced by Representative Nydia 

Velazquez. This bipartisan legislation would give BDCs greater access to capital by amending 

the Investment Company Act of 1940 to allow BDCs to own investment adviser subsidiaries. It 

would also raise the reasonable leverage cap amount placed on BDCs, and would allow BDCs to 

count preferred stock as equity rather than debt in calculating total leverage. These changes, if 

implemented, would have the ultimate effect of enhancing a BDC's ability to raise funds and to 

lend or invest these funds to small and mid-size American businesses. 

We further applaud several other provisions ofH.R. 311H.R. 1800, including the proposal 

to extend the definition of "well-known seasoned issuer" to include BDCs and the proposal to 

add registration statements filed on Form N-2 to the definition of automatic shelf registration 

statement, both provided by Rule 405. 

Encourage State Acceptance of Electronic Signatures 

A continuing challenge to our members as they try to match investors with businesses 

looking for capital is existing state laws that do not acknowledge the legitimacy of electronic 

signatures in executing the sale of certain securities products in all jurisdictions. While we 
71 


82860.030

recognize states' legitimate interests in these transactions, these different state requirements and 

in some cases prohibitions slow down and block the free movement of capital between regions. 

The 2000 Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act expressed the intent of 

Congress to utilize electronic signatures in the conduct of commerce. We recommend that 

Congress consider updating the securities laws to allow the acceptance of electronic signatures 

on securities subscription documents in all jurisdictions. 

Beyond these recommendations, our members see many opportunities to facilitate and 

encourage capital investment through changes to the federal tax code. Although thesc changes 

fall outside this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, we look forward to opportunities to discuss these 

changes with individual membcrs and the appropriate Committee in futurc. 

Conclusion 

Once again, I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to share the views of the 

Investment Program Association. Every day our members work in partnership with real estate 

developers and other small businesses to create economic opportunities in the communities 

where we live. We help individual investors put their money to work directly in their 

communities, and our business is built on trust and stability. We value our reputation for 

integrity and fair dealing, and we appreciate the work this Subcommittee is doing to promote the 

free flow of capital in our economy. 

As you continue this effort, please call on us for additional information and support. We 

look forward to working with you. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee 

members may have. 
72 


82860.031

Statement of Robert B. Thompson, Peter P. Weidenbruch Jr Professor of 

Business Law, Georgetown University Law Center, before the Subcommittee on 

Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, Committee on 

Financial Services, United States House of Representatives 

July 10, 2013 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the subject of "Reducing 

Barriers to Capital Formation." Even as we have seen the economy slowly 

strengthen over recent reporting periods the growth of capital formation, as 

measured for example by the number of Initial Public Offerings, remains lower 

than some expectations. The JOBS Act, effective 15 months ago, lowered a 

variety of barriers to capital formation with more reductions still coming in a 

longer than hoped-for regulatory pipeline. At the same time, innovations in 

capital markets have also lowered barriers to capital raising and shifted how 

capital is raised. My comments today will focus on those two topics. 

JOBS added five deregulatory features to our national securities laws: two 

new exemptions from the registration provisions ofthe 1933 Act (crowdfunding 

and a new "Reg A+"), revisions to a third exemption (Rule 506) that will greatly 

expand its use by removing the ban on general soliCitation, and two major 

changes to disclosure obligations under the 1934 Act-- the "on ramp" provisions 

that reduce the reporting obligations of an Emerging Growth Company ("EGC") as 

to more than a half dozen requirements and an increase of the threshold of 

section 12(g) that quadruples the number of record shareholders a company can 

have without being required to submit to the periodic reporting and other 

requirements of the 1934 Act (so long as those companies do not raise capital via 

an IPO or list their stock on a national securities exchange). The three 1933 

exemptions await rule-making from the applicable agency, here the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (and two of the rule-makings have extended beyond 

deadlines Congress put in the statute), so that it is difficult as yet to evaluate the 

impact of those changes. The new section 12(g) always seemed likely to have its 

effect the longest time into the future, so that it is the fifth deregulatory 

feature-the on ramp--where we have seen the greatest change since JOBS. 

1 
73 


82860.032

Most companies gOing public today come within the definition of Emerging 

Growth Companies and are eligible to use the less detailed regulatory 

requirements for up to five years after they go public. These companies can 

initiate the SEC registration process confidentially and communicate with many 

institutions to test the waters as to buying interest. EGCs during the on-ramp 

period are exempt from internal control audits inserted by section 404(b) of the 

Sarbanes-Oxley legislation more than a decade ago, may disclose less in the way 

of financial data in general and executive compensation in particular, and may use 

longer phase-in periods for new accounting standards. 

The one year anniversary of JOBS spurred multiple analyses of its impact. 

Measuring jobs that can be tied to an IPO has always been a difficult metric to 

develop and the first year experience leaves that discussion on going. As to the 

number of IPOs themselves, the first year didn't produce much difference from 

the period before JOBS, even though the economy has gotten better. But we can 

see evidence that those companies who do choose to go public are taking 

advantage of the reduced barriers to raising capital, although not in a uniform 

fashion. 

One examination of EGCs filing a public registration and pricing in the first 

year after JOBS found the following pattern in use of the on ramp provisions: 1 

• Nearly a" EGCs indicated an intention to take advantage of the section 

404(b) exclusion during their EGC period; 

• About three quarters took advantage of reduced disclosure as to executive 

compensation; 

• Almost half provided two years rather than 3 years of financial statements 

(the number drops to 30% of those who had at least three years of financial 

data to report; of the half that reported three years of data, 1/3 provided 

less than the usual 5 years of selected financial data); 

• One-third of EGS filings began with a confidential submission to the SEC 

(and a similar number of firms publicly in registration but not yet priced had 

previously submitted at least one registration for confidential review); 

1 Latham & Watkins LLC, The JOBS Act After One Year: A Review of the New IPO Playbook (April 5, 2013). Of 500 

issuers identifying themselves as EGCs who publicly filed registration statements in the first year after JOBS (as of 

March 31, 2013), the study reviewed 184 issuers that either successfully completed an IPO listing on a major U.S. 

securities exchange or who the study's authors believed would be likely to complete such an IPO. Most of the data 

here report on the 101 EGC offerings that had been priced (i.e. successfully completed) as of March 31. About 

three-quarters of issuers that priced an IPO in the first year after JOBS identified themselves as an EGC. 

2 
74 


82860.033

• Only a minority of firms indicated a choice to take advantage of extended 

phase in of accounting rules that might be put in place in the future (i.e. 

80% of EGCs would be subject to these changes from the time they become 

effective). 

JOBS also loosened the regulatory bite as to restrictions on issuer 

communications with prospective buyers. The statute's broadened definition of 

research that would be permitted in communication with purchasers does not 

seem to have yet changed behavior except perhaps for expanding publishing of 

research reports before and after the expiration, termination, or waiver of a lockup agreement between the underwriter and the company or its shareholders. 2 

The diversity of EGC conduct in reaction to the new freedoms provided by 

JOBS is useful information, both in terms of provisions that issuers believe are 

most onerous, and the disclosures that they see benefit in continuing to make. 

Investors and issuers understand that credible information is essential to permit 

investors to accurately price their investments. The burden of increasing 

disclosure obligations on smaller public issuers (including items like conflict 

minerals) suggest the value of considering two levels of public issuers, one to 

which all disclosure rules would apply, and the other that would apply to larger 

issuers for which public expectations are greater and extend beyond 

shareholders. 3 

The new section 12(g) threshold, which I described earlier as having less of 

an immediate effect, does impose a bite that merits current attention. The 

threshold for staying private, which has long been based on having less than 500 

shareholders of record, now requires companies to know the number of 

accredited investors (.i.e. less than 2000 shareholders of record if no more than 

499 are non-accredited), and know that on an annual basis. One year into the 

new regime, the method by which companies are going to make this 

determination remains unclear. Issuers are used to determining who is 

accredited at the time that they issue stock to them pursuant to specific 

exemptions, but doing so on an annual basis thereafter when financial reversals 

may have occurred to some investors and others may have drifted away will 

create the need for a more intense ongoing relationship between issuers and 

, Id at 17. 

3 Along with Professor Donald Langevoort of Georgetown, I have written about this possibility in Publicness in 

Contemporary Securities Regulation after the JOBS Act, 101 GEORGETOWN L. J. 337 (2013). We have focused on the 

1933 Act aspects of JOBS in Redrawing the Public-Private Boundaries in Entrepreneurial Capital Raising in 98 

CORNEll L REV. (forthcoming 2013) available at http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstractjd=2132813. 

3 
75 


82860.034

their shareholders than we have seen before. The movement of "record" title to 

securities from individual, beneficial owners to centralized intermediaries such as 

broker-dealers or various depository entities can reduce this problem but that 

move typically has occurred at the time that firms go public and this requirement 

is going to hit firms well before that point. It is time for the Congress to move 

beyond this 50 year old anachronistic concept of "record" ownership, first 

inserted into the statute when stock transfers could only occur by written 

instruments and adopt a concept more suitable for an electronic age. 

The changes to Rule 506 removing the long-standing limitations on general 

solicitation, (once they take affect after completion of SEC rule-making) are likely 

to expose the definition of accredited investors to additional stress. The 

expansive part of this definition takes in individual investors based on financial 

thresholds that have not changed since 1982, despite three decades of inflation. 

Being able to market to investors with $1 million in net assets and more than 

$200,000 of annual income goes much deeper into the investor pool than it did 

thirty years ago, such that a modern look of that definition is needed to bring that 

metric current. 

While the changes in regulatory coverage have eased the burdens on 

raising capital in substantial ways, the impact of market changes may be even 

more dramatic. For example, holders of stock not traded on national exchanges 

can find more liquidity for their investments than ever before in platforms like 

Second Market and SharesPost. As a result more firms can stay outside thresholds 

triggering public reporting status longer. Recent data indicated that the amount 

of money raised in private placements ([particularly rule 506) have surpassed the 

amount raised in registered public offerings. 4 This pre-dates recent regulatory 

changes and likely reflects the changes in the financial market that have 

permitted companies to raise more of their capital needs from private funds and 

venture capital without going to a registered offering, again postponing their 

exposure to public company regulation. This shift does not do as much for small 

start-ups, for which continued focus of crowdfunding and other developing ideas 

should be pursued. 

4 See VLAD IVANOV & SCOTT BAUGUESS, CAPITAL RAISING IN THE U.S.: THE SIGNIFICANCE 

OF UNREGISTERED OFFERINGS USING THE REGULATION D EXEMPTION (February 2012) at 3, 

available at http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec/acsecl031113nalysis-reg-d-offering.pdf 

(SEC economic study showing Reg D in 2010, even before dropping the ban on general 

solicitation produced 8% more capital than public offerings). 

4 
76 


82860.035

When considering the effects of market changes on capital raising, one 

change that has not received the attention it deserves is the institutionalization of 

our shareholder base. In contrast to 1950, for example, when the institutional 

share of equity in American corporations was in the single digits, today 

institutions hold the majority of equity and in our largest corporations their share 

exceeds 70%. Institutions are also a significant share of the IPOs market. Most of 

institutional money, in turn, comes from various instruments for retirement 

savings that receive tax- favored treatment under our laws; thus most equity 

owners are intermediaries for beneficiaries whose retirement funds are on the 

line. For a substantial segment of these funds, there are additional layers of 

intermediation with institutions providing significant sums of money to asset 

managers and hedge funds who then invest in equity and elsewhere. A focus on 

reducing barriers to capital formation should take explicit account of the extent to 

which intermediaries are the investors providing the capital and how that shapes 

barriers to investments. 

5 
77 


82860.036

Question for the Record 

Representative Gwen Moore 

Subcommittee on Capital Markets and GSEs 

Reducing Barriers to Capital Formation 

July 10, 2013 

Mr. Moch, thank you for your testimony. 

Please expand on the proposals for a tick size pilot program as a way to encourage smalland medium-sized businesses to go public, to create jobs, and to stimulate the economy. 

Specifically, please describe (1) why you would support a tick size pilot program, (2) how 

such a proposal would increase liquidity in small-capitalization stocks, (3) how a tick size 

pilot program would benefit investors, and (4) parameters you believe are essential to a 

pilot program, such as a minimum pilot program length and a "trade at" rule that would 

eliminate trading rebates within the spread and require trading at the tick increments. 

In addition, during the hearing one witness stated that given the long-term impact to the 

economy the committee should not wait to take action. Do you recommend that the SEC 

move forward with the tick size pilot program before the end of the year? In the absence of 

SEC action, would you support congressional legislation? 

Why would you support a tick size pilot program? 

Thinly-traded stocks, like those of most small biotechs, often need market-makers to 

stimulate trading activity, and the decreased tick size enacted by decimalization removed 

their incentive to do so. Market-makers profit on large spreads, so the reduced tick size 

diminished their potential profit margin, changing their market-making habits and leaving 

small cap stocks stagnant. The public market plays a vital role in financing next generation 

R&D, but a sluggish market bereft of liquidity does nothing to spur capital formation or fund 

research. The current one-size-fits-all approach to tick size does not reflect the realities of 

the market and subjects smaller issuers to the same trading framework as large, 

multinational companies with exponentially higher trading volumes and market caps. A tick 

size pilot program would address the harm that deCimalization has caused for small cap 

stocks and stimulate liquidity for growing companies. 

How would a tick size pilot program increase liquidity in small-capitalization 

stocks? 

A tick size pilot program to allow small issuers to choose larger trading increments would 

spur trading activity in emerging company stock. Under deCimalization, market-makers 

have lost interest in spurring liquidity in small cap stocks. A pilot program to allow tick size 

flexibility for smaller issuers would provide incentives for market-making activity and thus 

increase trading. Allowing an increased tick size would grant flexibility to growing 

companies and increase the liquidity and capital availability necessary for emerging biotechs 

to be successful on the public market. 

How would a tick size pilot program benefit investors? 

The SEC adopted decimalization in an effort to increase trading activity for large issuers with 

millions of shares traded each day. Large companies enjoyed an influx of new investors, 

and issuer and investor alike benefited from increased liquidity and lower transaction costs. 
78 


82860.037

However, at the same time, small issuers experienced a corresponding decrease in liquidity. 

Decimalization harmed both small companies and their investors. Allowing tick size 

flexibility through a pilot program will increase liquidity for small cap stocks - thus giving 

shareholders more trading options and increasing the likelihood that they will see a positive 

return on their investment. 

What parameters are necessary for a tick size pilot program? 

A pilot program could be targeted at companies that meet a certain revenue, public float, or 

trading volume test. A revenue test is an especially important marker for growing biotechs 

that do not have product revenue to fund their vital research. 

Any pilot program should be in effect long enough for market participants to adapt to the 

new reality. A too-short pilot would not give investors enough time to change their habits 

and would thus not have the desired impact on small company liquidity. 

Additionally, it is important that the increased tick size options in a pilot program apply to 

both trading and quoting increments. 

Do you recommend that the SEC move forward with the tick size pilot program 

before the end of the year? In the absence of SEC action, would you support 

congressional legislation? 

The JOBS Act has been enormously successful in spurring IPO activity in the biotech 

industry. Over 30 companies have gone public using the IPO On-Ramp, and many more are 

on file with the SEC. These newly-public companies could face liquidity and pricing issues 

detrimental to their public float and cash flow. It is important that the SEC or Congress 

take action to ensure a positive trading environment for emerging innovators. I support 

expeditious action, whether regulatory or legislative, to implement a tick size pilot program. 

o