[Coin World] The SEC is serious this time - preparing to ease restrictions for small companies to go public.
Chairman Paul Atkins recently made a big move at an event at the New York Stock Exchange: he plans to cut the disclosure requirements that trouble small businesses and intends to adjust compliance standards based on company size. In other words, it’s to allow more small companies to successfully go public.
How exactly does it work? The key point is that a longer buffer period has been provided. Previously, newly listed companies had only one year to adapt to the rules, but now it has been extended to at least two years. This means that companies can take their time, gradually disclose information to investors, and submit various reports, without having to accomplish everything all at once.
The SEC will also redefine what constitutes a “small business” - the last time this standard was adjusted was twenty years ago. Atkins himself lamented that there are nearly half as many publicly listed companies in the U.S. now compared to thirty years ago.
His original words were quite straightforward: “Our regulatory framework should provide a path to IPO for companies at all stages and in all industries.” After all, compliance costs are indeed too heavy for some companies, and this unequal pressure needs to be adjusted.
If this operation is implemented, the IPO reserve pool may become quite lively.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
12 Likes
Reward
12
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasGasGasBro
· 11h ago
Finally, there is a bit of conscience, the two-year buffer really should have been implemented earlier... However, we still need to see how it will be carried out in the future, the SEC often says nice things.
View OriginalReply0
HalfIsEmpty
· 11h ago
Finally, there are some humanized policies, the two-year buffer period can indeed save a lot of good projects.
Is this true? Does this mean they will relax risk control again...
Wait, redefining small enterprises? Could this be another new trick to Be Played for Suckers?
Half of the U.S. listed companies are gone? This data is a bit scary.
They should have done this earlier, financing difficulties for small and medium-sized enterprises have been a long-standing issue.
It feels like the tricks are back, with fewer disclosure requirements, it actually becomes harder to supervise.
Two years? I think most will still be stuck in the first year.
But to be fair, at least it is much more flexible than the rigid one year.
I can't quite tell if this is a good thing or a bad thing...
Reducing disclosure requirements makes it feel like investor risks are greater.
View OriginalReply0
BankruptWorker
· 11h ago
Finally, someone is listening to us. The two-year buffer period has directly doubled, so small businesses no longer have to rush to go public.
Relaxation is relaxation, but the key is whether it can really be implemented. The regulatory authorities have said many nice things.
This operation can be seen as a recognition of reality. The number of listed companies has experienced a 50% slump, indicating that the original rules really trapped people.
It's easy to say, but the key is whether new terms will be added later.
Wait a minute, will the actual operation turn into another set of processes? What tricks are being played this time?
Is two years really enough? I still feel it's not breathable enough.
Small businesses have struggled to go public for a long time, and this reform has caught the pain point.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-beba108d
· 11h ago
A two-year grace period, and now small businesses can finally catch a breath... But I just want to ask, will it become a new trap for suckers again?
View OriginalReply0
SeasonedInvestor
· 11h ago
Finally, there's a bit of a conscientious policy; it has been too difficult for small businesses to go public, and this should have been changed long ago.
A two-year buffer period is good; it's much more humane than the previous one-year deadline.
Speaking of which, what courage small companies must have to dare to IPO these days...
Is the number of listed companies down by half? This is the crux of the problem.
Why does it feel like this reform is a bit late?
View OriginalReply0
AirDropMissed
· 11h ago
Wait, a two-year grace period? This is not a relaxation at all; it still feels like a trap for small businesses.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHunterKing
· 11h ago
Oh dear, this is just giving small businesses some space, a two-year buffer period is okay, right? Last year was really tough... The previous micro disk that was used to exploit was stuck on the disclosure part, but now there's hope.
The SEC is going to ease the listing requirements for small companies: a two-year transition period + redefining the standards for small enterprises.
[Coin World] The SEC is serious this time - preparing to ease restrictions for small companies to go public.
Chairman Paul Atkins recently made a big move at an event at the New York Stock Exchange: he plans to cut the disclosure requirements that trouble small businesses and intends to adjust compliance standards based on company size. In other words, it’s to allow more small companies to successfully go public.
How exactly does it work? The key point is that a longer buffer period has been provided. Previously, newly listed companies had only one year to adapt to the rules, but now it has been extended to at least two years. This means that companies can take their time, gradually disclose information to investors, and submit various reports, without having to accomplish everything all at once.
The SEC will also redefine what constitutes a “small business” - the last time this standard was adjusted was twenty years ago. Atkins himself lamented that there are nearly half as many publicly listed companies in the U.S. now compared to thirty years ago.
His original words were quite straightforward: “Our regulatory framework should provide a path to IPO for companies at all stages and in all industries.” After all, compliance costs are indeed too heavy for some companies, and this unequal pressure needs to be adjusted.
If this operation is implemented, the IPO reserve pool may become quite lively.