DP16/3: Availability of information in the UK Equity IPO process

We would like to know what you think of the questions we have set out in our paper[1].

Please submit your comments using this form by 13 July 2016.

Current Start
Your details
Complete

Q1: Having regard to the typical UK IPO timetable, do you agree that it is in principle a cause for concern that in most cases a draft prospectus is available two weeks after the ITF and a final prospectus is only available after pricing? Please state reasons.

Q2: Do you have concerns about connected research? If so, please describe those concerns.

Q3: What is the basis on which you consider legal liability may attach to the publication of research in close proximity to the publication of an approved prospectus? Please explain, by reference to the current legal framework. It would be helpful if you could consider the question from the perspective of both issuers and research publishers.

Q4: Do you have any comments on regulatory or other possible drivers of the existing blackout period?

Q5: What do you think are the main barriers to more unconnected research on IPOs? Do you think fostering the conditions for more unconnected research is a suitable objective to improve further the UK process?

Q6: Do you agree with the concerns that we have set out in Chapter 3?

Q7: Do you agree with our conclusion that a regulatory intervention is required to achieve reform? If not when and how do you believe a market-led solution could be secured?

Q8: Do you support these high level aims for reform of the UK IPO process? If not, please set out concerns and/or alternatives.

Q9: Do you agree that a ban on (i) all research and (ii) only connected research in the IPO process would not be a suitable option for reform? If not, why not?

Q10: Do you agree that simultaneous publication does not represent a suitable or practical basis for reformed market practice?

Q11: Do you agree that requiring publication of the registration document component of the prospectus prior to the publication of research would improve the IPO process? If not, why not?

Q12: Do you agree that requiring issuers to open the presentation to analysts to unconnected research analysts would improve the IPO process? If not, why not?

Q13: Which of models 1 to 3 do you think would provide the best basis for reformed market practice?

Q14: For each model (1 to 3), please consider: Are there any practical issues that we need to consider? Would it lead to an increase in the length of the IPO process? Would it create conditions for unconnected research to be produced? Would it lead to any increase in costs or risks for the issuer, investors or intermediary firms?

Q15: Are there any other options you think we should consider?

Q16: Do stakeholders have concerns with how conflicts of interest are managed when investment banks’ analysts meet an issuer and/or their advisers as part of pre-mandate IPO pitching process? If so, do stakeholders have suggestions on how this could be improved, for example by firms establishing best practices or clarification of our regulatory expectations in this area?

Q17: Would the models of reforms considered above also be appropriate as the basis for reformed practice in IPOs on non-regulated markets?

First published: 10/06/2016 Last updated: 10/06/2016