Market News

The Elon Musk dilemma – AKA the stockmarket cost/benefit trade-off

Elon Musk, CEO of electric carmaker Tesla, has suggested he will take the company private. We look at the costs and benefits of a stockmarket listing.

15/08/2018

Duncan Lamont, CFA

Duncan Lamont, CFA

Head of Research and Analytics

Schroders

Elon Musk, the divisive entrepreneur, has recently made headlines with the following tweet:

Elon Mush stockmarket tweet

Source: Twitter

In a subsequent blog post, Musk made clear his reasons for wanting to take his electric vehicle company, Tesla, away from the stockmarket. He expressed his frustration at the distraction caused by wild swings in the Tesla share price and perceives that the stockmarket is forcing short-term pressures on the way the company is run, with possible long-term negative consequences. Tesla is also a popular target for “shorters” (investors betting that a share price will fall), and their efforts to publicly undermine Tesla have been a constant irritant for him. All told, Musk is fed up with the hassle of a public market listing.

He is not alone.

The decision about whether to be listed on a stockmarket comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.  For many companies, this is no longer such a straightforward question. 

The stock market cost/benefit trade-off

The stockmarket cost / benefit illustration

Musk is right that the cost and hassle associated with a stockmarket listing count against it. To give an example, increased regulatory requirements have driven the median number of words in a US 10-K filing (the regulatory filing of a US public company’s annual results) to more than double between 1996 and 2014. Expensive, time-consuming and not much fun for budding entrepreneurs.

Cheap debt and more accessible and scalable private equity financing have dimmed the allure of a stockmarket listing even more. Sums of money can now be raised privately that would have been inconceivable even 10 years ago. Companies such as Tesla no longer need to be publicly listed to access sizeable sources of ongoing capital.

The outcome of this tilt in the cost/benefit trade-off has had a very visible and significant impact. Our research shows that the number of public companies has collapsed by around 50% in the US, UK and parts of western Europe since the early 1990s. Using the US as an example, the number of companies joining the stockmarket declined from over 300 a year, on average, between 1980 and 1996 to around 100 a year since. Year after year, more companies have also left the stockmarket than joined, mainly due to them merging or being acquired.

Even those companies that are joining the stockmarket are putting it off for longer before they do so - the average age of companies on IPO in the US has increased from eight years in the 1980-1999 period to 11 years since. Today’s stockmarket captures larger companies at a later stage of their development. Earlier stage gains, which are normally larger, are now being captured by the private equity industry, not the stockmarket.

This final point is important. If companies increasingly turn their back on public markets, the risk is that, over time, the quality of the public market deteriorates with possible negative consequences for returns. Individual savers would bear the brunt, given that private equity is too expensive and inaccessible for most people to invest in. It is our responsibility, as active investors, to do all we can to help our investors achieve their goals and navigate any such changes in the market environment.

However, while many developed markets have been losing out in the cost/benefit trade-off, the situation is different elsewhere. Our research found that Asian and Eastern European stockmarkets have been able to attract growing numbers of companies. For them, increased demand for capital and relatively immature capital markets mean that the benefits have continued to outweigh the costs.

Some markets have had explosive growth

Change in number of stocks listed on global  stockmarkets

In addition, many companies on the stockmarket get a lot of value out of their public status.

Since 2001, the number of fundraisings by existing listed companies has outpaced initial public offerings (IPO) by a factor of almost four-to-one in the US.

An IPO is the very first sale of stock issued by a company to the public.

Even in China, where IPO activity has been very high, amounts raised in secondary fundraisings have been outpacing IPOs by a similar magnitude.

Secondary fundraisings are ususally when companies already listed on a stock exchange create more shares for the public to buy.

Public markets clearly continue to offer a number of benefits, both for companies and also broader society. The transparency they provide is a double-edged sword. While companies may find it burdensome, it enables management and corporate practices to be held to account more readily, with wider social and economic benefits. They also contribute to effective allocation of capital. Debt markets, where lenders often “amend and extend” borrowing terms to avoid recognition of losses, have a history of doing the exact opposite.

Public markets are not dead, but they are evolving and continue to have an important role to play. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that this remains the case. Even Elon Musk wrote, in the very same blog where he gave his reasons for wanting to take Tesla private, that “In the future…it will likely make sense to return to the public markets”.

 

Any references to companies are for illustrative purposes only and not a recommendation to buy and/or sell

The opinions contained herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the house view. This document is intended to be for information purposes only. The material is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. The material is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for, accounting, legal or tax advice, or investment recommendations. Information herein is believed to be reliable but Cazenove Capital does not warrant its completeness or accuracy. No responsibility can be accepted for errors of fact or opinion. This does not exclude or restrict any duty or liability that Cazenove Capital has to its customers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended from time to time) or any other regulatory system. Cazenove Capital is part of the Schroder Group and a trading name of Schroder & Co. Registered Office at 1 London Wall Place, London EC2Y 5AU. Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. For your security, communications may be taped and monitored. 

Contact Cazenove Charities

Achieving your charity's investment objectives takes time and thought. To find out how we can help you please contact:

Kate Rogers

Kate Rogers

Co-head of Charities kate.rogers@cazenovecapital.com
Alex Baily

Alex Baily

Co-head of Charities alex.baily@cazenovecapital.com