Click here to see the New NASDAQ MICROCAP PROPOSED MEASURES

Wall Street and the current state of capital markets highlights a deep and troubling shift away from their foundational purpose. Historically, exchanges were designed to foster innovation, allow smaller companies to access growth capital, and align the ambitions of entrepreneurs with the interests of investors. This ethos has eroded, replaced by short-termism, greed, and a system that increasingly marginalizes the small-cap and microcap innovators that once thrived in the public markets. This proposed Nasdaq rule represents a significant shift in how micro-cap companies will be able to access public markets, potentially reshaping the landscape for emerging growth companies. Nasdaq’s proposal represents a step backward for innovation, market diversity, and economic opportunity. While its stated intent is to ensure stronger fundamentals and IPO readiness, the reality is that it will exclude a broad swath of innovative companies that are essential to the health and dynamism of public markets.

By tightening the rules in this way, Nasdaq risks becoming less inclusive, less competitive, and less relevant for the small companies that have historically fueled market growth. Instead of shutting the door on these companies, Nasdaq should adopt more nuanced policies that balance investor protection with access to capital. Without such adjustments, this proposal risks not just harming micro-cap companies but undermining the very purpose of public markets: to connect innovators with the capital they need to change the world.

Stifling Innovation

Small Companies as Incubators of Innovation:History shows that the world’s most transformative companies—Microsoft, Apple, Amazon—started as small-cap entities. By deprioritizing small companies, we risk starving the next generation of groundbreaking ideas.
Risk-Taking Requires Capital:Small-cap firms are often at the forefront of taking risks that drive technological and societal advancements. Reducing access to capital for these companies will discourage entrepreneurship and innovation.
Big Companies Get Complacent:Large-cap companies are often focused on sustaining their dominance rather than disrupting industries. Over-reliance on large-cap companies stifles the competitive pressure needed to drive meaningful advancements.

Narrowing Economic Opportunity

Erosion of the "American Dream":The markets were once a pathway for companies to grow and for everyday Americans to invest in those dreams. Moving away from supporting smaller companies narrows this pathway and widens the wealth gap.
Fewer Jobs, Less Growth: Small businesses and startups are significant drivers of job creation. Weakening their access to capital stymies economic growth, job opportunities, and regional development.
Geographic Concentration: Large-cap companies are often concentrated in financial and technological hubs. A focus on smaller companies would allow other regions to benefit from the economic multiplier effect of innovative, locally-grown businesses.

Diminished Investment Opportunities

Retail Investors Lose Out: Historically, public markets allowed average investors to buy into early-stage companies and reap the rewards of long-term growth. By sidelining smaller companies, retail investors are increasingly cut out of these opportunities.
Private Equity and Institutional Domination:The shift forces smaller companies to rely on private funding, dominated by institutions and venture capitalists. This creates an elitist ecosystem where only the wealthy and well-connected can invest in high-growth opportunities.
Long-Term Value Creation:Investing in small caps often provides outsized returns over time, rewarding patient investors. Focusing on large caps misses the opportunity for substantial wealth creation over the long term.

The Danger of Overconcentration

Systemic Risk:Large-cap stocks already dominate major indexes. Overconcentration on these companies creates systemic risk; any major downturn in a handful of companies can destabilize the broader market.
Market Homogenization: A market overly focused on large-cap companies becomes less dynamic, less diverse, and more susceptible to inefficiencies and economic shocks.

Shortsightedness Harms the Markets Themselves

Short-Termism Undermines True Investing:The shift away from supporting small companies reflects Wall Street’s obsession with short-term profits over long-term growth. This creates a culture where speculation replaces investing.
Erosion of Public Trust:When markets prioritize speculation, algorithms, and derivative plays over fostering innovation, they lose credibility. Retail and institutional investors alike grow disillusioned, weakening overall participation and engagement.
Restrictive Regulations Compound the Problem: By burdening smaller companies with disproportionate costs and complexity, we discourage them from entering or staying in the public markets. This further shrinks the pipeline of innovative public companies.

Long-Term Consequences for the U.S. Economy

Global Competitiveness:Other countries are increasingly positioning themselves as innovation hubs. By neglecting our small-cap ecosystem, the U.S. risks falling behind in critical industries like clean energy, biotechnology, and AI.
Missed Opportunities: Many of today’s biggest challenges—climate change, healthcare innovation, infrastructure, cybersecurity—require bold, risky ideas that small companies often bring to the table. Without proper support, solutions to these challenges may never see the light of day.
Hollowing Out the Middle Market: Without a robust ecosystem of small and growing companies, the middle market becomes increasingly hollow, creating a “barbell” economy dominated by massive corporations and struggling startups with no pathway to scale.
Let’s analyze why this move is problematic in light of the points we’ve discussed, and why it may stifle innovation and restrict market dynamism.

Disproportionate Impact on Micro-Cap Companies

Elimination of Legacy Shareholders: By excluding resale or legacy shareholders from the $15M public float calculation, Nasdaq directly targets micro-cap companies that often rely on these shareholders to meet listing requirements. This is particularly harsh for startups and emerging businesses that have historically depended on these mechanisms to reach public markets.
$15M Threshold is Unrealistic for Most Micro-Cap IPOs: With median micro-cap IPO proceeds hovering around $7M, this rule would exclude the majority of micro-cap companies from Nasdaq Capital Markets. This essentially shutters the most accessible path for these companies to raise capital and gain exposure.
** Ripple Effect:** Shutting the Door on Innovation
Reduced Access to Capital: Micro-cap companies are often the vanguard of innovation, pursuing risky but potentially groundbreaking ideas. Limiting their ability to list on Nasdaq dries up a critical source of growth capital, which in turn slows innovation.
Unfair Barrier to Entry: This proposal effectively prioritizes large, well-funded IPOs, leaving smaller companies with fewer options. It disadvantages those that may not have $15M in upfront offering proceeds but possess long-term potential.
Shrinking Opportunity Pool: If 91% of micro-cap IPOs this year wouldn’t qualify under this rule, Nasdaq risks alienating an entire class of companies and investors who seek to participate in the early stages of promising ventures.

Competitive Landscape

Nasdaq vs. NYSE and Other Exchanges: With NYSE already enforcing a $10M gross proceeds threshold, Nasdaq’s proposal escalates the difficulty for micro-cap companies. These changes could drive smaller companies to seek alternative markets, including OTC markets or non-U.S. exchanges, eroding Nasdaq’s competitive position.
Alternative Markets Can't Absorb the Volume:While alternatives like OTC markets or specialized exchanges exist, they lack the visibility, credibility, and liquidity offered by Nasdaq. Redirecting micro-cap companies to these lesser venues diminishes their growth prospects.

Disconnect from Market History and Dynamics

Legacy Companies Once Relied on Small IPOs:Giants like Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon would have struggled to meet these requirements in their early days. Nasdaq itself has benefited historically from hosting smaller, innovative firms that later became market leaders.
Market Fragmentation Risks: Creating higher thresholds widens the gap between small and large companies, reducing market diversity and increasing systemic risks tied to overconcentration on large-cap stocks.
Broader Implications
Investor Choice: Limiting the number of micro-cap IPOs restricts the investment opportunities available to retail and institutional investors. Investors should have the choice to back smaller, high-risk, high-reward companies.
Concentration of Wealth and Opportunity:By raising barriers to entry, Nasdaq’s proposal could inadvertently concentrate wealth and market power among established players, further marginalizing smaller companies and their stakeholders.

The Regulatory Burden on Small Companies

High Fixed Costs of Compliance:Regulatory requirements, particularly under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), demand extensive internal controls, audits, and reporting. For large companies, these costs are relatively manageable. For smaller firms, they can consume a significant portion of their budget.
Example: The average cost of compliance for a public company under SOX can run into millions of dollars annually. For a company with revenues under $100M, this is an unsustainable drain on resources that could otherwise be used for growth or innovation.
Listing Requirements: Nasdaq and NYSE's increasing thresholds for public float, offering proceeds, and market cap make it harder for smaller firms to list. Many companies that might thrive with public support are forced to remain private or seek alternative, less visible markets like OTC.
Unintended Consequences:These barriers not only limit access to capital but also disincentivize innovation. Entrepreneurs are discouraged from pursuing public listings because the cost and complexity outweigh the benefits.

The Hypocrisy of "Investor Protection"

Accredited Investor Rules: The rationale behind accredited investor requirements is to protect less sophisticated investors from risky, high-stakes private placements. However, this system is inherently flawed:
Unreasonable Criteria:A million-dollar net worth (excluding primary residence) or $200K annual income for two consecutive years excludes the majority of Americans. These thresholds don’t measure financial literacy, risk tolerance, or investment sophistication.
False Safety Net: Retail investors who don’t meet these criteria can still engage in speculative trading through public markets, often at a disadvantage. A naïve retail investor can buy shares at a volatile market price but is barred from participating in private placements with structured pricing and warrants that provide better terms.
Market Volatility Risk: In public markets, retail investors are at the mercy of market makers, price spreads, and execution lags. Private placements, by contrast, offer a set price and defined terms. Ironically, retail investors are excluded from the very opportunities that could offer them better risk-reward scenarios.

Private Placements vs. Public Market Trading

The Structure of Private Placements:
Set Price: In private placements, the share price is agreed upon in advance, eliminating the risk of chasing prices upward due to market volatility.
Warrants:Investors often receive warrants, allowing them to purchase additional shares at a predetermined price within a set time frame (e.g., five years). This provides upside potential while limiting downside risk.
Aligned Interests: The terms of private placements often align the interests of investors and the company, fostering longer-term commitment.
The Public Market Contrast:
Retail investors face uncertainty when placing orders. Prices can move against them as market makers adjust the bid-ask spread or manipulate prices based on demand.
The absence of structured pricing and warrants leaves retail investors with fewer protections and opportunities for upside.

Flaws in the Current System

Exclusionary Rules: Accredited investor requirements exclude retail investors from private placements but leave them vulnerable to speculative trading in public markets. This approach is not about protecting investors—it’s about preserving an exclusive ecosystem for the wealthy and well-connected.
Barriers to Small-Cap Investment: Smaller companies that might offer outsized returns over time are pushed out of public markets due to regulatory barriers, further concentrating investment opportunities among institutional players.
Systemic Inequities: By barring retail investors from participating in structured, potentially lucrative private placements, the system perpetuates inequality in wealth-building opportunities.

Redefine Investor Protection Criteria:

Replace arbitrary wealth or income thresholds with metrics that assess financial literacy and risk tolerance. Here is a radical Idea. What if we taught a course in schools or had the online brokerages develop a certification program. Have a test that retail investors can take to access their aptitude. Allowing retail investors to opt into higher-risk investments with appropriate disclosures and safeguards.
Reduce Regulatory Burdens for Small Companies:Scale compliance requirements based on a company’s size, revenue, or market cap. This would allow smaller firms to go public without the crushing weight of SOX and other regulatory costs.
Create “light-touch” public listing frameworks specifically designed for emerging growth companies, with reduced reporting obligations and simplified compliance mechanisms.
Improve Access to Private Placements: Open private placements to retail investors under structured frameworks, such as capped investments or limited exposure per offering. Incentivize companies to include retail investors in private placements by offering tax advantages or streamlined processes.
Support Market Transparency:Ensure that public market mechanisms (like market makers and algorithmic trading) are fair and transparent, minimizing manipulation that disadvantages retail investors.# Rather than doubling down on large-cap dominance, the following measures could reinvigorate the markets:

Lower Barriers for IPOs: Simplify the IPO process for small companies while maintaining essential investor protections.
Encourage Small-Cap Research: Incentivize analysts and institutional investors to cover and invest in smaller firms, which often go unnoticed.
Crack Down on Predatory Practices: Enforce rules against naked short selling and market manipulation, which disproportionately harm small-cap companies.
New Exchanges and Mechanisms: Develop alternative markets or exchanges tailored to the unique needs of small and microcap companies.
Tax Incentives for Long-Term Investment: Reward investors who commit to holding small-cap stocks over a longer period, fostering stability and growth.

Enhanced Investor Protections:Implement measures to protect investors in micro-cap IPOs rather than barring entry altogether.
Specialized Market Segments: Create a separate, tailored platform under the Nasdaq umbrella for micro-cap and emerging growth companies to list and thrive without the overly restrictive **$15M threshold. Conclusion: **A Self-Defeating Move

Rather than doubling down on large-cap dominance, the following measures could reinvigorate the markets:

Solutions and Counterarguments

If Nasdaq’s intent is to bolster the credibility of its listings, it can achieve this without stifling micro-cap companies:
Scaled Float Requirements: Introduce graduated requirements based on the size and industry of the issuer, allowing smaller companies to access markets while ensuring proper scrutiny.
Lower Barriers for IPOs: Simplify the IPO process for small companies while maintaining essential investor protections.
Encourage Small-Cap Research: Incentivize analysts and institutional investors to cover and invest in smaller firms, which often go unnoticed.
Crack Down on Predatory Practices: Enforce rules against naked short selling and market manipulation, which disproportionately harm small-cap companies.
New Exchanges and Mechanisms: Develop alternative markets or exchanges tailored to the unique needs of small and microcap companies.
Tax Incentives for Long-Term Investment: Reward investors who commit to holding small-cap stocks over a longer period, fostering stability and growth.
Enhanced Investor Protections: Implement measures to protect investors in micro-cap IPOs rather than barring entry altogether.
Specialized Market Segments: Create a separate, tailored platform under the Nasdaq umbrella for micro-cap and emerging growth companies to list and thrive without the overly restrictive $15M threshold. Conclusion:A Self-Defeating Move

Conclusion

The decision to prioritize large-cap stocks at the expense of smaller firms is not just misguided—it is actively detrimental to the future of innovation, economic growth, and equitable wealth creation. By taking the wrong path today, we risk undermining the very foundation of what made Wall Street and the U.S. economy great: the ability to fund dreams, foster ingenuity, and create opportunities for all. To correct course, we must actively rebuild the capital markets as a place where small-cap companies can thrive, where investors are rewarded for vision and patience, and where innovation and entrepreneurship remain central to the American economy.
The current regulatory system is not just flawed—it is counterproductive. By excluding retail investors from private placements and burdening small companies with disproportionate costs, we undermine the principles of equitable access and fair opportunity that should define capital markets. The system as it stands protects institutions, not individuals, and prioritizes large-cap stability over small-cap innovation. It’s time to rethink these rules to foster a more inclusive, dynamic, and equitable market for all participants. Please pass this article along to as many people as possible if you agree with the principle of this article. We have an opportunity with the new administration to make real change. Let's make a positive impact together. The only lasting changes are the ones that people understand and believe in. Join us and send this to your state senator or or house representative. Send this to the SEC and anyone else that you feel should hear your concerns. Get involved and make change happen for the good of all Americans.