Going Public Could Get A Lot Cheaper - The SEC's Proposed 2026 Reporting Overhaul

如果你最近几个月一直在关注美国证券交易委员会，你可能会注意到一些事情。

If you've been watching the SEC over the last few months, you've probably noticed something.

他们开始行动了。

They're moving.

不是那种慢吞吞、深思熟虑、还要再研究十年的节奏，他们是真的在动。

Not in a slow, deliberate, we'll study this for another decade kinda way, they're actually moving.

仅五月份，委员会就提出了两项对上市公司报告要求影响最大的变革，这可能是大多数从业者职业生涯中难得一见的。

In May alone, the commission proposed two of the most consequential changes to public company reporting requirements that most practitioners will see in their careers.

一项是对自2005年以来基本冻结的申报人身份框架进行根本性重组，另一项是为公司提供一条可选路径，摆脱几十年来一直抱怨的季度报告压力。

A fundamental restructuring of the filer status framework that's been essentially frozen since 2005 and an optional path off the quarterly reporting treadmill that companies have been complaining about for decades.

今天，我们将深入探讨这两项提案，重点放在申报人身份提案上，因为对大多数收听本播客的公司来说，这是最直接、最具体的运营影响。

And today, we're digging into both with the filer status proposal as the main event because for most companies, I think, listening to this podcast, it's the most immediate and concrete operational impact.

欢迎收听《会计事务》。

Welcome to Accounting Matters.

我是妮可·哈格，旁边是亚当·奥尔森。

I'm Nicole Harger here with Adam Olsen.

这个时间点真的很重要，因为就像亚当提到的，这些规则还只是提案。

And the timing on this really does matter here because as Adam mentioned, these rules are proposed.

还不是最终版本。

They're not the final one.

所以现在还在征求意见阶段。

So the comment window is open.

从业者的反馈确实在很大程度上影响这些规则的最终走向。

Practitioner input has a real track record of shaping how these rules ultimately land.

对。

Mhmm.

接下来我们会聊聊，在规则最终确定之前，有哪些值得关注的地方。

And so we'll get into what to watch as this moves towards finalization.

但我们先从为什么需要重新审视申报人身份框架说起，因为在这个提案出来之前，改革的呼声已经积累了很久。

But let's start with why the filer status framework needed a rethink in the first place because the case for doing something here had been building for a long time before this proposal dropped.

是的。

Yeah.

所以美国证券交易委员会的申报人身份框架一开始并不复杂。

So the SEC's filer status framework didn't start out complicated.

我觉得它是几十年间慢慢变得复杂的。

I think it accumulated that way over decades.

大型加速申报人和加速申报人这两个类别是在本世纪初被写入法规的，就像我在开场白里提到的。

The large accelerator filers and the accelerated filer categories were codified in the early two thousands as I mentioned kind of in the opening remarks.

然后小型报告公司的门槛在2008年做了调整。

And then the smaller reporting company thresholds, those were refined in 2008.

EGC，也就是新兴成长型公司，这个称号是通过2012年的《就业法案》引入的。

The EGC or emerging growth company designation that came through the jobs act in 2012.

到这个过程结束时，我们现在有五个重叠的类别：大型加速申报人、加速申报人、非加速申报人、小型报告公司和新兴成长型公司，每个都有自己的门槛、自己的优惠条件、自己不同的特殊情况，还有各自的复杂性。

And by the end of that process, we now have five overlapping categories, large accelerated filer, accelerated filer, non accelerated filer, SRCs and EGCs with their own thresholds, their own accommodations, their own different edge cases, their own complexities.

对吧？

Right?

而且如果你退一步看这五类，它们并不是很整齐地嵌套在一起的。

And that they didn't nest very cleanly if you kind of step back and look at each of those five.

我觉得中间的那些公司总是花大量时间、金钱和精力去搞清楚自己适用哪些规则，而这还是在真正开始做合规工作之前。

And I think companies in the middle were always spending a lot of time and money and energy just trying to figure out which rules applied to them and that was before they actually did any of the real work that needed to get done for compliance.

对。

Yeah.

结构上的混乱是一个问题，但更大的问题是漂移。

And the structural messiness was one problem, but the bigger issue was drift.

比如大型加速申报公司的门槛是在2000年设定的，当时SEC把它定为7亿美元。

So your large accelerated filer threshold was set at 700,000,000 back in 2000 when the SEC calibrated it.

他们在政策平衡上是很用心的。

They were deliberate about the policy balance.

高于这个门槛的公司代表了美国股市总市值的约90%，但只占公开申报公司总数的18%。

So companies above that line represented about 90% of US equity market capitalization but only 18% of public registrants.

他们的意图是把最严格的要求集中在投资者资本真正集中的地方。

The intent was to really concentrate the most demanding requirements on the issues where the bulk of investor capital actually sat.

这很合理。

And that was reasonable.

对吧？

Right?

问题是这个门槛从来没有更新过，二十年来一次都没有。而二十年的市场增长，让越来越多的公司不知不觉就越过了这个门槛，这根本不是任何政策决策想要的结果。

The problem is that threshold was never updated, not once in twenty years and two decades of market appreciation has steadily slept more companies across it without any policy decision that was, you know, the right outcome.

对。

Yeah.

而今天，同样的七亿美元门槛，覆盖了大约35%的注册公司，几乎是原来设定目标的两倍。

And today, that same $700,000,000 line captures about 35% of registrants, which is nearly double the originally intended population.

所以，5月19日发布的提案，很大程度上其实就是在纠正我们刚才说的这种偏移。

So what the proposal released on May 19 is actually doing in a significant part is just helping reset that drift that we're talking about.

框架被简化了。

The framework gets collapsed.

从五个类别缩减到两个。

We go from five categories down to two.

现在只有大型加速申报公司和非加速申报公司。

So we just have large accelerated filers and then non accelerated filers.

在这个提案里，加速申报者和较小报告公司的身份作为独立状态就消失了。

Accelerated filer and the smaller reporting company designation disappears kind of as standalone statuses in this proposal.

然后新兴成长公司虽然在账面上还保留着，但它是法律规定的，因为实际上，坦白说，当你看到提案里提出的一些优惠措施时，它就变得有点多余了。

And then the EGC technically stays on the books, but it exists by statute because in practice it, you know, frankly becomes kind of redundant when you look at some of the accommodations that they've put forth in the proposal.

然后再说，大型加速申报者的公众持股量门槛，实际上从7亿美元提高到了20亿美元。

And then again, that large accelerated filer public float threshold, it actually moves from that $700,000,000 mark to up to 2,000,000,000.

我觉得值得强调的是，衡量方法是如何随着门槛一起变化的，因为这样框架对接近门槛的公司来说才更稳定。

What I think is worth underscoring is how the measurement methodology changes alongside the threshold because that's where the framework actually becomes more stable for companies that are near the line.

所以在现行框架下，你是在12个月的成熟期内的一个时间点来衡量公众持股量，这意味着接近门槛的公司可能会因为市场状况而年复一年地在大型加速申报者身份之间来回切换，而这些市场状况与它们业务的基本性质无关。

So under the current framework, you measure float at a single point in time on a twelve month seasoning period which means companies near the threshold can flip in and out of large accelerated filer status year over year based on market conditions that have nothing to do with the fundamental nature of their business.

新框架使用的是最近两个第二财季中每个季度最后10个交易日的平均收盘价，而且公司必须在连续两个第二季度的测量中都低于或达到20亿美元的门槛，才会发生任何身份转换。

The new framework uses the average closing price over the last ten trading days of each of the two most recent second fiscal quarters and a company has to miss or meet the $2,000,000,000 threshold in both of two consecutive second quarter measurements before any transition occurs.

所以一旦你落入任何一种身份，你至少会保持两个财年。

And so once you land in either status, you stay there for at least two fiscal years.

这给了处于边缘的公司至少一年的提前可见性，然后任何身份变化才会生效。

That gives companies at the margin at least a year of advanced visibility before any status change takes effect.

对。

Yeah.

而且这确实是个实实在在的改进，从运营角度来看。

And and that's a genuine improvement, right, from an operational standpoint.

现在跨过大型加速申报人门槛的合规后果已经够严重了。

The compliant consequences of crossing from that large accelerated filer threshold today are significant enough.

对吧？

Right?

审计费更高，还得应付404b合规，可能还有额外的披露义务，这些只是其中几个例子。

You've got more audit fees, you've got to deal with the 404b compliance, probably additional disclosure obligations, just to name a few.

那些接近门槛的公司，我之前说过，一直在应对真正的不确定性，担心他们的规划假设能不能成立。

And companies that near the line, I said, have been managing with real uncertainty about whether their planning assumptions are going to hold.

两年的锁定直接解决了这个问题。

The two year lock addresses that directly.

看看这个群体，在新的框架下大概会落在哪里，差不多80%或更多的上市公司会变成非加速申报人，剩下的那20%左右，就是大型加速申报人，他们仍然会占整个市场流动性的93%到94%。

When you look at the population, like where the population, I guess, would land under the new framework, again, roughly 80% or more of public companies would now be non accelerated filers and that remaining, you know, 20% or so, they will be large accelerated filers which would still represent about 93, 94% of the total market flow.

所以，基于规模的要求最终会比现在更集中，适用于更少的公司，但这些公司却占据了更大份额的投资者资本。

So the head based requirements end up more concentrated than they are today applied to a smaller share of companies that account for a larger share of that investor capital.

这比我们目前的情况更严谨，也更站得住脚。

That's a tighter and more defensible policy balance than frankly what we currently have.

好的。

Alright.

那么，让我们来看看根据这项提案，成为非加速申报者到底意味着什么，因为我认为豁免清单相当长，而且有些比其他的更重要。

So let's walk through what it actually means then to be a non accelerated filer under this proposal because I think the list of accommodations is pretty substantial and some carry more weight than others.

我认为最能节省成本的是我之前提到的404(b)条款。

So the one that drives I think the the most of kind of that cost conservation is that four zero four b element that I talked about.

就是外部审计师对财务报告内部控制的鉴证，如果你不熟悉的话。

The external auditor attestation on internal control over financial reporting, in case you're not familiar.

非加速申报者将不需要获得审计师对ICFR的正式意见，这显然是404(b)的核心。

So non accelerated filers would not be required to obtain an auditor's formal opinion on their ICFR, which is obviously the the heart of four zero four b.

不过，管理层的404(a)评估仍然保留，所以这一点不会改变。

However, management's four zero four a evaluation still stays, so that isn't going anywhere.

CEO和CFO的认证，根据302和906条款，这些也仍然保留。

CEO and CFO certifications again under sections three zero two and nine zero six, those also stay.

控制环境，包括文档、测试、整改，以及所有构成有效ICFR的要素，这些仍然完全由管理层负责，也不会取消。

The control environment, which, you know, documentation, testing, remediation, all the things that go into effective I c f r, those remain entirely management's responsibility and those also aren't going away.

但真正取消的是，外部审计师不再需要出具独立意见，来证明管理层在内部控制框架和报告结构上基本正确。

But again, what does go away is external auditor need for an independent opinion that management more or less got their internal control framework and and and reporting structure correct.

美国证券交易委员会估计大约有1600家注册公司，也就是说大约25%到30%的上市公司，或者目前受404(b)约束的公司中约60%，将实际上获得豁免。

The SEC does estimate about 1,600 registrants, so roughly 25 to 30% of all public companies or about 60% of those currently subject to four zero four b would effectively become exempt.

对吧？

Right?

我觉得这对很多人来说可能是个好消息，他们一直在应对和处理这个问题。

Which I think is maybe welcomed relief for a lot of people that have been having to navigate and deal with that.

所以对于目前属于加速申报者和大型加速申报者范围的中型市值公司来说，这通常是外部审计预算中最大的一项，完全是由监管状态驱动的。

And so again, for mid cap companies in that current accelerated filer and large accelerated filer range, this is often the largest single line item in the external audit budget driven purely, you know, frankly by that regulatory status.

所以我们说的是，很多公司受到的影响，金额每年有时能达到七位数。

So we're talking about amounts that many have been affected by that can reach sometimes 7 figures annually.

所以我们说的是几百万美元。

So we're talking millions of dollars.

对吧？

Right?

对。

Yeah.

而且404b的决定实际上比单纯算费用要复杂得多。

And the 404b decision is genuinely more complex than the fee calculation alone suggests.

外部审计认证是一个强制性的推动因素。

The external attestation is a forcing function.

你的审计师必须对你们的控制措施有书面且有说服力的意见，这意味着你们的控制措施必须设计和运行到能够经得起外部审查的标准。

Your auditors are required to have documented defensible opinions on your controls which means your controls have to be designed and operating to a standard that holds up to external scrutiny.

当你取消这个要求时，你不会自动失去控制质量，但你确实失去了那个持续对其进行压力测试的机制。

When you remove that requirement, you don't automatically lose control quality, but you do lose the mechanism that was continuously pressure testing it.

拥有成熟内部审计职能和资源充足的404a流程的公司，即使没有外部认证，也能维持这种质量。

Companies with mature internal audit functions and well resourced four zero four a processes can sustain that quality without the attestation.

但对于那些内部审计规模是围绕外部认证设定底线来设计的公司来说，他们需要仔细考虑如何填补这个空白，这是一个必须在审计委员会层面进行的治理讨论，而且要在做出任何选择之前进行，而不是之后。

But companies where internal audit has been sized around the assumption that external attestation is setting the floor will need to think carefully about what fills that gap and that's a governance conversation that has to happen at the audit committee level before any election is made, not after.

对。

Yeah.

说得好。

Good points there.

而且除了404条款之外，审计财务报表的要求也有变化。

And beyond four zero four being, the audited financial statement requirements also shift.

损益表、现金流量表和权益报表的要求从三年改为两年，而两年审计的资产负债表要求显然会保留。

So they move from three years to two for income statements, cash flows, equity statements and the two year audited balance sheet requirement obviously would stay.

高管薪酬披露的要求也大幅缩减了。

Executive compensation disclosures also get scaled considerably.

现在只需要披露三位高管，而不是五位。

So the three named executive officers are required versus the five.

薪酬讨论与分析部分也不再需要了。

No compensation discussion and analysis is required.

没有薪酬与业绩披露的要求，公司也免于进行薪酬投票以及通常需要的那种相关咨询性投票。

No pay versus performance disclosures and companies become exempt from say on pay and kind of the related advisory votes that typically would be required.

其他一些可选项目包括股票表现图、定量市场风险披露和薪酬委员会报告。

A number of other items that become optional are the stock performance graph, you've the quantitative market risk disclosures and compensation committee reports.

还有第404(d)项，关于关联方交易的披露，也完全取消了。

And item four zero four d, which is around related party transaction disclosures, that is also eliminated entirely.

所以，当你退一步看所有这些在披露方面的调整，合规负担确实大大减轻了。

So it is a meaningful reduction in compliance when you kind of step back and look at all of these accommodations as it relates to disclosures across the board.

对。

Yeah.

薪酬和治理方面的调整，我可能会单独提出来讨论，因为它们不仅仅涉及财务领域。

And the compensation and governance facing accommodations are probably the ones I'd flag for a separate internal conversation and that's because they don't live purely in the finance lane.

明白。

Mhmm.

代理顾问和机构投资者已经围绕薪酬投票和薪酬与业绩披露建立了流程和预期。

Proxy advisers and institutional investors have built processes and expectations around the say on pay vote and pay versus performance disclosure.

即使法律义务消失了，很多公司还是会面临来自投资者群体的压力，要求他们自愿维持这些披露。

Even if the legal obligation disappears, many companies will face pressure from their investor base to maintain those disclosures voluntarily.

合规问题和投资者关系问题需要并行解决，而不是先后解决。

The compliance question and the investor relations questions need to be answered in parallel, not sequentially.

先和审计委员会达成一致，然后发现还得和主要机构投资者进行另一番对话，这是我们经常看到的情况。

Getting to an answer with the audit committee and then realizing you have a different conversation to have with your top institutional holders is a real dynamic we see play out.

对。

Yeah.

我觉得这正是提案中灵活性选择在实际操作中如此重要的原因。

And I think that's exactly why the proposals opt up flexibility matters so much in practice.

我们讨论的所有这些豁免都是明确可选的。

So all of these accommodations that we're talking about are explicitly optional.

所以任何非加速申报公司都可以自愿遵守大型加速申报公司的全部或部分要求。

So any non accelerated filer could voluntarily comply with any or all of those large accelerated filer requirements.

比如，你可以放弃404b的审计证明，但保留三年的审计财务报表作为例子。

So you can drop the 404b attestation, but also keep then the three years of audit financials as an example.

你可以保留薪酬投票，但可能选择不披露薪酬与业绩的对比。

You could keep say on pay, but maybe opt out of pay versus performance.

所以监管底线变了，但公司可以根据自身情况，在底线之上灵活选择自己的位置。

So the regulatory floor moves, but companies can kinda position themselves wherever above that floor maybe makes sense for their circumstances.

所以某一年选择更严格的披露，并不意味着以后就永久锁定在这个标准上。

So electing more rigorous disclosures in one year doesn't lock you in necessarily permanently moving forward.

所以，还是那句话，在提升披露要求方面，整体上给了很大的灵活性。

So again, just flexibility across the board as it relates to kinda uplifting those disclosure requirements.

还有一项新的义务，方向相反，值得提一下。

There's also one new obligation coming the other direction that's worth flagging.

非加速申报公司需要在10-K或20-F表格中披露，那些超过180天仍未解决的、重要的SEC员工意见。

Non accelerated filers would be required to disclose material unresolved SEC staff comments that have been outstanding for more than a hundred and eighty days in their form 10 k or 20 f.

目前这项要求只适用于大型加速申报公司和加速申报公司。

That requirement currently applies only to large accelerated and accelerated filers.

嗯。

Mhmm.

这是一个有针对性的新增要求，而且和配套的发行改革提案有关，那个提案会扩大S-3表格的适用范围，让更多发行人可以使用。

It's a targeted new addition and it's connected to the companion offering reform proposal that would expand form s three eligibility to a broader population of issuers.

所以它是同一个整体方案的一部分。

So it's part of the same overall package.

这不是一个孤立的变动。

It's not an isolated change.

我们来聊聊这对那些准备上市的公司意味着什么，因为我觉得相比404(b)条款受到的关注，这个五年强制过渡期是提案里最容易被低估的部分之一。

Let's talk about what this means for companies on the path to public markets because I think the five year mandatory on ramp is one of the more underappreciated elements of this proposal relative to the attention four zero four b is getting.

按照目前的框架，一家公司在IPO后最快12个月就能成为大型加速申报人，前提是它的公众持股量足够高。

So under the current framework a company can qualify as a large accelerated filer as early as twelve months after its IPO if its public float is high enough.

这意味着对于那些上市后规模快速增长的公司来说，大型加速申报人的全部要求可能在上市第一年内就全部生效，这往往比支撑这些要求的运营基础设施建立起来还要快。

Which means for high growth companies that go public scale, the full weight of large accelerated filer requirements can snap on within the first year of being public which is often faster than the operational infrastructure to support it has been built.

所以这个提案用60个月的强制过渡期取代了12个月的等待期。

So this proposal replaces the twelve month seasoning period faster with a sixty month mandatory on ramp.

所以每一家新上市公司，不管公众持股量是多少——对。

So every newly public company regardless of float Mhmm.

不管市值大小，从成为交易所法案报告公司的第一天起，至少五年内都是非加速申报公司。

Regardless of market cap is a non accelerated filer for at least five years from its first day as an exchange act reporting company.

这改变了上市的经济结构。

And that's a structural change to the economics of going public.

对。

Yeah.

而且这也把新兴成长公司的政策逻辑扩展到了所有公司，这也很重要，对吧？

And it also extends the EGC policy logic to everyone as well, which is also significant, right?

新兴成长公司框架已经提供了五年的过渡期，有类似的优惠，但仅限于收入低于一定门槛的公司。

So the emerging growth company framework already provided a five year on ramp with similar accommodations, but only below certain revenue thresholds.

而且，在这个提案下，过渡期是普遍适用的。

And And again, under this proposal, the on ramp is universal.

所以没有资格上限，你不需要去琢磨和考虑。

So no eligibility ceiling that you gotta navigate and think through.

任何符合新兴成长公司资格的公司都能得到同等或更好的待遇，任何符合资格的公司都能得到这些保护。

Any company that would have qualified as an EGC gets equivalent or better treatment Any company that would have qualified as an EGC gets those protections too.

EGC 的认定依然保留在法规中，但就像我们在开头讨论的那样，由于刚才提到的那些变化，它在实际操作中变得 largely redundant（很大程度上多余了）。

And the EGC designation, again, stays on the books, but as we kind of talked about in the opening, it becomes largely redundant in practice because of a lot of what we just talked about.

有一项对 IPO 筹备很重要的注册声明变更，我们至少应该提一下。

There is a specific registration statement change that matters for IPO preparation that we should at least touch on.

目前，非 EGC 公司在上市时需要在其 S-1 表格中包含三年的经审计财务报表。

So currently, non EGC companies going public need to include three years of audited financials in their S-one.

根据这项提案，注册时为非加速申报人的公司只需要提供两年的报表。

Under this proposal, non accelerated filers at registration would only need two years.

所以这里算是稍微松了口气。

So a little bit of relief there.

而且你想想看，这既是降低成本，也是大幅简化了运营流程，特别是对于那些可能没有现成的、符合GAAP标准的审计财务记录来正式启动IPO的公司来说。

And that's both if you think about it, a cost reduction and a meaningful operational simplification, particularly for companies that maybe don't have a long history of GAAP compliant audited financials readily available to really kick off that IPO process.

对于那些对上市还在犹豫不决的公司来说，我觉得这确实改变了其中一部分考量因素。

For companies that have been on the fence about a public listing, I think this genuinely shifts one part of the calculus.

持续存在的合规成本，尤其是上市后头几年管理层分心和审计负担，一直被视为主要的阻碍因素。

The ongoing compliance cost of being public and then particularly the management distraction and audit burden in those first few years is consistently cited as a deterrent.

所以，五年的窗口期里最重的那些要求都不适用，这给了财务团队一个他们很少有的机会，就是可以按部就班地搭建合规基础设施，而不是手忙脚乱地去应付那些来得比组织准备还快的义务。

So a five year window where the heaviest requirements don't apply gives finance team something they rarely had which is the ability to build out compliance infrastructure at a measured pace rather than scrambling to keep up with the obligations that hit faster organization is ready for.

没错。

That's right.

但我想明确一点，这个提案并不会改变一些事情。

But I do wanna be clear about some of the things that do not change with this proposal.

那我们来过一遍这些。

So let's walk through some of those.

首先，8-K表格的义务不变，交易所上市要求也不变。

So first, form eight k obligations don't change and those continue Exchange listing requirements, again, don't change.

投资者对透明度的期望，这些也不变。

Investor expectations for transparency, those don't change.

然后，如果你想想，我们之前聊过一些基础设施，我知道我们在播客里也讨论过IPO准备之类的话题。

And then if you just think about it and we've talked a little bit about infrastructure and I know we've had conversations on this podcast about readiness for IPOs and things like that.

但经营一家上市公司的要求，比如你的系统、持续的控制、支持SEC投资者级财务报告的结账流程，这些也不会因为非加速申报人的选择而消失。

But the demands of running a public company, so your systems, your ongoing controls, the closed processes that support SEC investor grade financial reporting, that also does not go away with the non accelerated filer election.

所以，对于任何准备上市的公司来说，最稳妥的建议就是：无论这项规则最终怎么定，核心原则基本不变。

So the most durable advice for any pre IPO companies that we can offer, like, that essentially remains the same regardless of how this rule lands.

你仍然需要打好底层基础。因为不管你是第一年就要面对404(b)条款的审查，还是等到第六年才面临，你的数据质量、内控环境这些关键要素都必须到位。

So you still need to invest in that underlying foundation because whether you face that four zero four b scrutiny in year one or it comes to you later in year six, your data quality, your control environments, all those things still need to be there.

SPAC交易也值得专门提一下，特别是那些通过SPAC或脱SPAC方式进入公众视野的公司。对，

SPAC transactions are also worth addressing specifically to companies pulled into public reporting through a SPAC or despac Mhmm.

它们同样应该享受这五年的过渡期。

Would benefit from the same five year on ramp.

不过，这个资格计时是依据《交易所法案》的披露历史来算的，也就是说具体时机得看交易结构是怎样的，以及哪部分实体的披露历史在起作用。

But the seasoning clock is based on exchange act reporting history which means the timing depends on the specific structure of the transaction and which entities reporting history controls.

所以针对不同交易结构，分析起来并不是一刀切的。

So that's not a uniform analysis across deal structures.

这就属于需要顾问专门介入的领域，得搞清楚这项提议跟具体交易时间线是怎么互动的。

It's one of those areas where advisors need to be engaged specifically on how the proposal interacts with the particular transaction timeline.

大原则没变，新上市公司的合规负担确实大幅减轻了，但在SPAC（特殊目的收购公司）这种场景下，还得针对具体交易做分析，确保万无一失。

The broad principle holds the compliance burdens for newly public companies drops meaningfully, but the specific application in a SPAC context requires transaction level analysis to just make sure you get it right.

对。

Yeah.

那咱们不妨聊聊，之前提到过SEC最近提出了两项提案。

So let's maybe bring in kinda we we mentioned there's two proposals the SEC has put forth recently.

我们把那份配套的提案也拉进来吧，我觉得这样能更完整地呈现委员会真正想达成的目标。

So let's bring in that companion proposal because I think it helps complete the picture of what the commission is actually trying to accomplish with this.

如果把它们看作是一整套旨在提升效率或提供便利的改进措施来看待的话。

If you if you view them together as kind of a package of improvements or efficiencies or accommodations.

所以，就在我们刚才讨论的这个报告主体资格提案之前大约两周，美国证券交易委员会投票提议允许国内上市公司自愿从季度报告改为半年度定期报告。

So about two weeks before this filer status proposal that we we just walked through here, the SEC voted to propose allowing domestic public companies to voluntarily switch from quarterly reporting to semi annual periodic reporting.

具体的机制是引入一种新的10-S表格，用来替代一年中四个10-Q表格中的三个。

So the mechanism is a new Form 10 s which would replace three of the four ten q's in a given year.

公司可以通过在10-K表格封面页上勾选一个新的选项框来每年做出选择。

Companies could make the election annually through a new checkbox that they would see on the cover page of their Form 10 k.

你勾选了，那一年就按半年度节奏走；如果不勾，那就继续按现在的季度节奏进行。

You check the box, you're on a semi annual schedule for that fiscal year, you leave it blank, you know, you're just gonna follow what you do now, which is kind of the quarterly cadence.

有一点要注意，这个选择不能在年中更改，所以你得在年初就考虑好。

One thing to keep in mind is that election cannot be changed mid year, so something you need to think about at the start.

类似的选项框也会加到证券法注册声明中，所以打算上市的公司也可以在注册时做出初步选择。

And a similar text box would be added to securities act registration statements, so companies that are going public, they can also make the initial election at that point of their registration.

这个提案中保留的部分和改变的部分同样重要。

The structure of what's preserved in that proposal matters as much as what changes.

8-K表格的义务完全没有变化。

Form eight k obligations are completely unchanged.

重大事件仍然需要及时披露，不管你的定期报告周期是怎样的。

Material events still get disclosed on an accelerated basis regardless of your periodic reporting cadence.

财报发布、重大交易、高管变动，这些仍然要在现有时间表内完成。

Earnings releases significant transactions, officer changes, all are still required on the existing timeline.

实时事件驱动的披露框架完全保留。

The real time event driven disclosure framework stays fully intact.

所以我们真正讨论的只是定期财务报表的频率，而且只是自愿选择。

So what we're really talking about is the periodic financial statement cadence and only on an opt in basis.

美国证券交易委员会并不是提议取消季度报告。

The SEC is not proposing to eliminate quarterly reporting.

它提议的是给公司一个选择。

It's proposing to give companies a choice.

实际上，这个选择在实践中会不会被采用，是另一个问题。

Whether that choice gets exercised in practice is actually a different question.

对。

Yeah.

说实话，那才是更有意思的问题。

And that's the more interesting question, honestly.

美国证券交易委员会自己的提案中就提到了一个很能说明问题的数据。

So the SEC's own proposing release flags a telling data point.

比如，英国在2014年也取消了强制季度报告，但真正停止发布季度财务信息的公司不到10%。

So when The UK also eliminated mandatory quarterly reporting in 2014, fewer than 10% of companies actually stopped issuing their quarterly financial information.

也就是说，他们还是自愿继续这么做了。

So that in other words, they kept doing it voluntarily.

对。

Mhmm.

我觉得有几个原因。

And I think there's a few reasons why.

对吧？

Right?

机构投资者已经习惯了，他们就是期待这个。

So you've got institutional investors, they've just that's what they've known and have come to expect.

卖方分析师也一样，他们已经习惯了看到这些。

Same with sell side analysts, that's something that they're used to seeing.

这就是他们想听的东西。

It's the the what they wanna hear.

所以，大家还是期望你继续提供这些信息，或者你的竞争对手也在这么做。

So, like, there's an expectation that you will still continue to provide that information or maybe your competitors are doing it as well.

所以，非正式的市场标准并没有因为法律上不再强制要求或者给了减少披露的机会而改变。

So the informal market standard didn't shift just because there was a formal legal requirement or opportunity to do less.

换句话说，法规可能会调整并提供这种便利，但市场惯例并不总是会跟着变。

So said differently, the regulation may move and provide this accommodation, but market practice isn't always gonna fall in line with that.

所以，我觉得了解这段历史背景是有好处的，因为我们在考虑，如果这个提案真的推进了，美国采用这种自愿的半年度报告框架会是什么样子。

And so I think that history is just good context to have in mind as the, you know, we think about potentially here if this proposal moves forward, what it might look like for US adoption with this kind of voluntary semi annual framework.

对。

Right.

这也是为什么我认为半年度选项对特定群体来说更实用，而不是对广大上市公司。

And which is why I'd frame the semi annual option as more practically useful for a specific segment than for public companies broadly.

对于那些卖方分析师覆盖较少、商业模式更稳定可预测、投资者对季度细节需求不高的公司来说，这个选项确实可行。但对于有活跃分析师覆盖、投资者密切关注季度业务动态的公司来说，就不一定了。

So for companies with less active sell side coverage, more stable and predictable business models, and investor investor bases with less appetite for quarterly granularity that option because genuinely viable for companies with active analyst coverage and institutional investors who track quarterly business momentum closely.

虽然法规允许半年度报告，但实际采纳可能不会发生。

The formal permission to go semi annual may not translate into actual adoption.

投资者关系的现实并没有因为合规要求改变而改变。

The investor relations reality hasn't changed just because the compliance requirement did.

所以，财务负责人如果考虑选择这个方案，需要在做出合规决定之前，先和投资者关系团队沟通好。

So finance leaders thinking about making this to election need to have the investor relations conversations before they make that compliance decision.

对。

Yeah.

说得好。

Good points there.

我觉得在公司层面还有一些实际操作的复杂性，他们在做这个转变之前需要考虑清楚。

I think there's also just some practical complications just at the company level that they need to think about before making this switch.

这里就简单提几点。

So just a few things to highlight here.

比如现有的信贷协议和债券契约，通常会要求提供季度财务报表，甚至可能包含与季度报告义务挂钩的契约条款。

So existing credit agreements and indentures like often will reference the need for quarterly financial statements or they may even contain covenants that are tied to quarterly reporting obligations.

如果契约明确要求季度报告，那在这种情况下，你可能需要先让贷款方修改或豁免这个条款，才能做出这个选择。

A covenant that explicitly requires quarterly reporting, you know, in those circumstances would need to be maybe amended or waived by your lender before you could make this election.

而且，这种契约审查是法律和财务方面的工作，你肯定希望在考虑任何选择之前就把它搞定，这是最佳实践。

And again, that covenant review is a legal and finance exercise that you obviously want to ensure you have buttoned up before any election is contemplated just as best practice.

另外，有活跃资本市场项目的公司，需要仔细考虑承销商的信心水平，以及超过一百三十五天未更新的中期财务报表之间的相互作用。

And then separately, companies with active capital market programs need to think through how underwriter comfort level interacts with the interim financial statements that are more than a hundred and thirty five days old.

所以即使SEC的规定在技术上允许，承销商可能也不会放心带着半年报申报者的披露文件进入市场。

So even if the SEC rules technically permit it, underwriters may not be comfortable going to market with a semi annual filer's disclosure package.

所以看看这种情况会不会有变化会很有趣，这意味着一些公司即使在做出选择之后，可能仍然需要准备季度财务信息来支持发行活动。

So it'll be interesting to just to see how that evolves if at all, which means that some companies could find themselves still preparing that quarterly financial information to support offering activity even after making their election.

对。

Yeah.

然后还有交易所上市的问题，这是提案中比较大的未决事项之一。

And then there's also the exchange listing question, which is one of the bigger open items proposal.

明白。

Mhmm.

SEC的框架没有涉及证券交易所的上市要求，比如纳斯达克规则目前要求上市公司向股东分发季度财务信息。

The SEC's framework doesn't address stock exchange listing requirements and Nasdaq rules for example, currently require listed companies to distribute quarterly financial information to shareholders.

委员会承认，受影响的交易所可能需要考虑对其上市标准进行相应修改，但那是另一个独立的规则制定过程，时间表也不同。

The commission acknowledged that affected exchanges would likely need to consider conforming changes to their listing standards, but that's a separate rulemaking process on a separate timeline.

所以公司不能假设SEC最终规则会自动与交易所的要求一致，这是需要并行关注的一条线，随着这项规则走向最终定稿。

So companies can't assume that a finalized SEC rule automatically aligns with their exchanges requirements and that's a parallel track to monitor as this rule, know, towards final.

对。

Yeah.

所以综合来看，申报人身份提案和半年度报告提案，可以看出这个委员会在监管方向上是一致的。

So taken together, the filer status proposal and the semi annual proposal, you're looking at a coherent regulatory direction from this commission.

对吧？

Right?

一个减少了你需要提交的文件内容，另一个减少了你需要提交的频率。

So one that reduces what you have to put in filings, the other reduces how often you have to even file them.

而且这两个提案还和第三个提案一起。

And both proposals also sit alongside a third piece.

也就是注册发行改革提案，委员会把它们当作一个整体来对待。

So a registered offering reform proposal that the commission is treating as a package.

所以，Sherry Atkins 已经明确表示，总体政策目标是减少上市公司的负担，让美国资本市场相对于国际竞争对手更有竞争力。

So, Sherry Atkins has been explicit that the overall policy goal is to reduce friction for public companies and make US capital markets more competitive relative to international alternatives.

所以不管你是否同意每个选择，我认为其战略逻辑是连贯的，而且委员会，你知道，我们也都看到了，对吧？

So whether you agree with every choice or not, I think it's a strategic rationale is coherent here and the commission is, you know, you could we've seen it, right?

他们正在非常紧迫地推进这些事情。

They're moving forth with a lot of urgency around these things.

是的。

Yeah.

我们今天最后来聊聊实际操作吧。

Let's close today with the practical Let's

好。

do it.

既然这两条规则都还没最终敲定，财务和会计负责人现在到底应该做些什么？

What should finance and accounting leaders actually be doing right now given that neither of these rules are final?

对。

Yeah.

我觉得首先要认识到，现在合适的做法不是开始做运营决策。

So the first thing to acknowledge I think is that the appropriate response right now is to not start making operational decisions.

再说一遍，这些都只是提案。

Again, these are proposals.

这些提案还在征求意见阶段。

They're open for comments.

关键是要准确理解这些提案的内容，清楚评估你目前的状况，我们来看看现在的情况，以及它与提案的契合度，然后判断你的组织是否有值得提交的意见。

It's to understand what those proposals are accurately, assess your current situation clearly, let's let's lay out where we're at today and how it aligns against the proposals and then figure out whether your organization has a perspective worth putting into the record.

再说一次，我提到过，至少在录制这个节目的时候，我们还处于那个征求意见的阶段。

Again, I mentioned we are kind of in that common phase, at least at the time of this recording.

明白。

Mhmm.

而且，这个征求意见的过程是实质性的。

And so, the comment process is substantive.

美国证券交易委员会确实会阅读这些评论信。

The SEC does read those comment letters.

所以，来自财务和会计从业者、企业以及其他利益相关方的意见，他们能从实际操作经验出发，谈谈这些规则在实践中如何运作。

So, input from finance and accounting practitioners and corporates and other other stakeholders here who can speak from operational experience about how these rules work in practice.

我认为，这些意见确实有助于影响和塑造最终规则，在它们正式出台之前。

Those really do help influence, I think, and shape a lot of the final rules before they're they're made.

所以，如果这些具体条款中的任何一条会对你们公司产生重大影响，那现在就是你们参与进来的时机，对吧。

So if your company would be materially affected by any of the specific provisions, you know, this is your time, right, to engage.

你知道，如果之前有机会发表意见却没抓住，事后就别抱怨了。

You know, can't complain after the fact if you didn't have a chance to weigh in.

所以，赶紧把你们的想法提交上去吧。

So, you know, get your thoughts in.

对。

Yeah.

这个观点非常好。

That's a really good point.

所以，对于如果这项规则最终确定后会转为非加速申报公司身份的企业，也就是目前市值低于20亿美元的加速申报公司和非加速申报公司，分析工作首先要清楚梳理出哪些豁免条款实际上适用于你们的情况。

So, for companies that would transition into non accelerated filer status if this rule is finalized, the current LAFs and accelerated filers below 2,000,000,000, the analytical work starts with a clear accounting of which accommodations actually apply to your situation

明白。

Mhmm.

以及每一项豁免的维护成本是多少，而它们带来的价值又是否超过了成本。

And what each of them costs to maintain versus what each of them contributes beyond cost.

关于404(b)的讨论可能是最重要的，因为这需要审计委员会的参与，而不仅仅是财务团队。

The four zero four b conversation is probably the most important one as it needs to involve the audit committee, not just the finance team.

问题不只是鉴证服务要花我们多少钱。

The question isn't just what does the attestation cost us.

而是鉴证服务能为我们带来什么，如果它被取消，谁来替代这个功能？

It's what does the attestation do for us and who or what replaces that function if it goes away?

显然，这两个问题截然不同，第二个问题应该得到和第一个问题一样的重视。

And those are obviously very different questions and the second one deserves the same rigor as the first.

对。

Yeah.

然后我还想补充一点。

And then I'd also add on.

薪酬披露的变化是需要跨部门合作的，我觉得应该尽早开始。

So the compensation disclosure changes are the ones that need to go cross functional, I would say early on.

所以，在公司行使任何这些豁免之前，让薪酬委员会、投资者关系团队，如果相关的话，还有代理顾问都参与进来，而不是事后才向他们解释决定，我觉得这是一个需要仔细考虑的、完全不同的动态。

So bringing your compensation committee, your investor relations team and if relevant, the proxy advisor into the conversation before a company, you know, exercise any of those accommodations rather than explaining the decision to them after the fact, I think is a materially different dynamic to think through.

有些公司会看那个薪酬投票豁免，觉得这明摆着就是降低成本、减少复杂性。

Some companies will look at the, you know, the say on pay exemption and see a straightforward, this is a cost and complexity reduction.

所以，我们就选这个。

So, we're gonna take that.

我觉得其他公司可能会觉得，这样做会向投资者发出一个不太好的治理信号，所以他们可能还是会继续提供那些信息。

I think others might look at it and see a governance signal they're not comfortable sending to their investor base and so they may continue to to move forward providing that information.

所以我觉得这个判断真的取决于你的股东结构，对吧，还有你和主要机构投资者以及其他利益相关者建立的关系。

So I think that judgment really depends composition of of your shareholder base, right, and the relationships you've built with your major institutional holders and other stakeholders as a as a whole.

而且这也不是财务部门单独就能决定的事，对吧。

And it's not a call, right, that finance probably needs to be making in isolation.

对。

Right.

对于准备上市的公司来说，近期要做的事情其实就是把这个提案纳入到准备计划里，哪怕它现在还是提案的形式。

For IPO track companies, the near term action is really about factoring the proposal into readiness planning even in its proposed form.

如果你计划在2027年或2028年上市，你的上市后合规路线图和财务职能建设应该按照新框架来规划，而不是按照现在的框架。

If you're planning a 2027 or 2028 listing, your post IPO compliance roadmap and finance function build out should be scoped against the new framework rather than the current one.

所以这可能意味着你可以用不同的方式来支付某些投资。

So that probably means you can pay certain investments differently.

嗯。

Mhmm.

但这并不意味着你可以推迟那些作为上市公司所必需的基础投资、系统控制和数据质量建设，无论你属于哪类监管类别。

But it does not mean you defer the foundational investments and systems controls and data quality that a public company life requires regardless of your regulatory category.

不管上市第一年是否会面临404(b)的审查，控制环境仍然必须到位。

Whether your first year as a public company brings four zero four b scrutiny or not, the control environment still has to be there.

对。

Yeah.

然后，随着我们进入规则制定过程并最终形成最终规则，有几个具体事项值得关注。

And then a few specific items to watch as we move towards we move to kind of the rule making process and towards a final rule.

20亿美元的阈值设定，我认为是这项提案中最关键的一个数字。

So the $2,000,000,000 threshold calibration, I think is the most consequential single number in that proposal.

所以，我猜评论者可能会对此有意见，而且意见会非常强烈，两方都有。

So, I imagine commenters are probably gonna have opinions, strong opinions on that in both directions.

你知道，最终这个门槛定在哪里，真的会决定现在那些中型公司最终会归入哪一类申报人身份。

You know, kinda watching where it ultimately lands is gonna really determine how many of those current mid cap companies end up in which category of filer status.

然后我们强调的那个六十个月的成熟期，我觉得也会引来很多评论。

And then the sixty month seasoning period that we've we've highlighted, I think will also draw a lot of commentary.

特别是那些高流通量的IPO候选公司，它们从第一天起本来就可以算作大型加速申报人。

So particularly from high float IPO candidates that would otherwise qualify as large accelerated filers from day one.

关于那个半年度滚动，我们在最后提到了。

On that semi annual roll, we we hit on towards the end.

所以，财报发布的责任问题，我觉得也值得密切关注。

So the earnings release liability question, think, is also worth monitoring closely.

我认为SEC就8-K表格第2.02项发布的内容是否应被视为已提交而非提供，征求了半年度申报人的意见。

I think the SEC asked for comments on whether form eight k item two zero two releases should be treated as filed rather than furnished for semi annual filers.

所以这一点值得思考。

So something to ponder there.

而且，这种转变会增加诉讼风险，并显著改变公司在年度申报之间沟通财务结果的风险评估方式。

And that would be a, you know, that shift would increase litigation exposure and meaningfully change the risk calculus around how companies communicate their financial results between their annual filings.

然后，投资者和代理顾问的态度会比任何具体的条款更能决定这两个框架的实际采用情况。

And then investor and proxy advisor sentiment will shape actual adoption of both frameworks more than any specific role provision.

所以，就像我说的，市场实践总是能填补监管留下的空白，就像我们在英国裁决中看到的那样。

So market practice, like I said, has had a way of kind of filling whatever space regulation creates like we saw with The UK ruling.

而且我认为，机构投资者群体也会对有多少公司真正使用这些提案中可能提供的便利措施产生重大影响。

And I think also the institutional investor community will have significant influence over how many companies actually use any of these accommodations that these proposals could make available.

好的。

Alright.

所以，我对这份提案包反复思考的一个问题是，它反映了SEC认为公开市场应该朝哪个方向发展。

So one thing I keep coming back to with this proposal package is what it says about where the SEC thinks the public markets need to go.

过去二十年，美国上市公司的数量大幅减少。

So the number of US public companies has declined materially over the past two decades.

这是事实。

That is a fact.

以前通过公开股票市场流动的资金，现在越来越多地流向了私募替代品。

Capital that used to flow through, right, public equity markets has increasingly gone into private alternatives.

所以，合规负担是不是这个趋势的主要驱动因素，我觉得有人会争论双方的观点，但各个政治派别的政策制定者都把它视为一个实际因素。

So whether compliance burden is the primary driver of that trend, I think some people would debate both sides, but policymakers across the political spectrum have pointed to it as a real factor.

我认为委员会在这里所做的，确实是对这一担忧的直接政策回应。

And I think what the commission is doing here is really write a direct policy response to that concern.

对。

Right.

而且，无论你是否认为这些具体提案的每一个校准都完全正确，它们试图回答的根本问题是合理的。

And whether or not you think these specific proposals get every calibration exactly right, the underlying question they're trying to answer is legitimate.

如何构建上市公司的报告制度，使负担与所涉及的投资者保护利益相称。

How do you structure public company reporting so the burden is proportionate to the investor protection interest at stake

明白。

Mhmm.

同时避免造成太多摩擦，以至于公开市场不再是它们本应成为的资本形成目的地。

Without creating so much friction that the public markets stop being the destination for capital formation they're supposed to be.

财务和会计领导者比任何人都更有能力就这个问题发表意见。

Finance and accounting leaders are in a better position to weigh in on that question more than anyone.

所以，征求意见期就是实现这一目标的方式。

And so, the comment period is the way to do that.

是的。

Yeah.

而且正如我们之前提到的，让你的声音被听到。

And as we mentioned, you know, previously, make your voice heard.

如果你对此有看法，现在是时候发表评论了，把你的想法写进去，然后看看这些规则在制定阶段会如何演变，就像我说的，看看最终会落在哪里。

If you've got an opinion on it, now is the time to comment, get those thoughts in there and then it'll be interesting to kinda watch these rules as they kinda move through like the rule making phase, like I said, to see where we ultimately land on this.

但很明显，SEC有自己的观点，而且手头有一个使命，他们真的在努力鼓励更多的公开市场活动，并提供便利。

But it's it's clear the SEC has of view and kinda has a mission at hand that they're really trying to encourage more public market activity and and provide accommodation.

所以，我们肯定会从Embark这边持续关注。

So, we'll definitely be keeping an eye on it from the Embark side.

而且再说一次，如果你是一家正在应对这些变化的公司，想聊聊这对你可能意味着什么，我们很乐意继续和你交流。

And and again, if you're a company navigating through that and wanna talk about what it could mean for you, we're happy to carry on the conversations, with you.

所以联系Nicole或者我，我们很乐意建立联系。

So reach out to Nicole or I, we'd love to connect.

感谢听众朋友们收听我们的会计事务节目。

And thanks to our listeners for joining us here on accounting matters.

我们下期再见。

We'll see you on the next one.