Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:31:02.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SEC Rule 415: The Ultimate Competitive Bid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

David S. Kidwell ,
M. Wayne Marr  and
G. Rodney Thompson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Controversy surrounds the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Rule 415 that went into effect in March 1982 and remained an experiment until it was permanenty adopted for large firms in November 1983. Rule 415allows a company to register all the securities it plans to issue over the next two years and then to sell someor all of the securities whenever it chooses. This procedure is known as a shelf registration. The purposes of Rule 415 are to simplify the registration of new corporate securities and to allow more flexibility in the way issues are underwritten.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 183 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Ederington, L. H. “Competitive versus Negotiated Underwritings of Corporate Bonds.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 31 (03 1976), pp. 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Fabozzi, F. B., and West, R. R. “Negotiated versus Competitive Underwritings of Public Utility Bonds: Just One More Time.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 16 (09 1981), pp. 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Federal Register, 03 16, 1982, pp. 11438–11439; March 18, 1982, pp. 11702–11703; and September 10, 1982, p. 39799.Google Scholar
[4]Heckman, J. J. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica, Vol. 41 (01 1973), pp. 153–161.Google Scholar
[5]Hodes, S. “Shelf Registration: The Dilemma of the Securities and Exchange Commission.” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 49 (1963), pp. 1106–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Johnston, J.Econometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill (1972).Google Scholar
[7]Kessel, R. “A Study of the Effects of Competition in the Tax-Exempt Bond Market.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 79 (07–08 1971), pp. 706–737.Google Scholar
[8]McGoldrick, B. “Life with Rule 415” Institutional Investor, Vol. 17 (02 1983), pp. 129–133.Google Scholar
[9]Naylor, A. J. “Rule 415 Adds Another Aspect to a Changing Wall Street Uncertainty.” Investment Dealers Digest, Vol. 48 (06 1, 1982), pp. 17–19.Google Scholar
[10]Rogowski, Robert J., and Sorensen, Eric H.. “Shelf Registration and the Cost of Capital: A Test of Market Efficiency.” Unpublished manuscript (06 1983).Google Scholar
[11]Sorensen, E. H. “The Impact of Underwriting Method and Bidder Competition upon Corporate Bond Interest Cost.” The Journal of Finance, Vol. 34 (09 1979), pp. 863–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Stigler, G. J. “The Economics of Information.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 69 (06 1961), pp. 213–225.Google Scholar
[13]Theil, H.Principles of Econometrics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1971).Google Scholar
[14]West, R. R. “New Issue Concession on General Obligation Municipal Bonds: A Case of Monopsony Pricing.” Journal of Business, Vol. 38 (04 1965), pp. 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar