After the financial crisis, there has been a lack of opportunities for smaller companies to showcase their progress and accomplishments to the Wall Street Community. The companies that are sub-$500 million in market cap are categorized as ‘small-cap’ or ‘micro-cap’ and are often neglected by members of both the buy and sell side community.  Yet, as the Wall Street community recovered from the financial crisis, the most lucrative investment opportunities were sought more than ever. Astute investors began to realize that, over the long term, a smart selection of smaller capitalization equities can produce substantial, positive returns. Because of this, emerging growth companies are some of the most held names in portfolios.

Marcum LLP, one of the largest independent public accounting and advisory services firms in the United States, has teamed up with KCSA Strategic Communications and Launchpad Investor Relations to host the 2nd Annual Marcum Microcap Conference. This one day conference will be held at the Grand Hyatt Hotel on Lexington Avenue on Thursday, May 30th.

What can you expect from the Marcum MicroCap Conference? Well, for starters it will showcase the ‘best-of-the-best’ micro- and small-cap ideas, hand-picked by savvy small-cap fund managers and by top research houses focusing on emerging growth companies. Over 100 presenting companies will have the opportunity for a 30 minute presentation and will be available for one-on-one meetings throughout the day. You may request one-on-one meetings after you register to attend the conference through the Marcum Microcap Conference website.

Steven Rattner, Chairman of Willett Advisors LLC, and renowned veteran Wall Street financier, will be the keynote speaker during the lunch hour. I am not sure what exactly Mr. Rattner will touch on in his speech but I am confident all will leave the conference much wiser because of him!

In addition to the one-on-one meetings and company presentations, the conference will showcase a number of panels that will discuss issues that are of vital importance to micro- and small-cap companies and investors. The panelists are each esteemed professionals in their particular field that will voice their opinion on various topics pertaining to investors and publicly traded companies.

At the end of the conference those in attendance are invited to put business aside and relax as comedian Susie Essman entertains guests during the cocktail hour to conclude the event. I couldn’t imagine a better way to end a successful day than with cold drink and lots of laughs!

For more information and to register for the conference visit the Marcum Microcap Conference website. We look forward to seeing you there!

NASDAQ made headlines in March when it entered into a joint venture with SharesPost to create the NASDAQ Private Market (NPM), an exchange where investors can buy and sell the shares of privately-held companies.  NPM is not the first private stock market.  In fact, SharesPost and its main rival, SecondMarket, have offered similar platforms since 2009.

SharesPost and SecondMarket created the platforms in response to the increased demand from the shareholders of high-tech startups, many of whom were current and former employees, to cash out of their positions.  The platforms, which are registered broker-dealers, have a very traditional business model.  They connect a buyer with a seller, and then collect a commission for their work.

The difference is the companies that are listed.  The private markets specialize in trading late-stage, venture capital-backed companies that are either too small or just aren’t ready for a traditional IPO.  The exchanges not only provide sought-after liquidity, but give individuals and institutions opportunities to invest in companies they might not otherwise be able to.

What made the NASDAQ deal so interesting was that it marked the first time a major exchange has entered the private stock market arena.  On its face, it seems counterintuitive that NASDAQ would want to do anything to discourage companies from going public.  After all, NASDAQ benefits from new companies joining its ranks in the form of listing fees and increased volume.

Instead, NPM may be an acknowledgement by NASDAQ that it must find new ways to grow as equity volumes stagnate and a sluggish economy coupled with increased regulation discourage companies from going public.

The market for private companies remains small.  Greg Bogger, CEO of SharesPost, estimates 100 private companies permit trading.  But with the passage of the JOBS Act—which quadrupled the maximum number of shareholders a company can have before it must go public to 2,000—a growth opportunity exists as companies wait longer before going public.

Private markets also pose growth opportunities for investor relations firms, who can adapt their knowledge and expertise in working with public companies to helping private companies achieve their goals.

As companies begin to expand their shareholder base beyond employees and the consortium of VCs that made direct investments, it will become crucial for them to build out their investor relations infrastructure not only to keep new shareholders up-to-speed but provide potential investors what they need to make an informed decision.

While private companies won’t have your traditional investor relations website, increasing transparency by creating a password-protected data room (or using SecondMarket’s and SharePost’s Web sites)  to upload materials such as PowerPoint presentations, fact sheets and conference calls will be essential in increasing liquidity and helping the company achieve a fair valuation.

I had the opportunity and pleasure to participate as a panelist in an online event hosted by CommPro.biz entitled, “Investor Relations Leaders Debate SEC’s Latest Ruling on Social Media for Financial Disclosure.”  With me were other investor relations industry leaders including Business Wire’s  Cathy Baron Tamraz, Marketwired ‘s  Michael Nowlan, NASDAQ OMX’s Matt Farlie, NYSE’s Judith C. McLevey, PR Newswire’s John Viglotti, StockR, Inc.’s Vinny Jindal, and Loeb & Loeb’s Kenneth R. Florin.  Based on my past several blogs, the subject is near and dear to me.  There was great dialogue among the panelists – so much so that the moderator, Gene Marbach, wasn’t able to get through all of his prepared questions. To view the event, available online May 1 on CommPro.biz click here: http://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/10/1347.

As the only investor relations consultant on the panel, I contributed what I believe was a unique perspective to the discussion. As I have been saying, the SEC’s recent proclamation that social media can now be used as an acceptable means to accomplish disclosure for Reg FD purposes is a great step in the right direction. Nevertheless, I believe that the April 2 statement is only a starting point, and that the SEC needs to issue more specific guidance to help public companies figure out how to incorporate social media into their IR communications. This is undoubtedly a subject being discussed throughout IR departments and C-Suites of corporate America.

Of course, the subject of the infamous Facebook posting by Netflix CEO Reed Hasting was a focal point of our discussion, as this was what gave rise to the SEC’s statement.

The position I articulated yesterday on Netflix: great company, great financials, great reputation. However, their actions after April 2: bad. As an admired company and one that so many people look up to, Netflix had an obligation to use this opportunity to set the example on best IR/social media practices. Even though they may not have intended to be the cause for the SEC defining 21st Century IR communications, through their actions, they have de facto become the poster child.

IR Magazine Editor, Neil Stewart, who I have known for years and have the utmost of respect for (as well as for his publication), suggested during the audience Q&A session that I was being too harsh on Netflix. I want to use this blog to reiterate my response to Neil as well as my concern for what Netflix did. It is my goal in doing so not to attack the company, but rather to ensure that IROs and other IR professionals throughout the U.S. not consider what Netflix did as the right thing to do going forward. The IR industry should not consider Netflix’s actions during the past several weeks to be IR best practices.

Let’s review what really happened chronologically (and simplistically): On April 2, 2013, the SEC exonerated Netflix and stated that social media can be used in IR communications; on April 10, 2013, Netflix filed an 8-K with the SEC and in it, specified five social media channels that it “may” use for disclosing material information (in addition to its website and traditional communications vehicles); on April 22, 2013, the company filed an 8-K with its first quarter earnings – it also used its website and PRNewswire for a press release – however, the company didn’t utilize ANY of the social media channels so indicated in its April 10 filing.

My point to Neil, was not that I was being critical of Netflix as a company. But rather, as an investor relations professional who consults with many public companies and is now being asked what to do in light of the SEC’s April 2 statement, I believe it is my obligation to voice an opinion on what best practices should be. Indeed, I believe that Netflix’s April 10 8-K filing was haphazard and did not consider (i) implications with respect to the company’s future disclosures or (ii) how it would be viewed by an industry struggling to come to terms with what best practices should be.

Essentially, what Netflix did in its April 10 filing was to disclose the company’s “social media IR communications policy.” What other purpose could it possibly serve? Yes, the company qualified which communications channels it “might” use in the future to disclose material information. But does that now mean that every investor (and especially the individual investor) has to follow each of the media through which the company “might” decide to disseminate material information? This is definitely not what the SEC intended when it issued its April 2 statement.

So, what could Netflix have done differently to avoid my constructive wrath? Here is what I would have recommended had I been at the table discussing the issue: When it filed its earnings and 8-Ks on April 22, it should have done so across ALL of the media specified in its April 10 filing. The company was correct in using the traditional disclosure sources (newswire, 8-K and website) to satisfy Reg FD, but to the extent it went so far as to highlight alternative social media channels in its April 10 filing, it should have posted the earnings or mentioned them there as well.

This is where I believe the discussion on best practices with respect to the use of social media in IR communications needs to begin. Companies should begin by conducting a communications and social media analysis to determine the appropriate disclosure channels (traditional and social) that will allow for all of their investors to have easy access to material information. Once this is complete, they should determine which means of communication they will use and announce this publicly (as Netflix did in its April 10 filing). This will then become the company’s official disclosure policy. Until the company decides to modify this policy, it should ensure that all material news be disclosed 100% across all of the channels specified in the policy. Investors can then determine how they wish to access this information and everyone will be on notice of everything material going on within a company.

Doesn’t this seem simple?

First, CEO Reed Hastings discloses material information on Facebook. Then he gets hit with a Wells Notice from the SEC alleging he violated Regulation Fair Disclosure. Then he is exonerated on April 2 and the SEC throws the IR industry into a tizzy by stating that social media is an acceptable means for public companies to communicate material news. Then, a week later, Netflix files a Form 8-K stating how it intends to disclose material news and throws into the kitchen sink numerous social media channels through which they will do so including Twitter, Reed Hasting’s Facebook, Netflix’s Tech Blog, its YouTube channel, among many others. Which brings us to Netflix’s quarterly earnings call yesterday; which were stellar. But guess what – they didn’t disclose the news on any of the channels they said they would in their 8-K.

What is going on here? Netflix is laughing at the SEC and in the face of the investor relations industry who take their communications, and particularly Reg FD, seriously.

On Friday last week I sent a follow up letter to SEC Chief Counsel Thomas Kim, who I had previously been in communication with. I expressed my concerns regarding the SEC’s April 2 statement, particularly in light of Netflix’s 8-K filing. Wanting to be constructive, I provided him with some thoughts on how to address this issue and, at the same time, help public companies understand what to do to incorporate social media into their IR communications (especially since the last time the SEC provided guidance on Reg FD was in August of 2008).

My recommendations are as follows:

1) In the company’s annual report filed on Form 10-K with the SEC, every company should clearly indicate all channels through which it intends to disclose material information. This should include traditional newswire services, social media and/or any other communications channels.
2) If a company wishes to change such channels, it shall either do so in its next Form 10-K or through the filing of an amended Form 10-K; but a company must use all communications means specified.
3) All material news announcements must be filed with a Form 8-K with the SEC.
4) All material news announcements must be posted to a company’s investor section of its corporate website. If a company does not have such a section, it must create one, as websites in general are a well-accepted repository for almost all companies’ information.

The world has changed significantly since 2008, especially with respect to technology. Seeing what Netflix did and didn’t do yesterday, hopefully the SEC will take the above into consideration and offer updated guidance on Reg FD, something the IR industry so desperately needs given the SEC’s April 2 statement.

April 19, 2013

Thomas Kim, Esq.
Chief Counsel
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear Mr. Kim:

I want to thank you for your letter of February 26 responding to mine of January 23, 2013.  I wanted to follow up with respect to the SEC’s statement on April 2 embracing social media as an acceptable means of communications for publicly traded companies.  I agree wholeheartedly.

As I suggested in my previous letter, I believe further guidance on the issue of social media is required from the SEC.  With this letter, I hope to provide constructive thinking on the subject for your office to take into consideration.

As you may be aware, on April 10 and almost immediately after the SEC indicated that it would not pursue an enforcement action against Netflix, Netflix filed a Form 8-K in which it stated how it intends to disclose material information.  The company said:

[I]nvestors and others should note that we announce material financial information to our investors using our investor relations website (http://ir.netflix.com), SEC filings, press releases, public conference calls and webcasts.  We use these channels as well as social media to communicate with our subscribers and the public about our company, our services and other issues.  It is possible that the information we post on social media could be deemed to be material information.  Therefore, in light of the SEC’s guidance, we encourage investors, the media, and others interested in our company to review the information we post on the U.S. social media channels listed below. This list may be updated from time to time on Netflix’s investor relations website.

The company then went on to list the following social media channels:  The Netflix Blog, The Netflix Tech Blog, The Netflix Facebook Page, The Netflix Twitter Feed and Reed Hastings’ Public Facebook Page.

I believe that this is very concerning. To the extent that Netflix does not use all of these means of communications every time when disclosing material information, a violation of Regulation Fair Disclosure will inevitably occur.

It also raises numerous questions: does an interested party or investor now have to monitor each of the information sources specified to ensure that they know what is going on at the company that is material? Does an investor have to constantly monitor Netflix’s website to see if they changed their disclosure policy?

Not knowing Netflix’s true intent, it would appear that the answer to these questions would be yes. I don’t believe that this is what the SEC was trying to accomplish when it exonerated Netflix and condoned the use of social media in public company communications.

I also believe that this demonstrates the need for further guidance from the SEC. As an investor relations consultant for more than 15 years, I can assure you that following the SEC’s statement on April 2, public companies throughout the U.S. are now discussing and trying to figure out how to incorporate social media into their public communications so as not to violate Reg FD. It would be great if guidance could be issued to help these companies out. Social media is a great way to communicate and one that I wholeheartedly embrace. It would be a shame if companies refrained from using it simply because of the lack of clarity on how to do so for fear of violating Reg FD.

I’d like to offer four suggestions that I believe, if articulated by the SEC in updated guidance on Reg FD, will set the record straight in terms of what public companies need to do to ensure that no matter what channel they choose to communicate through, they will be in compliance with Reg FD:

1) In the company’s annual report filed on Form 10-K with the SEC, every company should clearly indicate all channels through which it intends to disclose material information. This should include traditional newswire services, social media and/or any other communications channels.
2) If a company wishes to change such channels, it shall either do so in its next Form 10-K or through the filing of an amended Form 10-K; but a company must use all communications means specified.
3) All material news announcements must be filed with a Form 8-K with the SEC.
4) All material news announcements must be posted to a company’s investor section of its corporate website. If a company does not have such a section, it must create one, as websites in general are a well-accepted repository for almost all companies’ information.

My concern with what Netflix did in its 8-K is that, without guidance incorporating some or all of the above, Netflix will now pick and choose which channel(s) they wish to communicate through. And, if other companies act in similar fashion following in Netflix’s footsteps, further problematic situations will arise. Working with many public companies in their communications, I hope this can be avoided.

I enclose a copy of my recently published book on investor relations to put this conversation into an appropriate context. I am happy to speak or meet with you or your colleagues if desired.

I look forward to hearing from you and assisting you at this important juncture in the investor relations industry.

Sincerely,

Jeff Corbin
Chief Executive Officer

An article in this week’s Wall Street Journal reported that companies are being extremely cautious when approaching social media after last week’s SEC statement allowing for them to use social media in public company communications.  One of the primary reasons for this is that social media is such a behemoth of a concept that it can be hard for companies to know where to begin.

Here are some thoughts to help companies embrace social media as a means to communicate.  First, it is important to note that at the end of the day, it’s all about compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD).  Notwithstanding whether companies embrace social media or not, they still need to disclose material news so everyone is put on notice of the news at the same time.

Assuming companies are comfortable with Reg FD and what it stands for and are ready to hop on the social media bandwagon, below are five tips to consider when getting started:

1. Establish a policy that guides the company and its employees on who can and cannot communicate on behalf of the company, the tone / messaging of social media usage as well as the timing of social media engagement;
2. Conduct a social media audit to identify which channels can best reach a company’s investor base;
3. Once the channels are determined, create IR-specific handles and pages to disseminate material news;
4. Specify these disclosure channels in an upcoming Form 10-K (or amend an existing Form 10-K) to indicate that these social media channels and other disclosure methods (e.g. traditional newswire services, filing of Form 8-Ks, posting to corporate website, etc.) will be used going forward in a company’s communications; and
5. Begin to disseminate all material news as specified in the Form 10-K, and continue to adhere to this process until a company decides to change its dissemination procedures it in a subsequent Form 10-K.

To reiterate, social media is a means to an end – the end being fair and equal disclosure of material information so that all investors are on the same playing field.

In January of this year, I wrote the SEC criticizing their decision to possibly bring a claim against Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) for violation of Regulation Fair Disclosure.  I reminded them that it had been almost 5 years (August 2008 to be precise) since the regulatory body had issued its last bout of guidance.  It was then that the SEC basically condoned the use of corporate websites as an acceptable means to accomplish disclosure of material information.

Well, as we all know, the world has significantly changed since 2008 from a technology perspective – especially with respect to social media and mobile.  Websites back then were the norm – now they are somewhat mundane.  Mobile devices and social media were nowhere close in development and proliferation to what they are today.

In my letter to the SEC, I stated that given what has transpired over the past few years with respect to technology, they needed to update their commentary on Reg FD so that future Netflix situations would not occur. I argued that new guidance was needed to incorporate and allow for the growing importance of social media and mobile technology in public company communications.*

Well, I received a response from the SEC’s Chief Counsel, Thomas Kim, dated February 26 (and surprisingly not a form letter) that said:

“Although the guidance we provided in the 2008 release is principles-based, and therefore applicable to new or different types of social media and mobile technology communications, we appreciate hearing your thoughts on additional guidance that may be helpful in this area.  In the event that we decide to update our guidance, we will consider the information you have provided to us.”

I am not sure what transpired between February 26 and yesterday, but kudos to Mr. Kim and the SEC for really considering the importance of social media to public company communications.  By essentially acquitting Netflix and condoning the use of social media, the SEC is finally working to be ahead of the curve and to strive to prevent the next Internet Bubble from bursting.

The SEC’s statement yesterday said the following:

“The SEC’s report of investigation confirms that Regulation FD applies to social media and other emerging means of communication used by public companies the same way it applies to company websites.”

This is a significant development for public companies and the investor relations industry.  While I don’t want to take credit for this development, I can’t help myself.

What does it mean?  It means that public companies should no longer refrain or be concerned about communicating important information via social media channels like Facebook and Twitter.  It acknowledges that social media is here to stay and that companies should not only acknowledge this but should embrace the importance of this relatively new medium as a way to communicate.  And it confirms that times are a changing and that even bureaucratic organizations like the SEC are willing to listen and can sometimes be provocative and amenable in embracing new ideas.

Notwithstanding this success, additional clarity and guidance is still required. But let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth.  As I did in my letter to the SEC earlier this year, I proffer thoughts on best practices on what a public company should do to ensure compliance with Reg FD when using social media:

• Indicate each of the means by which it intends to communicate in its most recent Form 10-K.
• For the dissemination of any material piece of information, file a Form 8-K and post material information to the investor section of its corporate website.
• Be consistent and utilize all of the social media channels so indicated in its Form 10-K.

While not formalized at this time, what’s to think that the above 3 bullet points might not eventually be incorporated into a future SEC statement?  The SEC clearly considered my thinking in their decision to exonerate Netflix.  To the extent public companies should now embrace social media as part of their IR strategies, they should consider the above as a safe haven when doing so.

* For a copy of my letter to the SEC and the SEC’s response, please email jcorbin@kcsa.com.

Last Wednesday as I sat in my apartment having breakfast, I was watching a morning talk show where I am usually updated on which celebrity couple is having a child or some idiotic dance craze that is sweeping the nation via YouTube. However, on this day, the talk show hosts were discussing something which I found interesting. I was informed by them that it’s that time of the year where the world according to Matt Lauer / Diane Sawyer slows down and productivity at work is decreased due to the annual NCAA Basketball Tournament (feel free to insert your own political joke here). Well Matt and Diane, let me say one thing, don’t ever tell that to an investor relations professional, especially when we are finishing up with year-end earnings and swinging right into and issuing first quarter earnings.

When it comes to year-end and quarterly filings, publicly traded companies are labeled under three categories: 1) Large Accelerated Filers, 2) Accelerated Filers and 3) Non-Accelerated Filers. For many micro-cap and small cap companies they are considered non-accelerated filers and their 10-Ks are typically filed on or right up to the deadline. This year it is April 1^st. Below are requirements and deadlines for the categories public companies fall under:

According to the SEC, 10-Ks are to be filed 60 days after the end of a company’s fiscal year for large accelerated filers, 75 days for accelerated filers, and 90 days for non-accelerated filers. Large accelerated reporting companies have a public float of more the $700 million while accelerated filers are reporting companies with a public float of at least $75 million but less than $700 million. Large accelerated and accelerated filers must also meet the following requirements:

• has been subject to the periodic reporting requirements of the Exchange Act for a period of at least 12 months
• has filed at least one annual report (such as a Form 10-K)
• is not eligible to file small business forms (such as Forms 10 KSB and 10 QSB).

A “non-accelerated filer” is a reporting company that has a public float under $75 million or that fails to meet other criteria for an accelerated filer.

So with most micro and small cap companies, once we have finished with year-end reporting we bounce right back into earnings mode with first quarter numbers for fiscal year-end companies, which this year are due by May 15^th.

So is this a busy time of the year for those of us the investor relations field? You bet. Productivity downslide? Not a chance. Am I saying this because I picked Georgetown to win it all and I could care less who wins the tournament now? No way. I have earnings scripts and press releases to work on. Plus, I don’t want to be stuck inside watching basketball during my free time, it’s finally Spring!!!

Recently the new CEO of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer banned Yahoo employees from working at home.  This has struck up a very interesting conversation in the media and companies around the country about the value of being in an office environment.  Even in my household the benefits of working at home are a common topic as my wife sometimes works from home on Fridays and would cherish the opportunity to do so more often.

At the root of the argument is the value of collaboration in the workplace.  Collaboration is something that has made many companies in Silicon Valley successful, and those companies have led a revolution in office design with open office concepts now prevalent in offices from New York to San Francisco (including KCSA’s NY office).  In my opinion, the idea of working from home flies in the face of what an open office concept tries to accomplish in terms of collaboration. So I find it difficult to envision a “working from home” corporate culture to be successful in an industry that relies heavily on collaboration among co-workers, including the tech industry and even the PR industry.

In the world of IR and PR, collaboration is a very important part of our success as a firm and as individuals.  The ability to casually be drawn into a conversation where a co-worker might believe you are able to offer specific insight, is not something easily replicated in a “work from home” environment.  I’m not saying a person at home couldn’t jump on a phone call if needed or respond to an email; however, it wouldn’t be as casual of an occurrence as what is experienced in the office.  The ability to let ideas or counsel flow freely between colleagues as they walk down the hall, pass in the kitchen, or grab lunch together isn’t possible from your desk at home.  Furthermore, the mentoring of less experienced colleagues by the partners of our firm occurs much more frequently because everyone is working side-by-side.

I often hear fellow KCSA’ers say they get so much more work done at home because there are no distractions or because they saved time by not commuting, and that may be true.  However, I believe they only see benefits because of two reasons:

1.) They work from home so sparingly; there is no loss of collaboration at the office

2.) Collaboration isn’t something that you necessarily miss immediately, so they only recognize its loss when they fail to see the benefits.

Remember, collaboration isn’t just to your benefit; it might be to the benefit of others.  So while the person at home is getting a ton of work done because there are no “distractions”, their colleagues are not benefiting from their counsel and therefore aren’t providing the quality of work expected by the company or its customers.

The point that I believe is missing from the argument to work from home is that it all depends on the job.  At the end of the day, the specific requirements of a job should determine if a person can work from home 1 day a week, 5 days a week, or not at all.

Plus, if we didn’t come into the office, we wouldn’t be able to go to Wolfgang’s after work.

Wall Street, like the Yankees and Subways, will forever be synonymous with New York.   As the country expanded and lush pastures became bustling cities, Wall Street also expanded.

Boston, Chicago and San Francisco became major cities and hubs of financial institutions. In each of these cities you will find the presence of leading hedge funds, investment banks and brokerage firms. This should not be surprising to anyone considering they offer a wide variety of industries and amenities.  But would you ever think of midsize metropolitan areas such as Salt Lake City, St. Louis or Jacksonville as viable cities in the world of finance? Maybe you should start.

There has been a growing trend of migration from larger traditional financial hubs to smaller markets, and this is mainly attributed to the cost consciousness of the institutions. In addition, government has become ever more present in rules and regulation on Wall Street, hampering these institutions’ revenues. Despite the thousands of layoffs, companies need workers and salaries do not come cheap in New York, Chicago or San Francisco because of the high cost of living. In January 2013, the average month’s rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco was $1,845 and it was $2,568 in New York. This is an astonishing price to pay for shelter that you do not own at the end of the day.

Institutions may not always be able to create “new” revenue but they can find a city where the taxes, real estate, and cost of living are less expensive. The same financial architects and thrifty accountants that created new revenue by ways of derivatives and proprietary trading in years of the past are now finding inventive ways to add to the bottom line through cost reduction and tax efficiency. Yes, it may be cheaper to move these jobs off-shore but out of fear of ridicule by the public they have decided to keep them at home, as they should.  Some call this phenomenon “near-shoring.” A dollar in St. Louis can be stretched longer than a dollar in New York.  While the high salary jobs remain in large metropolitan areas, financial companies are moving mid-level roles to the likes of Salt Lake City (Goldman Sachs), St. Louis (Stifel Financial) and Jacksonville (Deutsche Bank).  The average month’s rent for a one bedroom apartment is only $659 in St. Louis and $685 in Salt Lake City.

What does this mean for Investor Relations?  Well, to start, do not worry!  First, large metropolitan cities are not going anywhere and they are excellent places to conduct non-deal roadshows or investor days. Second, established financial hubs in suburban cities will entice new companies and new operations because of lower set-up costs and tax. Yes, it may create more traveling, but a company should think of this as a way to expand its brand.

While I do not have a crystal ball, I am confident that Wall Street will be based in New York for the next century.  My biggest concern is if KCSA moves, where am I going to get a decent slice of pizza?!