Reference: Release No. 2026-18
Official publication: Read the full Release No. 2026-18 on the agency website
The SEC’s February 13, 2026 announcement of its 45th Annual Government Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation is more than an event notice. For securities lawyers, compliance leaders, broker-dealers, advisers, private issuers, and smaller public companies, it is an early signal about which capital-raising issues may receive policy attention in 2026 and how the Commission may frame the next round of reform discussions.
Executive Summary
The SEC announced that it will host the 45th Annual Government Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation at SEC headquarters on March 9, 2026, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time, with a live webcast. The Commission stated that the forum will gather participants from the public and private sectors to discuss ways to improve policy affecting how entrepreneurs, small businesses, and smaller public companies raise capital from investors.
Although the release does not propose a rule and does not itself alter legal obligations, it matters because the Small Business Forum has historically functioned as a structured pipeline for policy recommendations to the Commission and Congress. The SEC expressly invited public recommendations in advance and indicated that participants will vote on proposals for inclusion in a formal report. That combination of public input, ranking, and reporting makes the forum a meaningful venue for shaping future rulemaking agendas, exempt offering policy, disclosure reform, secondary liquidity, and compliance burdens affecting smaller issuers.
Regulated institutions should read the announcement as a prompt to revisit their own capital-raising friction points. Firms that serve emerging companies or smaller public issuers should be prepared to articulate where current rules create avoidable cost, uncertainty, or execution risk. Legal and compliance teams should also monitor whether issues discussed at the forum later appear in SEC speeches, staff guidance, concept releases, or legislative proposals.
What the Regulator Issued
The SEC issued Press Release No. 2026-18, titled SEC Announces 45th Annual Small Business Forum to Improve Capital-Raising Policy. According to the release, the event will feature appearances by SEC Commissioners and discussions with market participants and other thought leaders focused on capital raising by early-stage and late-stage private companies as well as smaller public companies. The official SEC release is available here.
The announcement identifies several procedural details that are legally and practically relevant. First, the SEC invited policy recommendations to be submitted by email before noon Eastern Time on March 5, 2026. Second, the agency stated that online voting to prioritize recommendations will open to the public at the end of the event. Third, the resulting recommendations are intended for a report delivered to the Commission and Congress. In other words, the forum is designed not merely for discussion, but for prioritization and transmission of specific reform proposals.
The release also includes a statement from SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins emphasizing the forum as an opportunity for innovators, investors, advisers, and policymakers to identify capital-raising challenges and propose ways to improve capital formation. That language is notable because it places capital formation, rather than only investor protection or market integrity, at the center of the event’s stated purpose. Practitioners should pay attention when Commission leadership uses that framing in a formal release.
Why It Matters
For securities practitioners, the immediate significance is agenda signaling. The SEC often telegraphs future areas of emphasis through convenings, advisory processes, and requests for structured input before formal proposals are drafted. A forum centered on small business capital formation suggests sustained attention to exemptions, offering mechanics, disclosure calibration, and the lifecycle from private financing to the public markets.
For private issuers and their counsel, likely discussion areas include Regulation D, Regulation A, crowdfunding, accredited investor standards, general solicitation practices, integration questions, intermediary obligations, and the practical burden of state and federal compliance overlap. For smaller public companies, watch for renewed attention to reporting burden, scaled disclosure, research coverage, secondary trading liquidity, and the economics of remaining public versus staying private longer.
For regulated institutions, including broker-dealers, funding portals, investment advisers, transfer agents, and banks serving emerging companies, the forum matters because policy shifts in the small issuer ecosystem usually affect gatekeeper obligations. Even modest reform proposals can alter diligence expectations, suitability or disclosure practices, supervisory procedures, offering documentation, communications review, and technology workflows. Institutions that ignore these developments until a rule proposal appears are often late to shape workable outcomes.
The forum also matters because recommendations transmitted to Congress can extend beyond SEC-only authority. If recurring themes include statutory offering limits, liability standards, resale restrictions, or public company onboarding costs, the resulting conversation may involve both rulemaking and legislative options. That raises the importance of careful public engagement now, before positions harden.
Practical Action Checklist
- Review your capital-raising pain points now. Identify the rules, interpretations, or process burdens that most frequently delay offerings, increase cost, or create uncertainty for smaller issuers.
- Separate legal barriers from operational barriers. The most persuasive recommendations are usually specific about whether the problem is statutory, regulatory, interpretive, exam-related, or purely market-structure driven.
- Coordinate across legal, compliance, and business teams. Firms should align internal views before submitting comments or speaking publicly so that external positions are accurate and institutionally supportable.
- Prepare concise reform proposals. Recommendations should define the current rule or practice, explain the burden it creates, describe the requested change, and address investor-protection tradeoffs.
- Assess downstream compliance impact. If your institution would benefit from a policy change, determine in advance what revisions to supervisory procedures, disclosures, training, or surveillance would follow.
- Monitor the event and resulting report. Designate personnel to review the webcast, track the prioritized recommendations, and compare them against your 2026 regulatory horizon planning.
- Document advocacy positions carefully. Public submissions and statements may later be compared against comment letters, exam responses, and client advice, so precision matters.
- Watch leadership messaging. Statements by Commissioners and senior staff during the forum may reveal which proposals have practical momentum and which remain aspirational.
Open Questions and Watch Items
The SEC release leaves several substantive questions unanswered, which is typical for an announcement of this kind. It does not specify the policy recommendations likely to dominate the agenda, whether staff are already evaluating particular reform paths, or whether the Commission expects near-term action following the forum. Practitioners should therefore resist overreading the announcement while still recognizing it as a meaningful signal.
Key watch items include whether the forum elevates proposals tied to exempt offering harmonization, disclosure simplification for smaller issuers, public company cost relief, expanded investor participation rules, or changes affecting intermediary liability and distribution mechanics. Another question is whether Commission leadership frames capital formation as a competitiveness issue, an access-to-capital issue, or a modernization issue. Each frame points toward different reform trajectories.
It will also be important to see whether the most highly ranked recommendations are narrowly technical or broadly structural. Technical proposals may move faster through staff guidance or targeted amendments. Structural proposals may require a longer policy cycle, broader economic analysis, or congressional engagement. Institutions should track not only the report itself but also whether later SEC speeches, agenda items, or staff statements repeat the same themes.
Finally, firms should remember that a public forum can surface competing policy priorities. Calls to reduce issuer burden may be met with demands for stronger disclosure, tighter intermediary obligations, or enhanced retail investor protections. Effective monitoring therefore requires more than identifying proposals that appear favorable on first reading; it requires assessing the package of tradeoffs that may emerge if the SEC or Congress acts on the forum’s recommendations.
My Law Tampa publishes this memorandum to assist attorneys, compliance officers, and regulated institutions in tracking material securities regulatory developments and evaluating practical implications for governance, offerings, supervision, and risk management.
This memorandum is informational only, does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship with My Law Tampa.
Source Materials
- Official publication: Release No. 2026-18
- Regulator archive: SEC memo archive
- Memo library: browse the full regulatory memo archive
- Related memo: SEC Appoints David Woodcock as Director of the Division of Enforcement
- Related memo: SEC Memo: SEC Announces Enforcement Results for Fiscal Year 2025
- Related memo: SEC Memo: SEC Announces Agenda and Panelists for Roundtable on Options Market Structure
