ASIC re-enters the policy arena with fast-tracked IPOs

ASIC’s fast-tracking of big IPOs walks a regulatory tightrope. Find out what it could mean for the regulator's posture and role in policy development.

Fast-Track IPOs: ASIC Breaks Tradition to Get on Board

On 10 June, ASIC announced a new initiative to support large IPOs: offering pre-vetting services for disclosure documents and adopting a 'no action' position to allow early acceptance of applications.

While the changes were welcomed by the big end of IPO advisers, the approach to consultation and implementation provides fresh insight into  ASIC’s repositioning of regulatory settings and posture.

ASIC's return to policy

In 2019, the Hayne Royal Commission delivered a clear directive to ASIC: stick to enforcing the law and avoid venturing into policymaking. It was a reset moment for the regulator, ushering in the short-lived ‘why not litigate’ era, which lost momentum amid the COVID response and refresh of ASIC commissioners.

Six years on, and ASIC release a landmark discussion paper examining the dynamics between public and private markets — leading the charge to extract from industry the policies and reforms needed to ensure balanced and healthy markets. ASIC Chair Joe Longo thanked industry for its engagement in his message at the ASIC Symposium on 10 June, but was also sure to tip his hat to Treasury as a key stakeholder of ASIC’s continued engagement.

So, are we entering a phase of ASIC-led reform with Treasury riding passenger? 

Treasury, occupied with housing policy, potential tax reform and an array of productivity initiatives may be stretched thin. This may have opened the door for ASIC to take a more active role in shaping market policy — at least for now.

A Decade in the Making

The origins of fast-tracked IPOs trace back to 2013 when the ASX slipped the process into an overhaul of its continuous disclosure guidance.

Momentum for the process re-emerged in February with ASIC’s discussion paper. Finally, big-deal advisers KWM, HSF as well as the ASX and a host of investment banks had the chance to urge ASIC to do its part to reduce the risk of extended exposure periods and permitting early acceptance of applications. ASIC responded, albeit in an unorthodox fashion.

ASIC’s role in public offerings is complex. Enforcement of disclosure rules has never been strictly based on black-letter law, and ASIC’s approach requires a careful balance with its overarching mandate to support fair and efficient markets. But the way this balance has been struck for fast-track IPOs is notable.

Changing the Rules Without Changing the Rulebook

Unlike most regulatory changes, fast-tracking IPOs has not undergone a dedicated consultation process, not by the ASX back in 2013 nor ASIC in 2025.

ASIC took the initiative for its new policy following a discussion paper covering a wide range of issues. It was then hurriedly implemented by media release, with no subsequent amendments to relevant guidance material. The new policy also relies on a 'no action' position, historically difficult to obtain, and requires ASX’s agreement to fast-track — placing ASX firmly in control of who can benefit from the streamlined pathway.

So, what does ASIC’s move really signal?

For those inclined to read the regulatory tea leaves, the way the changes were implemented may indicate a shift in ASIC’s posture.

Influences favouring market productivity and efficiency appear to be gaining traction, and ASIC’s willingness to enable reform via administrative channels — without legislative amendment or targeted consultation — suggests it may be willing to use its tactical regulatory tools to implement short-term policy changes while more substantive changes loom on the horizon.

However, the unorthodox development and implementation of IPO fast-tracking has raised some eyebrows and also makes it difficult to know what might lie ahead, with the regulator undertaking to provide more formal responses to its discussion paper later this year.

Will the regulator pursue a conventional path through targeted consultation, or take bolder steps with more incremental policies using the administrative tools at its disposal? Whatever the approach, it is worth watching closely.

Selective Access Likely to Draw Scrutiny

If more formal consultation for fast-tracking IPOs does eventually arrive, expect the spotlight to fall on one issue: eligibility.

ASIC’s offer to pre-vet prospectuses is restricted to deals with expected market capitalisations over $100 million — a threshold typically reserved for IPOs backed by Australia’s largest institutions.

Unlike the ASX, which operates with commercial discretion in its engagement with prospective listees, ASIC is bound by legislation and expected to operate under the commonwealth's regulator best practice principles.

IPO lodgement fees are fixed — regardless of the size of a potential market capitalisation — and applied under a user-pays model. Pre-vetting can be at odds with this model, with ASIC's regulation of the offer document occurring before fees are paid.

Restricting pre-vetting to offers above $100 million raises legitimate questions from the small and medium end of town, which represent the majority of the ASX, around equity, transparency, and the consistent application of the user-pays model.

 What This Means for Practitioners

For governance, legal and compliance professionals, several takeaways stand out from ASIC’s fast-track IPO initiative:

1. Regulatory settings are shifting. ASIC’s use of administrative mechanisms over formal rule changes signals a more agile approach to reform.

2. Policy is back on the table. ASIC’s renewed interest in shaping market dynamics suggests policy should be in mind when engaging the regulator.

3. Selective access highlights risk. With fast-track eligibility tied to deal size, equity and transparency concerns are likely to surface.

4. Submissions can shape outcomes. It may not take a formal and targeted consultation to draw out changes in regulatory policy. Well-positioned advocacy and direct engagement can be more valuable than ever.

Engaging with a regulator or in regulatory practice?

RGC is a specialist advisory and legal firm focused on regulation, governance and compliance. Backed by extensive experience in regulatory architecture and operational delivery, we provide confident execution across all aspects of compliance and oversight.