3 ms·

_Earlier IPOs_ out of existence. The traditional explanation for why companies are waiting to be decacorns before IPO was that Sarbox basically made it so burde

_Earlier IPOs_ out of existence. The traditional explanation for why companies are waiting to be decacorns before IPO was that Sarbox basically made it so burdensome to IPO that you just didn't do it early[0]. The argument for this extra regulation is that it made it hard to lose your shirt to something like Enron, the argument against is that an individual (non accredited) investor now can't get into companies early when they still have steep growth ahead. SPACs seem to have brought back the sketchy early companies to the public markets while high quality companies still stay private longer. The current argument for late IPOing seems to be abundant capital for later rounds but we'll see how that plays out given gesturing around the state of things. [0] https://www.vox.com/2014/9/11/6134529/a-new-york-stock-exchange-exec-explains-why-ipos-are-becoming-less https://www.vox.com/2014/9/11/6134529/a-new-york-stock-excha... [1] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/grow-fast-or-die-slow-why-unicorns-are-staying-private https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-tel...

chollida1 4y ago
Sorry, appreciate the edit about earlier IPO's, its an important word to your point and was accidentally omitted, my bad. I think we can agree Sarbox has done nothing to slow down IPO's. I have yet to hear a CEO say they'd go public but Sarbox has made it burdensome. I've gone over this before in nauseating detail. Sarbox just made clear what best practices all companies should be doing, public or not. I have yet to hear any burden that it imposes on companies that would prevent them from going public. So I think we can skip Sarbox as a reason. unless someone can show a CEO claiming they'd be public now if not for Sarbox. > The current argument for late IPOing seems to be abundant capital for later rounds but we'll see how that plays out given gesturing around the state of things. If this is true, we should see a bunch of early stage companies going public now as the free money era is over. I'll wait to see by the end of the year or even the end of next year, but it doesn't look like the free money hypothesis is the full reason here.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  I've heard CEOs say internally that SarBox is preventing an IPO. But when they say that it just remember it is BS.

chollida1 4y ago

Sorry, appreciate the edit about earlier IPO's, its an important word to your point and was accidentally omitted, my bad. I think we can agree Sarbox has done nothing to slow down IPO's. I have yet to hear a CEO say they'd go public but Sarbox has made it burdensome. I've gone over this before in nauseating detail. Sarbox just made clear what best practices all companies should be doing, public or not. I have yet to hear any burden that it imposes on companies that would prevent them from going public. So I think we can skip Sarbox as a reason. unless someone can show a CEO claiming they'd be public now if not for Sarbox. > The current argument for late IPOing seems to be abundant capital for later rounds but we'll see how that plays out given gesturing around the state of things. If this is true, we should see a bunch of early stage companies going public now as the free money era is over. I'll wait to see by the end of the year or even the end of next year, but it doesn't look like the free money hypothesis is the full reason here.

theGnuMe 4y ago
I've heard CEOs say internally that SarBox is preventing an IPO. But when they say that it just remember it is BS.