4 ms·
If sarbox did indeed cause delayed IPOs to the extent described here, author didn't even try to make a case for it, he just said it is so.
by dustingetz 13y ago
If sarbox did indeed cause delayed IPOs to the extent described here, author didn't even try to make a case for it, he just said it is so.
- hga 13y agoNobody I know denies that the US IPO market almost entirely shut down after SarBox. Correlation does not imply causation, and I personally think it was only the last set of nails in this coffin, but from that time sequence and a lot of anecdotal data of people saying SarBox is why they aren't going public has resulted in it being the commonly accepted reason.
- muzz 13y agoThe data denies it. Number of IPOs fell 90% in the two years preceeding SarBox, and increased afterwards: http://www.xconomy.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/2008/06/ipo_chart_issues_per_year.jpg http://www.xconomy.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/2008/06/i...
- hga 13y agoYou don't entertain the possibility that the dot.bomb crash and 9/11 had anything to do with that initial fall? Do you note that the number of IPOs failed to recover in the period before the Great Recession? This is one of the reasons I say it wasn't only SarBox, but that SarBox "was only the last set of nails in this coffin".
- muzz 13y agoThat was not your claim. Your claim was: "Nobody I know denies that the US IPO market almost entirely shut down after SarBox", which is simply contradicted by the data