> Empirically, the number of IPOs in the USA has dropped, and the size has increased. So the data is consistent with there being a larger regulatory burden on businesses going public
I'll agree with the first sentence. However it is not anywhere near enough to imply the second sentence. And lots of smart people agree...
> The study also looked into the old argument that "regulatory and legal changes in the early 2000s, including Regulation Fair Disclosure ('Reg FD') and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ('SOX'), made it more expensive" to list. These played little or no role because the decrease in new listings was "well on its way before these changes took place." At worst, the regulatory burden accounts for only a small portion of the decline.
I'll agree with the first sentence. However it is not anywhere near enough to imply the second sentence. And lots of smart people agree...
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-06-24/where-hav...
> The study also looked into the old argument that "regulatory and legal changes in the early 2000s, including Regulation Fair Disclosure ('Reg FD') and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ('SOX'), made it more expensive" to list. These played little or no role because the decrease in new listings was "well on its way before these changes took place." At worst, the regulatory burden accounts for only a small portion of the decline.