Monday, January 21, 2019
Differences in Earnings Releases and 10-Ks

Wednesday, January 16, 2019
The Importance of Textual Analysis

Tuesday, January 8, 2019
A Look at Climate Change Disclosures

Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Quants: Point-in-Time Data for Backtesting

Friday, December 28, 2018
Now Showing: Controls & Procedures

Thursday, December 27, 2018
A Reminder on Non-GAAP Reporting Rules

Monday, December 17, 2018
Researching PG&E’s Wildfire Risk

Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Tracking Brexit Disclosures

Thursday, December 6, 2018
Campbell Soup: Looking Behind the Label

Sunday, December 2, 2018
SEC Comment Letters: The Amazon Example

Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Measuring Big Pharma’s Chemical Dependency

Monday, November 26, 2018
Analysts, Can You Relate? A True Story

Monday, November 19, 2018
Digging Up Historical Trend Data: Quest Example

Sunday, November 11, 2018
Cost of Revenue, SG&A: Q3 Update

Monday, November 5, 2018
Lease Accounting: FedEx vs. UPS

Saturday, November 3, 2018
New Email Alerting Powers

Wednesday, October 31, 2018
PTC and Two Tales of Revenue

Tuesday, October 30, 2018
10-K/Q Section Text Change Detection

Sunday, October 28, 2018
Finding Purchase Price Allocation

Sunday, October 21, 2018
Charting Netflix Growth in Three Ways

Archive  |  Search:
Time to Regulate the Unicorns?
Wednesday, October 18, 2017

We saw NASDAQ’s Adena Friedman speak last week at the FMA Boston 2017 conference. (Calcbench was a sponsor.) Naturally the question arose about the declining numbers of public companies in the United States. There wasn’t time for a thorough discussion, but we were reminded of this presentation NASDAQ put out in the spring.

The conclusion is that reducing the regulatory burden on public companies will encourage more companies to become public.

Now, it’s always good to reevaluate regulatory burden on a regular basis, but we wonder if overall, NASDAQ is missing the point. Is the issue really about too much regulation of public companies, or a complete lack of regulation within the recent phenomenon we call the ‘unicorn’ space?

In other words, we argue that many large, fast-growing companies won’t go public, because they get the benefits of being public already, without doing any of the work.

Let’s take a look at one prime example, Uber.

We used to think of venture-capital backed companies as the playground of accredited investors only. Clearly this is not the case anymore. Major investors in Uber include Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price, as well as various pension funds.

Wait, what? Retail investors can buy a mutual fund that has Uber in its holdings? Yes, they can.

But can those same investors request a copy of Uber’s financials? No, they cannot. So… the confidential financials that (we hope) the fund manager has access to—can investors assume those are audited to the same standard as a public company? Definitely not.

Also, can we expect that Uber’s management is keeping a careful watch over its internal controls and procedures? Ha! Just asking that question gave us a good chuckle, given all Uber’s recent scandals.

In other words, all of the rules that were put in place to make sure public companies don’t scam retail investors do not apply here, and yet companies like Uber are still collecting retail money.

Clearly, this is not good for the IPO market. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? But it’s also just not good.

FREE Calcbench Premium
Two Week Trial

Research Financial & Accounting Data Like Never Before. More features and try our Excel add-in. Sign up now to try the Premium Suite.