RECENT POSTS
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Popping the Lid on Smuckers’ Goodwill

Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Not Much Fizz in LaCroix Right Now

Wednesday, May 29, 2019
An Example of Calcbench, Excel, and Insight

Monday, May 20, 2019
Research Paper: Capex Spending

Thursday, May 16, 2019
Psst: Got Any Weed?

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Open Letter: SEC Proposed Rule for BDCs

Friday, May 10, 2019
General Motors and Workhorse

Monday, May 6, 2019
How to Find Earnings Release Data

Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Following Restructuring Costs Over Time

Monday, April 22, 2019
Capex Spending: More Than You Might Think

Saturday, April 13, 2019
When AWS Takes Over the World

Thursday, April 11, 2019
Data Trends in Focus: Restructuring Costs

Sunday, April 7, 2019
How One Customer Crushed It With Calcbench

Thursday, April 4, 2019
TJX Shows Complexity of Leasing Costs Reporting

Tuesday, April 2, 2019
CEO Pay Ratios: Some 2018 Thoughts

Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Corporate Spending: Where It Goes, 2017 vs. 2018

Monday, March 25, 2019
Health Insurers: A Bit Winded?

Friday, March 22, 2019
Our New Master Class Video

Thursday, March 21, 2019
Tech Data’s Goodwill Adjustment

Tuesday, March 19, 2019
There’s Taxes, and There’s Taxes

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.