But this question matters beyond those interested in investing in, regulating, or even starting companies.
Besides fewer jobs, companies staying private longer means public market investors, who rely on the growth to diversify risk and fund retirement obligations, are also being left out of the spoils of new company creation.
Finally, easing mutual fund concentration restrictions that limit their holdings in individual companies might also encourage more investment in the smaller-capitalization end of the trading market.
Short-term pressures reduce long-term investments.
Under this structure, voting rights increase for all investors with longer holding periods.
So “rightsizing” regulations that scale with the size and market cap of the company makes more sense.
Interestingly, the JOBS Act was created in 2012 precisely to solve the problem of too few IPOs.
Most of the good things it did involved making the process of going public easier: confidential filings; enabling companies to test the waters with institutional investors pre-offering; and size-adjusting regulatory burdens for emerging growth companies.
Recently, one of the most successful tech companies of the age — Amazon — celebrated its 20th anniversary as a public company.
Or perhaps more importantly: Where is the smaller-cap company — not the unicorn — that can become the next big tech enterprise, the next high-growth opportunity?