In the last 30 years, the number of public companies has been cut in half (twitter.com)

by MrBuddyCasino 32 comments 58 points
Read article View on HN

32 comments

[−] NordSteve 29d ago
~30 years ago (in 2002), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was adopted. In the wake of scandals like Enron and WorldCom, it imposed a bunch of new rules that make being a public company more expensive. At the margin, that would impact the count of public companies.

It's also much easier to raise money for private startups. Back in the day there was a point at which you _had_ to go public in order to finance your business. Now you can have raises like the recent $122 billion OpenAI raise. https://openai.com/index/accelerating-the-next-phase-ai/

[−] keoneflick 29d ago
The x.com post (by the journalist!) does not point to the actual article. I guess that's discouraged on X? Talk about social media being useless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/04/13/lawyers-c...

https://archive.is/7ATtM

The main thesis is that the liabilities risk/cost from securities class action lawsuits is a tax on public companies.

[−] hgoel 29d ago

>I guess that's discouraged on X?

Yes, Elon thinks links in posts should be heavily suppressed by the algorithm because they mean people get redirected from scrolling.

So now everyone buries the link in the replies, that are conveniently hidden unless you log in.

[−] rayiner 28d ago
Is it the same reason newspaper stories never link sources?
[−] tom_ 29d ago
xcancel will show more replies or follow-up posts. Take the x.com url, and replace x.com with xcancel.com: https://xcancel.com/ToddZywicki/status/2044167534681936085
[−] MrBuddyCasino 29d ago
Nobody reads articles anymore. A Twitter summary for the 80%, the full article for the rest.
[−] crsv 29d ago
Does this calculation take into account garbage stocks and securities fraud? Perhaps some of the reduction was the result of regulation favorable to the consumer?
[−] NoboruWataya 29d ago
Sorry if I'm being very dumb, but is there an actual link to the article I can click here or is this just a tweet by a guy saying he wrote an article?

Anyway the conventional finance answer to why there are fewer public companies around these days is just that private markets are so much bigger. PE and debt financing (both public and private) are probably responsible for a much bigger share of companies' financing than they used to be.

[−] nivertech 29d ago
The number of traditional public companies has been cut in half.

The number of alternative public and semi-public companies went up exponentially (Reg CF/Reg A, crypto ICOs).

After reaching some thresholds a Reg A company can become public and even trade on OTC markets.

[−] xnx 29d ago
Did SPACs meaningfully contribute to this?
[−] jjk166 29d ago
More likely it was the 1979 supreme court case Reiter v. Sonotone Corp which instituted the "consumer welfare standard" which shifted antitrust enforcement from focusing on protecting competition in markets to "protecting consumers" which made it much easier for large mergers to be approved.
[−] recursivecaveat 29d ago
Don't SPACs generally move the needle in the opposite direction? ie they turn private companies into public ones.
[−] xnx 29d ago
An existing public company merges with a private company to make that private company public.
[−] kdhaskjdhadjk 29d ago
Probably from all the consolidation. In the USA there used to be hundreds of companies supplying various industries. Now there's generally 2-5, and they all have the same shareholders.

BlackRock

Vanguard

State Street

Northern Trust

etc

"Vanguard and BlackRock are the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape.

BlackRock and Vanguard form a secret monopoly that own just about everything else you can think of too. In all, they have ownership in 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.

Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock. Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a unique structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern, but many of the oldest, richest families in the world can be linked to Vanguard funds."

[−] linuxftw 29d ago
Seems to be little incentive for companies to go public, other than fleecing 401k account holders that have to invest in funds managed by the same companies that underwrite IPOs.