…this by the government that also gave us ICE deportations, a huge fall in the value of the dollar, the war in Iran and a looming oil price crisis.

why I think it’s a really bad idea

the data are readily available

We’re living in the 21st century. Even the smallest companies have had easy and cheap access to sophisticated management control software for decades. Maybe some of this involves trade secrets–things like a country-by-country breakout of a multinational’s sales and profits–but for a long as I’ve been reading them (close to half a century) this level of detail is not required and companies have long since become very good at muddying these waters. So I don’t see reformatting the readily available data to fit SEC specifications as being an incredible hassle.

So whether you release data four times a year, or twice or once is more or less how many times a company pushes the “SEC format” button.

foreign companies, British, Australian, Irish for example, have steadily been relisting in the US.

…this despite the more extensive disclosure required here, well more than double what may be required in their home markets. The reason, I think, is that the increased disclosure leads to higher PE multiples placed by investors on company earnings. That’s because they have greater ability to assess what the company is really worth.

most growth companies compensate key employees primarily through stock options

So if I’m correct that less disclosure leads to lower PEs, and I’m very sure that this is right, the simplest response to the company-damaging move to less disclosure would be to relocate–to, say, Canada.

why would anyone choose the less disclosure road?

… especially given the possibility that in a less disclosure world companies would be worth less, not more. The only reason I can come up with is that there are firms whose operations for whatever reason can’t stand the light of day are chomping at the bit to raise equity capital.