Why Vigil Neuroscience, Inc. (VIGL) is Skyrocketing So Far in 2025
We recently published an article titled . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Vigil Neuroscience, Inc. (NASDAQ:VIGL) stands against the other biotech stocks.
No matter the market environment, you'll always find entertainment in the biotech space. There will always be biotech stocks making huge swings in both directions and these stocks can make or break your portfolio in a very small amount of time due to the nature of how important clinical trial results are for these companies.
The United Nations forecasts that the over-65 age group will grow by 150% from 800 million in 2024 to 2 billion by 2067. This "older, richer & sicker" population is expected to push global healthcare spending on medicines up 12% to $2.3 trillion by 2028. If you combine that with AI making breakthroughs in healthcare more frequent, you'll see many more biotech stocks starting to pop to the upside over the coming years.
For this article, I screened the top-performing biotech stocks year-to-date.
I will also mention the number of hedge fund investors in these stocks. Why are we interested in the stocks that hedge funds pile into? The reason is simple: our research has shown that we can outperform the market by imitating the top stock picks of the best hedge funds. Our quarterly newsletter's strategy selects 14 small-cap and large-cap stocks every quarter and has returned 373.4% since May 2014, beating its benchmark by 218 percentage points ().
A medical technician observing a petri dish containing a monoclonal antibody sample.
Number of Hedge Fund Holders In Q4 2024: 18
Vigil Neuroscience, Inc. (NASDAQ:VIGL) is a biotech company that makes treatments for rare and common neurodegenerative diseases by restoring the vigilance of microglia, the sentinel immune cells of the brain.
The stock is up significantly so far in 2025 in anticipation of upcoming clinical trial data readouts in the first half of 2025.
It already reported positive Phase 1 clinical trial data for VG-3927 (small molecule TREM2 agonist) for Alzheimer's disease. Plus, a final analysis from the IGNITE Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating iluzanebart in adult-onset leukoencephalopathy with axonal spheroids and pigmented glia (ALSP) is planned for Q2 2025.
In addition, it surged following announcements about promising progress in clinical trials for Alzheimer's and ALSP in January.
The consensus price target of $19.75 implies 699.6% upside.
Vigil Neuroscience, Inc. (NASDAQ:VIGL) is up 45% year-to-date.
Overall VIGL ranks 15th on our list of the biotech stocks that are skyrocketing so far in 2025. While we acknowledge the potential of VIGL as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and doing so within a shorter time frame. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than VIGL but that trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about the .
READ NEXT: Why These 15 E-Commerce Stocks Are Skyrocketing So Far In 2025 and
Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
24 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Jim Taylor: What my wife's experience with Alzheimer's has taught me
After several unexplained memory slips, there came a day when my wife, Geri, didn't recognize her own face in the mirror. That's when we knew it was time for her to get checked out. It was 2012, and Alzheimer's was a feared diagnosis. At the time, billions of dollars of investments into research and development had failed to produce treatments that could prevent, slow or cure the disease. Getting a definitive diagnosis would be extremely difficult, but the alternative was living with years of the landscape for Alzheimer's diagnosis and treatment has taken a great leap forward. It is increasingly possible to manage the disease and live a fulfilling life. We have reached a historic moment with the FDA's approval of the first blood biomarker tests for Alzheimer's. This long-awaited breakthrough means physicians can now detect early signs of Alzheimer's — which accounts for 70% of all cases of dementia — using a simple blood test that can be done during a regular check-up with your PET scans remain important for confirming a diagnosis, they are only available at specialized centers, typically in urban medical centers, and they are expensive. Blood biomarker tests now offer an easy first step in the diagnostic journey. They provide fast answers for people experiencing memory problems and can even spot early signs of cognitive decline years before symptoms appear. Without these tests, most people have a long, challenging path to wife Geri's path to diagnosis was anything but simple. In 2012, a neurologist confirmed she had mild cognitive impairment, a common precursor to Alzheimer's. It was a life-altering event. Over the next few years, we knew we had to dig deeper into the cause of her condition, to uncover any potential medical options. Eventually we found a clinical trial for an experimental Alzheimer's drug, and she received a PET scan to determine whether she qualified for the trial. Her brain scan detected amyloid plaque, the telltale sign of Alzheimer's. The diagnosis was difficult to face, but it meant we didn't have to struggle with uncertainty. We could act.I understand the fear that surrounds an Alzheimer's diagnosis, but catching it early helps. Changes in the brain begin years before memory problems become noticeable. The earlier the diagnosis, the more options people have. Research shows that anti-amyloid therapies are more effective when administered earlier: In one clinical trial, patients with early Alzheimer's showed 35% slowing of cognitive decline, compared with those on the placebo. These treatments can help people maintain their independence longer and make the most of their lucid was fortunate to participate in a clinical trial that significantly slowed her disease progression. The seven-year trial period was a game-changer for us. The regular infusions were a source of hope as we saw her benefit from the medication. This precious time allowed Geri to develop coping strategies to manage her disease. Together, we traveled across the country giving talks about living with Alzheimer's disease, and Geri needed very little assistance. We cherished this time together — years made possible because we sought answers early. Following the FDA's landmark approval of blood biomarker tests, the next step is making these tests widely available. Hospitals and health care systems across the country should ensure primary care physicians are aware of these tests and understand how to use them. Public education campaigns can raise awareness with people who have concerns about cognitive impairment and their detection gives people meaningful choices, and most importantly it gives people time. Time to benefit from lifestyle changes, participate in groundbreaking clinical trials, and access treatments when they can make the greatest difference. Although facing a potential Alzheimer's diagnosis is daunting, waiting only limits a person's options. If you're concerned that you or a loved one might have signs of cognitive impairment, please don't stay in the dark. Blood biomarker tests offer real hope in a new era of Alzheimer's care. The sooner we embrace these advances, the more precious time we can preserve.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Small Michigan auto suppliers face a tariff crisis with thousands of jobs at risk
Small Michigan auto suppliers face a tariff crisis with thousands of jobs at risk Show Caption Hide Caption Appeals court allows Trump tariffs while appeal plays out An appeals court ruled the Trump administration will be allowed to levy tariffs while an appeal on previous court rulings plays out. Michigan auto parts suppliers are struggling with the 25% tariffs imposed by President Trump on imported vehicles and parts. Smaller suppliers are especially vulnerable, facing potential job losses and business closures due to increased costs. Industry experts warn that tariffs could lead to supplier consolidation, potentially driving up prices for consumers. Michigan-based auto parts suppliers are getting creative in their attempts to mitigate President Donald Trump's 25% tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts. They must, because many industry experts worry the tariffs could put smaller players — which constitute the bulk of auto suppliers — out of business and result in widespread job losses. Take Michigan-based Lucerne International in Auburn Hills, which is looking for the U.S. government to grant it foreign trade zone status to help it delay its tariff bills and free up its cash flow. Another supplier, Team 1 Plastics Inc., is reassessing its business model, including what to do about a much-needed factory expansion that may no longer be affordable. Still others are asking automakers to help foot the bill. 'We've had a lot to think about when you take an industry that is as far-flung as the supply base is in automotive, and then throw in tariffs.' said Gary Grigowski, vice president of Team 1 Plastics, Inc. Adds Lucerne CEO Mary Buchzeiger, "I wake up in the morning and I deal with tariffs. I go to bed and I deal with tariffs. Then the policy keeps changing and when that playbook continuously keeps changing and we don't know what is going to happen two weeks from now … that's a challenge for any industry.' In Michigan, auto parts suppliers are huge employers and contributors to the economy. While experts believe the big suppliers will adapt to tariffs, it's all those smaller companies, such as Team 1 Plastics, which has just 80 employees, that industry observers worry about. In case you missed it: Economists estimate new tariff costs to range between $2,000 to $12,000 per vehicle "University of Michigan economists said tariffs on the auto industry, along with steel and aluminum, can be expected to reduce employment by roughly 13,000 jobs over the next several years. That's a lot of jobs," said Glenn Stevens, executive director of MichAuto. "This is what we've been concerned about because our industry is so tied to Mexico and Canada and the global auto supply chain. We were concerned that the tariff situation would cause an outsized impact on Michigan's economy.' Industry consolidation could drive up prices On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president had overstepped his authority in imposing 'reciprocal' tariffs globally, as well as duties on Canada and Mexico. Some in the auto industry said they were encouraged by the ruling, until they realized that the tariffs Trump put on autos still apply, providing no relief from the worry over possible supplier consolidation and job losses. The next day, an appeals court ruled Trump can continue to levy tariffs — which are taxes an importer pays on goods when they cross borders — while challenging the court order that had blocked them. Stevens said there are 'absolutely conversations going on' between suppliers and their customers, including automakers, about ways to shoulder the extra tariff costs together. 'When you have a tremendous increase in costs … that has to either be absorbed by the company, which is very difficult for small suppliers, or passed along to the customer,' Stevens said. 'What we don't want is it passed to the consumer, because that means repressed demand and lower sales, which leads to job losses. It's a fine balancing act.' Other industry experts report that the topic of the day among suppliers is how to remain solvent when faced with the tariffs potentially eating up their operating cash. "We are actively speaking with the tiered supplier community about this topic," said Joe McCabe, CEO of AutoForecast Solutions. "Everyone is taking the tariff talks seriously and looking at ways to improve efficiencies internally and investigate secondary supply strategies. The further down the supply chain you go, the more exposed the supplier will be." McCabe said the Tier 1 suppliers are in the strongest position to adapt to tariffs. They are bigger suppliers that sell directly to automakers. They have a diverse product portfolio to either relocate production and/or pressure the lower-tier suppliers — those companies that sell parts to the Tier 1 supplier — with price-reduction demands while investigating new suppliers in low-to-zero tariff regions. But in times of volatility, there has always been concern that the smaller suppliers will not be able to weather the storm, allowing larger suppliers to buy the distressed suppliers on the cheap and strengthen their product portfolio, McCabe said. As the number of suppliers dwindles, it could allow those that remain to strong-arm carmakers on the prices they pay for the parts, he said. The number of suppliers According to U.S. Census data in 2022, 3,814 firms operated at least one plant classified as producing auto parts in the United States, with a total of 4,846 plants in this industry. Those plants shipped $278.24 billion in parts and employed 575,338 people, said Jason Miller, a supply chain management professor at Michigan State University. Even the small suppliers shoulder big economic muscle. Miller said 3,045 companies with fewer than 100 employees operated 3,111 manufacturing plants that shipped $17.66 billion in parts and employed 54,561 people. In Michigan alone, data from the Upjohn Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center in Michigan, calculates that the state has 117,675 auto supplier jobs. Team 1: A typical small supplier On an afternoon in mid-May, Grigowski drives down the highway, going from meeting to meeting as he talks on the phone to the Free Press about his ever-growing to-do list to mitigate the impact tariffs will have on his company. The company, Team 1 Plastics in Albion, Michigan, is a small supplier, bringing in about $20 million in annual revenue. Its size represents the bulk of companies that make up the auto parts supplier base, Grigowski said. "We're little companies in little towns," Grigowski said. "We employ 80 people, so it's a big deal in a town of 7,000. And we have one location, so we're making decisions that impact everything." Team 1 makes the plastic vehicle parts such as covers, switch components or underhood components. Its business is "almost 100% automotive with a little bit of plumbing," Grigowski said. It provides parts to suppliers that eventually end up on vehicles made by General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Stellantis, Toyota, Honda and Subaru, he said. The parts they make are links in the complex supply chain that weaves across North America. The good news for Team 1 is that some of the materials it uses to make plastic parts are made in the United States, so the company dodges paying tariffs there. But dies used to make other parts will face tariffs and have "a very big impact" on the company's books, Grigowski said. Team 1's troubles Grigowski said the dies, which are used to shape or form plastic into the parts, are made from suppliers in Canada and India. India is subject to a 10% tariff, but Canada and Mexico got 25%. "That was a big surprise for us — 25% is a lot," Grigowski said. "A typical die cost might be $70,000, so that's going to be $17,500 more. So it's a lot of money. We typically get 10 dies a year from Canada, so that's $175,000 more. That's real money were I come from.' Grigowski said it is unclear whether the dies will be exempt from the Canada tariffs for being compliant with the U.S-Mexico-Canada Agreement because it is not a part, but rather a piece of capital equipment. "It's unclear if that will be covered or not" under the exemption, Grigowski said. "We will have to figure it out in the next week or so" before putting in new orders. If the dies are not exempt, he said the extra cost for the tariff will be passed onto Team 1's customers. As for the dies Team 1 already ordered before the tariffs were applied, it already had quoted its prices to its customers so it will not raise those prices to offset the added expense. He said some companies in Michigan make dies, but they don't have enough capacity to meet all the suppliers' needs. And, as those companies get busier, they will raise their prices too. On top of that problem, Team 1 also needs a new injection molding machine, which is made in Japan. Grigowski ordered a new one even though the 24% tariff on goods coming from Japan tacks on $72,000 to its price tag. He is hoping the tariff on Japan will be lowered to 10%, bring down the bill to $30,000. It would be less of an impact, "but it's still painful," he said. Finally, because Team 1 has added new clients in recent years, it has outgrown its facilities and needs to make a 50% expansion to its plant. It got a construction quote six months ago and had hoped to break ground this summer. But Grigowski said he has to get a new quote now because of the recently imposed 25% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. "We're using an American company and an American building supplier and they will use as many American parts as they can, but they will probably import some of the steel and even if they didn't, the domestics will raise their price because they can," Grigowski said. "So it's a lot of things for a company our size to keep track of." He said it's a tough situation that feeds his bigger fear, which is "nothing we hear sounds like it's going to lower the price of the car.' "Cars are already super pricey for most customers," Grigowski said. According to Cox Automotive, in April the average transaction price for a new car was $48,699. "Which means, it could lead to lower volumes for us. Lower volume is never good.' A bigger supplier's strategies Across the state in Auburn Hills, Lucerne International, which makes chassis, powertrains and body structural components for passenger cars and commercial vehicles, is a bigger supplier at the tier one and tier two levels. CEO Buchzeiger declined to provide Lucerne's annual revenue or employee count, but she has been grappling with Trump tariffs since 2018 because of Lucerne's scale and reach into Asia. Trump was threatening to boost tariffs on China to 25% back then too. So she has learned a thing or two about mitigating tariffs that she's willing to pass on to smaller suppliers to help them. "The biggest issue with the supply base, especially with paying more cash up front, is cash flow and liquidity," Buchzeiger said. "The smaller suppliers can't pay that up front … it sucks cash flow out of your organization." Buchzeiger said her company has been working to get more of its supplies from domestic providers. She shares other strategies, such as what to do when the goods clear a port, as duties are due within seven to 10 days. Sometimes, the goods "aren't even at our door yet and the tariffs are due," Buchzeiger said. To offset that problem, Lucerne signed up for a U.S. Customs and Border Protection program called Periodic Monthly Statement, Buchzeiger said. That program allows a company to pay all the tariffs on the 15th of the month. So if the parts clear the border on the 16th, the company has a full month to pay it, she said. Buchzeiger said the company is also applying to be a foreign trade zone. "That allows us to bring the goods in and sit on them and not pay duties until they clear our door because we're considered a foreign trade zone," Buchzeiger said. "It's just to save millions of dollars in our cash flow because the longer we hold onto our money, the better." Buchzeiger agrees with the president's goal that more goods should be made in America. But she said to make that happen, tariffs have to be executed strategically. The U.S. aluminum manufacturers, for example, can produce only 15% of the aluminum her company requires, she said. So Lurcerne has to import 85% of it. With the 25% tariffs on aluminum now, "you just made me uncompetitive to manufacture here. To help me manufacture here, you have to understand where raw materials come from.' Find 'a path out' Like Grigowski, Buchzeiger believes tariffs will raise new vehicle prices. Buchzeiger is on the board for MEMA and MichAuto and she said the expectation is tariffs will drive up the average price of a new car by $5,000 to $7,000. As for the impact on jobs, MEMA, the group that represents the auto parts supplier industry, told the Free Press it did not have a precise estimate for supplier job losses so far due to tariffs. But it referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' April report that noted a national net decline of 5,800 U.S. jobs in motor vehicle and parts production since February. The bureau does not distinguish between parts and vehicle manufacturing. In March, steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. said it would idle some operations at its Dearborn plant this summer, tied to tariffs. It said it will lay off about 600 employees. In a statement at the time, the company said, 'We believe that, once President Trump's policies take full effect and automotive production is re-shored, we should be able to resume steel production at Dearborn Works.' But MEMA spokesperson Megan Gardner said that based on its internal surveys, a growing number of MEMA's 1,000 members have reported reducing U.S. employment — both production and nonproduction — and investment since the tariffs went into effect. She said many indicated they expect to make further cuts if tariffs remain in place over the next year. Still, Grigowski said he is sticking to his plan to hire a couple people this fall to work on that new machine from Japan. He even sees a potential upside to tariffs if some work that is currently done in Mexico shifts over to Team 1. 'That's a very real possibility," Grigowski said. "We've had some additional inquiries from a Canadian company." He also believes the Trump administration will negotiate tariffs country by country and come up with something workable for the auto industry, creating a "path out" of his problems. "It's like COVID. When it first happened, we thought we'd have to shut our plant down. Then we saw a path out," Grigowski said. "Ultimately, if these tariffs were to stay in place and they drove volumes down dramatically, then yeah, we'd have to make adjustments. We have to hope cooler heads will prevail. We're in a good financial position that we can wait for a solution. I feel like it's a significant problem, but a problem we can start to work.' Jamie L. LaReau is the senior autos writer who covers Ford Motor Co. for the Detroit Free Press. Contact Jamie at jlareau@ Follow her on Twitter @jlareauan. To sign up for our autos newsletter. Become a subscriber.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Have Reporting Burdens Led To More Firms Staying Private?
The best evidence for this hypothesis comes from micro-caps. Confounding trends and offsetting benefits of being public are often ignored by advocates for reducing reporting rules. The number of US public firms has fallen in recent times. Prof. Jay Ritter, who tracks these numbers, documents that we had 3,804 US listed firms at the end of 2024 relative to the peak of around 8000 in 1996. Remarkably we had 1,384 foreign firms listed at the end of 2024. Many blame higher costs reporting and auditing for the smaller number of US listed firms. They point to the cumulative onslaught of Sarbanes Oxley 2022, the 2003 Global Settlement that alleged made it harder for analysts to cover small firms, Dodd-Frank 2010, and the supposedly relentless pace of accounting and auditing regulation pushed by Congress, the SEC and the FASB. The question I want to address is whether there is any evidence for that claim. Trend depends on benchmark period In a research note, Vanguard points out that if we go back to 1972, the decline shrinks to a third. On top of that, 1972 was the year NASDAQ was set up and 3,000 odd new companies entered the public arena. Why the fall? Doidge, Karolyi, Shen and Stulz (2025) list two potential underlying reasons: (i) it is easier to stay private because restrictions on staying private have softened and it has become easier to raise funds for private firms, perhaps due to the low interest rate environment; and (ii) antitrust enforcement over the last decade has been relatively lax and product market competition has heated up leading to a greater number of mergers. They don't seem to devote much space to reporting cost burden. Acquisitions drive most of the decline A McKinsey piece shows that 95% of the exits from our markets are driven by acquisitions. Thus, the so-called missing companies have not left the investible universe for the US investor as the investor gets indirect exposure to the target via the acquirer's stock. Espen Eckbo makes the acquisition point more rigorously. However, the rate of entry and exit into public markets is not uniform across industries. We had more IPOs, relative to exits, in pharmaceutical and biotech industries. The number of IPOs, relative to exits, are more or less the same in retail, materials, consumer apparel and durables. Exits far exceed IPOs in banking, software, technology hardware, media and telecom. Any theory that argues reporting burdens are a first order problem needs to explain why such burden has massively increased for banking, software, tech hardware, media and telecom relative to pharma. Smaller IPOs, mostly micro-caps, gone The McKinsey piece also makes the interesting point that we have far fewer smaller IPOs now relative to the past. This suggests that more of the earlier value is captured by private investors, as private equity firms seem to take longer to exit their positions now relative to before (3 years in 2007 relative to 6 years in 2015). One could argue that the costs of reporting, auditing and compliance have become too large for smaller IPOs to even think about going public. Vanguard points out that the missing IPOs are micro-caps. Is the loss of micro-caps a policy concern? Moreover, Mauboussin, Callahan, and Majd (2017) and Doidge, Karolyi, and Stulz (2017) note that half of what can be referred to as the 'listing gap' (exits more than IPOs) occurred before Sarbanes Oxley became law. Start-ups have declined too Somewhat intriguing, the number of start-ups appears to display mixed patterns since 1996. The Kaufmann index of startup activity falls from 1996 to its nadir in 2013, after which it picks up till 2017, when the index was last published but the 2017 number was still lower than the 1996 number. This suggests that there may be fewer businesses even available to go public. International exchanges I am in the UK as I write this and an institutional investor I know here suggested that the London stock exchange has suffered a similar decline in IPOs. In fact, there is some angst in the UK that they are losing listings to the US. The loss in listings applies to other advanced economies as well, as Espen Eckbo points out. The theory pushing for reporting burdens as the primary explanation will have to explain why UK reporting and reporting in other advanced economies has also become onerously burdensome. Burgeoning private equity (PE) A senior executive tells me,' the payouts achieved by management and their VCs by arranging acquisitions to PE firms, as well as PE to PE sales have been, in recent times, just as compelling as anything other than a truly dramatic IPO. Smaller companies, companies with significant internal ownership, companies without strong growth or high investment opportunities (that is to say not pharma or biotech who absolutely need risk capital), companies where management would like to stay involved but are not keen on public company visibility. These are all great reasons to be acquired by PE rather than either IPO or even getting acquired by a public company rapidly, with certainty, without much publicity. PE is incredibly well equipped at maximizing ongoing cashflows, and growth, while still maintaining: (i) particularly attractive incentives for management in the transaction, (ii) management that stays post transaction with significant incentive retentions and milestones -- all without pesky proxy announcements about executive compensation; and (iii) objectively great returns to those equity holders that are just selling.' The role of reporting for intangibles Rene Stulz (2018) has suggested that new firms heavily invest in intangibles and forced disclosure of intangibles by securities laws, all else constant, encourage firms to stay private. I am not sure of this argument as US public firms barely tell us anything about their intangible investments, especially home grown ones. Papers suggesting that SOX increased regulatory burdens Zhang (2007) finds negative returns of around -15% to -13% around the events surrounding the passage of SOX. I find these returns too large to be credible. Engel, Hayes, and Wang (2007) observed an increase in decisions to go private after SOX. But this evidence is mixed. Bartlett (2008) of the Stanford Law School re-examines this question and concludes, 'non-SOX factors were the primary impetus for the "name brand" buyouts commonly evoked as evidence that SOX has harmed the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets.' Iliev (2010) is perhaps the best cited paper in the area. Using careful research designs, Iliev documents that section 404 of the SOX, which mandates that the auditor attest the internal controls of the firm for the absence of a material weakness, led to conservative reported earnings but also imposed real costs. Iliev compares audit fees and earnings quality for firms with float of $50-75 million to those just above at $75 million-$100 million. The idea is that firms in these two partitions are mostly similar except that Section 404 applies only to firms with float greater than $75 million. He concludes, 'on net, SOX compliance reduced the market value of small firms' and increases audit fees by 167%. Atanasov and Black (2020) replicate Iliev (2010) and conclude that not controlling for firm growth led Iliev (2010) to overestimate SOX compliance costs in his analysis. However, the increase in audit fees suffered by the small firms is real, by about 80%. The dollar numbers underlying these estimates are worth reiterating. The average firm in Iliev's affected firm sample pays more than $0.7 million in greater audit fees. The mean and median earnings of sample firms is -$4.8 million and -$1.4 million respectively. Iliev uses this comparison to argue that the compliance costs of section 404 were substantial. Were they? Would these firms have survived had section 404 not been enacted? Is it obvious that investors would have wanted to invest in such firms? And, how much of the audit fee hike is temporary for a year or two. Even more noteworthy, this evidence relates to micro caps (defined as stocks with market capitalizations of between $50 million and $250 million in 2024). These numbers would be smaller if we went back in time as stock markets have gone up quite a bit in the last 20 years or so. The bigger question is how can we possibly generalize evidence reliant on a sample of microcaps to the entire corporate ecosystem? Ewens, Xiao and Xu (2024), in a new paper, move this literature forward and consider three such natural breakpoints to estimate costs of mandatory reporting: (i) firms below $25 million in float in 1992 were designated as 'small businesses' and escaped a few disclosure requirements; (ii) the $75 million float threshold that Iliev looked for section 404 of SOX; and (iii) the $700 million float threshold used in the 2012 JOBS Act. The 2012 JOBS Act is interesting because the point of that legislation was to exempt smaller firms from a few reporting requirements. So, the JOBS Act presents a bit of a counterfactual to the usual setting whereby regulation increased. Based on these events, they claim that the median firm spends 4.3% of its market capitalization on compliance costs. I find the 4.3% number somewhat big. Moreover, even with the clever econometrics used in the paper, can one really generalize estimates from SOX and JOBS Act to the universe of firms? I don't know. Interestingly, Ewens et al. themselves seem to conclude, 'heightened regulatory costs only explain a small fraction of the decline in the number of public firms over the last two decades. Our results suggest that non-regulatory factors likely played a more important role in explaining the decline in the number of U.S. public firms.' Evidence around the 2012 JOBS Act Researchers are generally good at coming up with unintended consequences of regulations that public firms are required to follow. But we don't often see studies that document the offsetting benefits of going or staying public. The 2012 JOBS Act presents a rare opportunity to consider whether relaxing reporting regulations encourages more IPOs. Dambra et al. (2015) conclude that the 2012 JOBS Act led to an increase of 21 IPOs a year, on average. Ewens et al. (2024) find a slightly higher estimate: roughly 28 additional IPOs. One must wonder whether 20 odd IPOs per year are worth the potential collateral damage to the credibility of US reporting and compliance systems, if the PCAOB were to be dismantled or SOX were to be repealed. Incidentally, many other advanced economies passed regulation, modeled on SOX, in their own countries. Did they not conduct a careful assessment of costs of such regulation on their IPO activity? Or did they recognize the need to tighten up reporting and audit rules after the tech bubble burst in 2001? IPO Tax Robert Jackson's, the ex-SEC commissioner, analysis highlights the 7% tax that middle market IPOs must pay even before they go public, to investment bankers, lawyers and the like. Surely, the IPO tax, which has little to do per se with the reporting and compliance costs of 4.3% highlighted by Ewens et al, deserves more attention. The advocates of cutting reporting burdens are somewhat silent about reducing the 7% middle market IPO tax. And I am aware of startups that are working on software that can write an S1 in minutes with AI. Shouldn't the 4.3% reporting costs, estimated by Ewens et al., fall? Benefits of staying public are often ignored Owners, VCs, and capital providers get liquidity. Public firms can potentially pay labor mostly via stock and hence attract higher quality talent. Stock can be used as a means of payment to buy another company and hence take out a rival or to buy a complementary firm. If you get acquired, the acquirer is usually expected to pay a 25% control premium over the prevailing stock price. In sum, the case for reporting burdens forcing companies to stay private is far from clear. The best evidence relates to micro-caps and generalizing from that set to other companies is not straightforward. Partisan debate about the evidence often tends to ignore the vast number of confounding factors such as low interest rates, falling number of start-ups, special time periods chosen for the analysis and large number of acquisitions of public firms and the 7% IPO tax. If anything, US reporting rules need to be strengthened, not weakened. I have pointed out, time and again, the deficiencies in our financial reporting system and how auditors could potentially do a better job. Regulators may want to proceed with caution the next time someone brings up the hypothesis that reporting burdens are a significant barrier to US firms going public.
