The article supplies pre- and post-SOX IPO counts, and while that doesn't prove anything in itself, they do smell like fish.
Another point the article makes is that companies can't afford the massive legal costs of going public and SOX, and that is why so many of them are getting bought up (thus no new public companies). I would think by now that the "cost of going public" would be somewhere along the lines with "the cost of starting a startup" and going down as well -- with digitalization of documents, etc.
So, perhaps it's a matter of the regulation that is in place needing to play "catch up" with the reality of the times.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but anyway, that deal fell through because of regulation. But observing that one aspect of regulation works, is hardly an argument that deregulation is bad.
> "cost of going public"
Other comments in this thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=406433) suggests that going public means slightly more than digitizing documents. No SAAS, no IM, no iTunes, more lawyers, more accountants. But, arguing "regulation is not hurting that much" is hardly an argument that deregulation is hurting more.
Perhaps you have something against me personally? For that, I have no remedy, but to tweet for help: http://twitter.com/indiejade/status/1072506322
"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent."