Sarbanes-Oxley isn't solely responsible but it's one factor weighing on the scales. There is extra administrative overhead which costs real money, plus it exposes the company's leaders to more potential liability.
The bill was well intentioned. But it has had the unintended side effect of locking retail investors out of many of the highest returning investments. There is overall a shrinking number of companies publicly traded on US markets as more companies merge, go bankrupt, go private, or never go public in the first place. This is a growing problem for defined-contribution retirement plans.
> locking retail investors out of many of the highest returning investments
maybe there's a narrative that by preventing retail investors from investing in high return investments they have also protected retail investors from high-risk investments (if we believe the returns are proper risk premia!)
The bill was well intentioned. But it has had the unintended side effect of locking retail investors out of many of the highest returning investments. There is overall a shrinking number of companies publicly traded on US markets as more companies merge, go bankrupt, go private, or never go public in the first place. This is a growing problem for defined-contribution retirement plans.