[GreenPlastic]

Ironically, one of the core reasons for less IPOs is Sarbanes-Oxley, which was meant to protect retail investors but instead has had the second order effect of reducing the number of IPOs and limiting the available higher growth / higher risk opportunities these same investors.

[onetimeusename]

This is very accurate. It is extremely costly for companies to have an IPO. The regulatory burden is very high for publicly traded companies.

A history of financial laws designed to protect consumers has actually reduced the number of investment opportunities except for ultra-rich people.

Look up the definition of 'qualified investor' from the Securities Act of 1933. It prevents people below a threshold of wealth from being able to invest in certain things.

Similarly, based on my own experience having worked with proprietary trading outfits in the past, the FATCA laws just caused European banks to no longer want to do business with Americans which reduced the number of available investment opportunities again.

[bitreality]

For young people especially, the investment opportunities are an absolute bore. It makes a lot more sense to take big risks when you are young, and by implementing the 'qualified investor' requirements, many young people will never have a chance to invest in the exact companies which interest them the most.

A 25 year old who loses a $10K investment in Myspace, or Digg can easily bounce back. It's well worth the chance of investing early in a company like Snapchat or Facebook which could give them a shot at a 10-100X return.

There's a reason so many people poured money into Bitcoin and crypto. Most of the projects are pointless, but young people have very little interest in earning 5-10% in stocks, since they don't have a ton of capital to invest.