THE public markets in America are much less crowded than they once were. Twenty years ago America was home to 8,000 listed domestic firms; now the total is close to 4,000. In 2016, 74 firms made their stockmarket debut, compared with 600 two decades ago. This winnowing is unwelcome. Merger activity, which reduces the number of listed firms, is damaging competition. Overregulation, which deters younger firms from floating, deprives ordinary investors of opportunities to benefit from America’s corporate successes.

美国公共市场不再像过去那样拥挤不堪。二十年前，美国国内有8000家上市企业， 而现在总数接近4000家。2016年一年有74家企业上市，而二十年前有600家。这样的淘汰方式不太受人欢迎。并购活动减少了上市企业的数量，也正在破坏竞争力。过度监管限制了新兴企业的发展，同样也剥夺了它们从美国与他国成功的合作中获益的机会。

Less obvious is why the firms themselves, or their investors, should care. Companies that once had to go public to raise capital can happily fund themselves in private markets with money from sovereign-wealth funds and institutional investors. Unicorns, privately held tech startups with valuations exceeding $1bn, are common. Cash keeps pouring into the industry. This week Saudi Arabia promised up to $45bn to a $93bn technology fund run by SoftBank, a Japanese technology conglomerate (see article). Given a choice between red tape and freedom of manoeuvre, between quarterly earnings calls and long-term strategy, wouldn’t anyone in their right mind steer clear of the public markets? Actually, no.

不太明显的是，企业自身以及它们投资者们应关注这种现象的原因。 以前不得不通过上市筹资的企业现在通过私人市场，轻松地获得主权财富基金和机构投资者的投资。估值超过10亿美元私人控制的“独角兽”企业比比皆是。现金在不断涌入这个行业。本周，沙特阿拉伯承诺向日本软银科技集团（SoftBank）向一个总额为930亿美元的科技基金投入450亿美元。如果要在繁文缛节和决策自由之间作出决择，在季度收益与长期战略之间做出决择，任何人在他们的头脑中都会避开公开市场吧？ 实际上，并非如此。

Take the argument that staying private lets unicorns operate more freely. The transparency that accompanies a public listing has its own benefits. Closer oversight might have more quickly rooted out problems at Theranos, a blood-testing startup whose $9bn valuation crumbled because of defects in its products. The rigmarole of public filings and quarterly calls might inject more sobriety into the brash culture of Uber, a ride-hailing firm. Astute startups like Slack, an online messaging firm, and Airbnb, a home-sharing site (see article), have deliberately taken on some of the accoutrements of listed firms, from regular audits to respected CFOs.

拿独角兽企业保持非公开上市状态能更自由地经营观点为例。上市企业必须拥有的透明度本自是有好处的。严格的审查原本能更为快速地挖掘出验血创业企业Therano的问题。这是一家市值达90亿美元的创业企业，却因产品的缺陷而一败涂地。漫长而复杂公开报告以及季度性的财报电话会议能让打车企业优步的傲慢企业文化里注入一些严肃性。网络通讯企业Slack和民宿共享企业Airbnb等聪明的创业企业都有意采用上市企业的一些制度，包括常规的审校制度以及聘用有声望的CFO。

As for the costs saved by staying private, some are being transferred from firms to investors. Public companies bear the expense of the detailed reporting and formal governance processes needed to keep outside investors in touch. Unicorns may be under a weaker spotlight, but their investors still carry out due diligence and market valuations, which they pay for themselves. The savings of private ownership can be illusory.

相比于保持非上市状态所节约的成本而言，有一部分成本正从企业转嫁到投资者身上。上市企业要承担编写详细财报以及正式的治理流程费用，这些都要用于保持与外部投资者的联系。独角兽企业始受到了关注可能不是太强，但是，它们的投资者仍然展开尽职调查以及市值评估——这些都需要他们承担费用。非上市所有权能节省成本的想法只能是幻想。

Even if the public and private markets are converging, clear differences remain. Private markets are developing new ways for startups’ employees, the most valuable resource in techland, to cash in their shares. But public markets are far more liquid: that is one reason why Spotify, a music-streaming unicorn, is flirting with the idea of a direct listing, whereby a firm gets a ticker without raising any new capital.

即使公开市场和非公开市场趋同，差异性仍然存在。私人市场正在为科技领域最具价值的资源——创业公司的员工——开辟新途径，将他们的股份变现。不过，公开市场的流动性更强：这就是在线音乐独角兽企业Spotify一直传出直接上市的绯闻的原因——一家公司在不筹集任何新资本的情况下上市。

Private markets have slowly opened up to a wider pool of investors, mutual funds among them. But the inclusive nature of public markets offers better protection against reputational damage. That is because technology firms are changing the way societies and economies work. For firms that are at the centre of public-policy debates, a broad base of shareholders, able both to benefit from firms’ success and to question their activities, looks better than one dominated by plutocrats.

私人市场慢慢向更广泛的投资者开放，其中包括共同基金。不过，公共市场具有包容性，能更好地防止声誉受损。这是因为科技企业正在改变社会和经济的运行方式。对于那些处于公共政策辩论焦点之中的企业来说，一个广泛的股东基础，既能从企业的成功中获益，又能质疑他们的活动，看起来比由富豪主导的企业要好。

Stock answers

股市的答复

Public markets are also behaving more like private ones, by enabling founders to retain an iron grip even when they list. Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, sold shares in March but gave up no voting rights. That bothers advocates of shareholder democracy. But it weakens an argument entrepreneurs often make against floating (even as investors acquire a useful ability to divest positions easily or to sell shares short).

公开市场如今的操作更接近非公开市场：企业创始人甚至在上市时，仍牢牢抓紧控制权。Snapchat母公司Snap在3月份出售一些股份，但因没有放弃选举权。这个举动拥护股东民主性的人感到不安。但是，这个举动削弱了创业者通常反对流动的论点（甚至当投资者掌握了一种实用的技能轻易地转让或做空股票。）

Public markets are not perfect. But for unicorns to think of them as somewhere to steer clear of for as long as possible is wrong-headed. That is even truer of their investors.

公开市场并非完美。但是，对于独角兽公司而言，把它们想象成一个在某处尽可能长时间避开的问题是坚持错误的变现。对它们投资者来说，更是如此。

编译：韦兰如

审校：党利娜

编辑：翻吧君

来源：经济学人