logoalt Hacker News

czinck • today at 2:41 AM • 1 reply • view on HN

Can you explain your objection more? They have several sections of their S-1 dedicated to this, and it's been public knowledge for a while (the other big IPO this year had it as a pro), so I'm not sure what you mean by "misconduct in their financial reporting obligations"


Replies

eqvinox • today at 3:14 AM

They can have as many pages of explanation on it as they want, it doesn't address the fact that they need to be factored into headline numbers. It's the distinction between technical correctness and communicative correctness. It's like surprising and unusual clauses in contracts - those are invalid too if you aren't sufficiently upfront about it.

It's an IPO, the P is public. The information needs to be consumable by the public. The level of knowledge that can be expected of a random IPO stock buyer isn't the same as that of a VC or private fund.

And that's exactly where the SEC comes in. The 1930s went wrong enough, no point in doing a 2030s repeat.

➕ show 2 replies