[billpatrianakos]

There may be a few stories like this but this is the exception, not the rule. As much as we have problems here in the states, it's still one of the easiest places to start and run a business (#4 in the world).

I didn't quite get why the guy in the story left for Korea though. It was just a story of an entrepreneur who left the states and is now S. Korea's Zuckerberg. So? I mean, it's impressive but so what if he left? Maybe his particular business would fair better there but again this the exception and not the rule.

There are other countries like China and India that have exploding GDP but the great thing about the U.S. is that while we are decently regulated those regulations don't do much to Hirt the founding of a business and allow businesses to expand easily. For example, India until recently has been chock full of mom and pop shops but not many larger, expanding businesses. This is because they didn't allow you to open a store in more than 2 location until just recently. That means no corporate franchises and the like. Over here you can pretty much do what you please within reason. Not sure why I got off track with the India anecdote but I just learned about it and thought it was very intriguing.

[CWuestefeld]

while we are decently regulated those regulations don't do much to Hirt the founding of a business and allow businesses to expand easily.

On the contrary, consider:

[beginquote] In the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley legislation ..., "the psychology of the entrepreneur has changed dramatically," say Mark Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association. The basic reason is that in a world with Sarbanes-Oxley, everyone who wants to take their company public has to deal with extra paperwork and hoops to jump through. Those costs can add up and sometimes make going public simply not worth it. [1] [endquote]

For further details on this, see also [2]

[1] http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/risky-business/2008/07/1...

[2] http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/606/infocus/p14.htm

[wtvanhest]

If your concern is going public then you have successfully grown a business to a gigantic and reasonably stable level and have beat all the odds. You have therefore picked the correct country.

While Sarbanes-Oxely does pose a financial burden on companies which is still too high (typically $1M to $3M/year), it does provide a level of protection for employees of those companies, bond holders and mutual funds which hold most of America's retirement money.

Paperwork and hoops for going public are handled by accountants and attorneys.

Sarbanes effectively removed corporate governance issues which cause huge problems (like having a captured board or having the audit firm also being paid for consulting etc.

The citations you cited are written by The National Venture Capital Association who lobbies against Sarbanes because it affects their returns. In fact, 69% of NCVA dues go to lobbying.

"We estimate that 69% of your dues will be used for lobbying and is not deductible because of recent changes in federal tax law." http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...

The second article you cite has the following quote: "Despite the many chilling headlines and reported cases where companies have cited SOX as the reason to shelve plans for an IPO, the evidence to date that SOX is sufficient cause for companies to stay private has been largely anecdotal or limited in scale."

--- All that said, SOX is too expensive and the D&O insurance should be reduced to increase public company valuations and IPO valuations. It does represent an unintended burden on shareholders, CEOs, Bond Holders etc. but SOX is overall positive in the sense that it minimizes fraud and reduces risk for all stakeholders including non management employees.