I don’t think multiples are the issue. The question is: are companies set up to support a philology of long-term decision making? Talk to almost any middle manager in any public company in America if you are confused about whether this is the common case today

> I don’t think multiples are the issue

If multiples aren't higher, why would a company list on your exchange versus on the public market?

Companies care about many things other than mere multiples. And there are many factors that influence multiples. So I think it's accurate to say that companies consider many factors when deciding where and how to list.

Right, then, what are some of the factors that would make it preferable to list on the LTSE?

If investors are not irrational about the long term, then I don't see how there can be a problem. Prices will correctly reflect long-term expectations, and managers who are paid in options/hold equity will face the right set of incentives. If managers focus on the short term it's probably because it maximizes long-term value.

It's kind of interesting to think about growth profiles over time. To grow over some long term span, like say 10 or 20 years, did the growth all take place in the last 90% of the interval or evenly throughout. I guess the premise of a company growing throughout all the short intervals across a long span of time is a good way to know at least something will be there down the road that's not too far off the mark from where you'd like to be with your investments. I'm trying to think of the reconciliation of short term vision with any wisdom contained therein with respect to long term gains.

There's a lot of literature on this topic, and many empirical studies that call these assumptions into question. Just picking one at random from the set I've seen recently: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_Poland_Report/%...

What evidence do you have that investors are not irrational about the long term?