What exactly was thing the subject matter? Was it something he could have reasonably disagreed with?

> Was it something he could have reasonably disagreed with?

No. He cited a paper showing the opposite effect from what he claimed it to be.

Be specific. Which article and which citation? Otherwise this is insinuation or even slander.

Edit to add: what you've done here is defame every member of the ProPublica staff, past and present (because you don't name a particular writer or article). There is no way for anyone from ProPublica to refute this.

If you want to critique ProPublica honestly, quote a particular statement they've published.

> Be specific. Which article and which citation? Otherwise this is insinuation or even slander

I’m literally calling out a liar. Not sure how you missed that.

But sure. This is the article [1]. Excerpt from my e-mail to the author:

“I came across your post through Dealbook today. In your article you mention that it is ‘argued that [Sarbanes-Oxley] would hurt initial public offerings, which it didn’t.’ You link through to a working paper on the SSRN at ‘didn't’. From the paper linked to:

‘Although the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the 2003 Global Settlement have reduced the attractiveness of being public for small companies, we argue that the more fundamental problem is the increased inability of small companies to become and remain profitable.’

The paper, in whole, posits that structural changes in the attractiveness of exit by acquisition versus IPO are the salient factor behind a secular decrease in IPO activity…Furthermore, the paper directly concedes (see quote above) that SOX negatively impacted IPO activity. This is not how you represented it in your article.”

Eisinger’s response: “Thanks, [JumpCrisscross], for your thoughts.”

> what you've done here is defame every member of the ProPublica staff, past and present (because you don't name a particular writer or article)

I’m calling Jesse Eisinger unreliable. Since he’s a founder in good standing at Pro Publica, I’m calling out the publication. Honest journalists don’t get free passes for negligent or crooked bosses.

Pro Publica is worth reading. It is not authoritative—it does not hold itself up to journalistic standards, a rot which starts at the top.

(I’ve used the above exchange to block Pro Publica from influencing lawmaking on Cheyenne, Albany, Sacramento and D.C. I would want anything they say independently corroborated before being acted on.)

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/the-sox-win-how-financial...

Not sure where you extract is supposed to come from, the paper argue that

> Many have blamed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the 2003 Global Settlement’s effects on analyst coverage for the decline in IPO activity. We find very little support for the conventional wisdom, and offer an alternative explanation

No wonder you got ignored ..

Edit: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1954788

> Not sure where you extract is supposed to come from

The paper. The one that was cited. (It was a working paper at the time.)

Nevertheless, your quote drives the point home. The paper rejects “the conventional wisdom” which “states that low public market prices are due to either lower valuations caused by the lack of analyst coverage, or to lower earnings as a public firm because of SOX and other costs.”

The Pro Publica article says that paper shows SOX did not reduce IPO volumes. That’s false. The earnings channel is rejected. But otherwise, the paper is about acquisition versus IPO.

It’s understandable incompetence. It turns into a lie when presented and rejected.

> No wonder you got ignored ..

If a journalist ignoring me means I can let their work be ignored in multiple state and national capitals, I will take it as a win.

(And with the benefit of hindsight, the article was dead wrong. I built a bit of a career on the private markets starting in 2012, as it happens.)

Thank you for this. Count me as one more person who's been influenced by your exchange with Eisinger.

Edit: My layperson reading of the source makes me think the ProPublica article would be accurate if its link to the source had the text "which it mostly didn't" rather than "which it didn't". I don't have a problem with the article as it's written, but this is a good reminder that journalists writing for a general audience will often omit qualifiers, sacrificing accuracy for readability. (I, on the other hand, cling dearly to my qualifiers.)

I'm just speculating here, but it could be that he doesn't want to risk doxing himself. If he emailed them from his personal email address, which contains his real name, the journalist could out him.

It would be extremely counterproductive for a ProPublica writer to maliciously dox someone who pointed out a logical inconsistency in their writing, if the writer's intent is to bolster their own trustworthiness. Any journalist crazy enough to do this would be forever out of a job because no source would ever speak to them again.

There's a lot of paranoia out there so this is good to know.