Yes, definitely. One of the really interesting things happening in the startup space right now is substantially increased transparency for advisors and investors. E.g.: https://www.leanlaunchlab.com/
On the other hand, there's a problem with publishing too much information: competitors. If for a modest investment I could buy access to the details of our compeitors' QuickBooks accounts and product plans, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Still, I agree with your basic point; publishing information is so much cheaper and easier than in the past that we can shift radically in the direction of increased transparency without imposing significantly greater costs on businesses. If that increases the pool of capital available for innovation, society will be net better off.
True, the competitors argument is the first thing people would cite against continuous meaningful disclosure. The counterargments are
1) Not as important if everyone is disclosing on a level playing field.
2) More information supports better functioning markets==better decisions by the private sector. This is a huge benfit IMO.
3) Often a red herring for hiding weak management, not competitive information.
4) Truly sensitive information can be scrubbed or aggregated. There, a real job for a regulator besides napping.
Bonus point. The startups built around disclosure and analytics could be more interesting than the capital raising jam job companies that are going to be spawned.
On the other hand, there's a problem with publishing too much information: competitors. If for a modest investment I could buy access to the details of our compeitors' QuickBooks accounts and product plans, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Still, I agree with your basic point; publishing information is so much cheaper and easier than in the past that we can shift radically in the direction of increased transparency without imposing significantly greater costs on businesses. If that increases the pool of capital available for innovation, society will be net better off.