Recently, Electronic Arts (EA), a once publicly traded company, agreed to a deal that will make it go private Once this transition happens, EA will no longer have to publish quarterly earnings that allow shareholders to decide whether they want to keep investing in the company and instead will have to answer primarily to its new owners. This shift gives EA new flexibility, as without the constant pressure to outperform last quarter's profits, they are now able to focus on long-term goals and take more creative risks. However, it also means there will be less public accountability from sacrificing parts of the company solely for profit. The buyout deal was bought at a deficit and financed with debt, which could push the new owners to demand faster profits, potentially by cutting smaller teams or canceling innovative projects. This makes me ask, do you think companies thrive more when under the public scrutiny and short-term pressure to keep increasing profits via quarterly reports, or when they have the freedom to make long-term riskier decisions. Does going private always allow for full innovation, or does it shift the pressure from coming from public stakeholders to private owners?