My reasoning is this: A company goes public to raise capital at the price of giving up a certain amount of power and control to the shareholders. Now, if someone founds a company and can borrow risk capital from banks at low interest rates, it seems to me that this founder might prefer to let the company grow somewhat longer under his control before going public than in case of high interest rates on risk capital. This, however, means that after the IPO there is less growth left for the investors.
If that effect exists, it would imply that the current "cheap money" policy of many central banks does actually have a negative impact on the expected growth in value of (some) newly issued shares.
Certain (semi-)recent IPOs seem to confirm this reasoning but of course I might be horribly biased in this observation. For example, Beyond Meat and Oatly both went public at a point where their products could already be bought worldwide at large supermarket or restaurant chains.
On the other hand, there are companies which go public without even having a (fully working) product, like Nikola. But some of these companies seem to be "fake", which explains why they don't find a cheap way of raising capital without going public, even under the current circumstances. I would not count such fake companies, which temporarily exploit some short-time hype or trend, as valid counterexamples to the above reasoning.
But perhaps the reasoning is still totally wrong?