31–40 of 59 posts
The solution is going to be moving away from proprietary platforms created by technopolies to decentralized open platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bahaha yes. "White echoed the concerns of some industry insiders that these tech start-ups are missing out on the market discipline public companies receive by being accountable to the whims of public shareholder." Really? Being accountable to whims is a good thing?!!
It puts the fear of the markets and investors in the mind of the CEO and makes him or her work like a dog. As it should. There is definitely something to that. Don't meet analyst expectations and get burned. Yes that keeps you performing rather than doing your thing. At least in the short term it does some thing. In the long run we don't know how it rolls.
Haha. This reminds me of the Simpsons where Homer takes Mr. Burns's boat out to international waters (to circumvent local drinking laws) and the coast guard tells them to come back so they can be under their jurisdiction. Bart: [through a bullhorn] Hey, Coast Guard! Try to stop us now, you lousy Americans. Coast Guard: [through a loudspeaker] We can't hear you! Come three hundred feet closer! Bart: Nice try. You're n…
This is more a case of "We are worried about shenanigans going on behind the scenes. We'd like you to go public so your valuation is market determined and hopefully not a result of said shenanigans."
Whether you think that's good advice probably depends on how good you think Wall St is at valuations compared to private investors. I don't have a lot of faith that either is particularly clear eyed, but I'd probably trust the public valuation more than a private one.
Haha. This reminds me of the Simpsons where Homer takes Mr. Burns's boat out to international waters (to circumvent local drinking laws) and the coast guard tells them to come back so they can be under their jurisdiction. Bart: [through a bullhorn] Hey, Coast Guard! Try to stop us now, you lousy Americans. Coast Guard: [through a loudspeaker] We can't hear you! Come three hundred feet closer! Bart: Nice try. You're n…
> Text after a blank line that is indented by two or more spaces is reproduced verbatim. (This is intended for code.)
Doing this for blocks of text makes it annoying to read, especially on mobile. Just use quotes or a greater than sign.
That's what concerns the SEC. When a "private" company gets big enough to be a significant part of mutual fund portfolios, should it have to start reporting as a public company?
This was a predictable effect of increased regulation of public companies, (SOX) etc, and awareness that a founder can move more strategically without being concerned with quarterlies and accountability to shared owners. Politically it's unsustainable. If we see a half dozen more unicorns with household names people will tie completely private ownership to concerns about inequality: no way for the average person to b…
VCs may be less concerned with the next quarter than public shareholders, but at some point there will be accountability, since they will want to get their money. That requires an IPO, generally, does it not? Or at least an acquisition by an even larger company.
> these tech start-ups are missing out on the market discipline public companies receive by being accountable to the whims of public shareholder Wow, you mean the type of accountability faced by GM, Ford, Exxon Mobile . . . how can this man say that with a straight face ?
And that scares the regulators because they're paid to keep "everybody in the fold" by extolling the virtues of being publicly owned.
Here's a useful tidbit: the mysterious market forces -- the "shareholders" as they're known -- are actually a small group of individuals or groups that pull the levers of the economy. The regulators rely on these lever-pullers to play ball when need be.
Frankly I think these unicorns are right to fear buying into the US economy by going public, the overt assertions of power by the US government are definitely something to avoid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could buy shares in GS or any other public company investing in private companies and/or underwriting IPOs, so there's that. That said, the idea that public capital markets are widely considered to be a way to increase equality , of all things, is stunning to me. I thought/think that people supporting capital markets view them as a method for companies to raise capital in exchange for a share of future profits, a…
> I thought/think that people supporting capital markets view them as a method for companies to raise capital You are correct, people supporting capital markets do view/promote them as a method for companies to raise capital. If you look at the data though, this turns out to be misleading. The amount of money companies raise in initial or subsequent stock offerings through the public capital markets are a fraction of…
It is not a bad idea by itself, and 7% is not an extraordinarily small number. In fact, it looks hight to me.
There are lots of problems to be found in the details, but the picture you paint isn't a dark one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It puts the fear of the markets and investors in the mind of the CEO and makes him or her work like a dog. As it should. There is definitely something to that. Don't meet analyst expectations and get burned. Yes that keeps you performing rather than doing your thing. At least in the short term it does some thing. In the long run we don't know how it rolls.
We know how it rolls in the long run. Terribly - for everyone but the shareholders.