Live data from Hacker News

The decline of the $10 million IPO, and why it matters

urgentspeed.com

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: The decline of the $10 million IPO, and why it matters

#21
The part about small caps being sold and not bought is particularly interesting to me.

Right now I'm working on a stealth project that will address the needs of small cap and private companies wishing to raise cash on equity. We've had amazing feedback from the small number of companies and investors already involved. Think Kickstarter except getting equity instead of cheap plastic trinkets. We'll also have the ability to get someone to call you who can speak knowledgeably to the details of the deal and can connect you with a licensed & regulated professional to handle the execution. $10 million IPOs are very common, look at an exchange like the TSX.V it's filled with small IPOs in the Resource sector. A large part of the logic behind the proposed TSX / LSE merger is to address exactly the concerns of the resource sector and have a single exchange which is dedicated to the resource sector.

We're going to rock the startup finance scene pretty hard. If you're looking to IPO think Canada, not California. Our financial institutions are as rock solid as the Canadian Shield.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/globe-t...

HFT is much less common in Canada, and it's a perfect market to do a small IPO. In the last 20 years Canada has drastically changed it's tax code in relation to corporations. We also don't have Sarbox and other onerous requirements. I'm not an accountant but IIRC the small biz tax rate is something like 11%. A $10 million IPO is never going to make the front page of the NYT but they are definitely out there.

Re: The decline of the $10 million IPO, and why it matters

#22
post #2

very good article...but I think it's underestimating the culture shift of companies not even considering IPOs in that range

How does it make sense to do a $10 million IPO when they are going to spend 20 percent of the proceeds to implement SOX?

There needs to be some change in the security laws to allow small companies to opt out of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Re: The decline of the $10 million IPO, and why it matters

#23
Back in the day, when a $10 million IPO was too big and you wanted to raise only a million or so one of the places you turned was to the Vancouver Stock Exchange. (It was also the place to lose your shirt or gain a fortune betting on penny stock mining firms).

It's changed hands and is now known as the Canadian Venture Exchange, and is still a great place for sub-$10 million IPO's. It's last IPO was for a mining firm who raised 5.75 million dollars selling shares at 50 cents a pop.

Re: The decline of the $10 million IPO, and why it matters

#24
post #9

This entire article is just a bunch of moaning and bitching about how things are not like they used to be back in the olden times when stock brokers could make easy money without being too smart or working too hard by just answering the phone, executing orders and taking bribes for "research." (Note that stockbrokers can and still do make a lot of money nowadays, they just need to be much smarter and trickier about i…

Yeah but the economy is a lot bigger now too. It is an indisputable fact that the U.S. IPO market smaller in both size and frequency. It isn't the only cause, but Sarbox has hammered public companies with huge regulatory costs for absolutely no benefit-- indeed, there is some evidence that corporate malfeasance is easier today because the rules are so complex, the true risks are easier to bury. SarBox certainly didn'…

[...] at least Enron and WorldCom crooks went to jail.

Good point — modern crooks got bonuses and their companies were saved from bankruptcy.

Re: The decline of the $10 million IPO, and why it matters

#25
post #6
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stocks used to be priced in eighths of a dollar. So if a stock was selling for $1.50, the next increment up was $1.625 and the next step down was $1.375. They are now priced down to the penny, so a $1.50 stock can go directly to $1.51 or $1.49. I'm not entirely sure why he cites this as a bad thing, but I'm assuming that there's some arbitrage opportunity to value investors when dealing with eighths of a dollar (sinc…

Don't know if it's in any way the cause of anything related to a decline in IPO, but this spread is what the banks make money on and what enables them to do what they do, effectively a measure of their margin on trades. Going from an eighth to a hundredth just means their margins effectively were reduced, but was probably a result of an increase in volume / trading activity.

I think there is a couple of things going on here, though. Decimalization made stock market-making less profitable for Investment Banks. And the re-regulation of stock analysis prevents banks from using research analysts to tout stocks. By making it worth less to investment banks to invest in research, every customer has to invest more in research. Arguably this isn't too bad a problem - until it comes to smaller stocks, where the knowledge-base of the market is getting hollowed out - and liquidity dries up since no-one who is not in the stock has much incentive to do the initial research.

The same thing happened in High Yield Bonds. The NASD (FINRA) brought in reporting system for bond prices (TRACE) that made trading bonds inherently less profitable for the middle-men (though much more transparent for investors). That meant that there was less incentive for the middle-men to do research, causing researchers to leave to join hedge-funds. So the end-game is a very fragmented market, where if an investor wants to sell a bond, they don't have an audience that's had any consistent commentary on the situation from a 'neutral' middleman.

Re: The decline of the $10 million IPO, and why it matters

#26
Let's talk about the list of software companies that are probably going to IPO in the next couple of years: Facebook, Groupon, Yelp, Pandora, LinkedIn, Zynga, Twitter

One of the big differences of today's IPO market, is that many of these company's founders have been able to take some money off the table. The founders are rich and early employees are able to have some liquidity via secondary markets. At the same time, there's a lot more capital available to large companies at this stage than there ever was. (See DST's recent investments, Andreesen Horowitz's recent investments). So, the typical reasons that have pushed companies to IPO aren't there any more. That lets technology companies run for a lot longer before they have to IPO or get huge acquisitions.

So, while there haven't been as many software company IPO's as there have been in the past, my gut is that the ones that we do have are going to be larger and more successful.

Re: The decline of the $10 million IPO, and why it matters

#27
post #15
post #11

Doesn't anyone else see a huge opportunity here? If we set aside regulation for a moment, there is a _huge_ demand for a liquid market for privately held stock. Both investors and companies would have huge benefits from being able to trade stock on a market that's not connected to the traditional exchanges. I'm standing on the investor side of things, annoyed out of my head that it is impossible to invest in the comp…

> Doesn't anyone else see a huge opportunity here? Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this essentially what sharespost and secondmarket are doing?

Hehe, forgive _my_ ignorance..these companies are doing pretty much what I was suggesting. I'm not that versed in the details of reasonably young companies.
Post reply on HN