For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks
#2Liked the post a lot, there are a lot of things wrong with the investing and valuations frenzy these days. Personally, I was wondering whether a hybrid model is possible: while I do wanna grow organically from the profits of my company, I'm likely to need some initial funding usually in the seed range
Re: For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks
#3On that side note, does anyone know what ever happened to Goldman Sach's special vehicle for outside Facebook investments? I.e what stops companies from setting up their own vehicles for the stock options of their employee's to avoid the 500 rule?
Re: For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks
#4Liked the post a lot, there are a lot of things wrong with the investing and valuations frenzy these days. Personally, I was wondering whether a hybrid model is possible: while I do wanna grow organically from the profits of my company, I'm likely to need some initial funding usually in the seed range
I've heard of some angels accepting deals where they'd eventually get dividends.
Re: For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks
#5IPOs will continue to remain the preferred liquidity event until there is a better vehicle for fast-growing companies, particularly those who are growing fast but are not throwing off cash.
The spirit of going public has always been better liquidity, more transparency, and access to cheaper capital. That spirit hasn't changed so much as been polluted a bit by SarBox and short-sighted board members and investors. The solution isn't to stop going public; it's to fix SarBox and choose your board more wisely.
Re: For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks
#6On that side note, does anyone know what ever happened to Goldman Sach's special vehicle for outside Facebook investments? I.e what stops companies from setting up their own vehicles for the stock options of their employee's to avoid the 500 rule?
Goldman only sold their Facebook shares to non-US clients, because in the US, the deal would violate other rules regarding the privacy of private offerings (essentially too many people knew that Goldman were offering Facebook shares and the offer ceased to be "private" enough for the SEC).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870339660457608...
Re: For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks
#7For me the state of 'liquidity' events is a biproduct of our unsustainable consumption culture. Until people start 'thinking differently' about the type of people, and the type of world they want to be/create, we will continue to see liquidity events of this type.
IMO it became obvious after 2000 that the company cycle ( birth, growth, plataeu, decline, death ) for internet companies is much faster than the regulatory/financial cycle. For traditional 'technology' companies it still makes sense. You could see a hardware company do the whole cycle. But I don't think it works for internet companies. And it fundamentally destroys them, a la Yahoo and now Google.
Re: For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks
#8Why doesn't anyone mention the private option? Multi-Billion dollar operations like Koch Industries are private. You aren't forced to go public per se.
Re: For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks
#9Liked the post a lot, there are a lot of things wrong with the investing and valuations frenzy these days. Personally, I was wondering whether a hybrid model is possible: while I do wanna grow organically from the profits of my company, I'm likely to need some initial funding usually in the seed range
I've heard of some angels accepting deals where they'd eventually get dividends.
I hope they are real dividends and not the 100M dividend associated with the BATS ipo ... (paid out the day before it tried to go public)
Re: For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks
#10But what about the pension funds etc. that finance seniors' retirements? There should be some way for them to get in on the action, otherwise seniors might end up putting even more strain on the social safety net. If pension funds were able to participate, then it would be a good thing. Does the model suggested in this article support such an investor?