6 ms·

Non-US businesses find it baffling that transparency is so extraordinarily low in the US. Even the smallest UK company has to publish information on fundraising

by dbuxton 10y ago

Non-US businesses find it baffling that transparency is so extraordinarily low in the US. Even the smallest UK company has to publish information on fundraising and basic finances (admittedly, with quite a big lag). The same applies basically everywhere in Europe. Russia is in many ways far more transparent than the US for company data (both financials and ownership/funding). Given the regulatory attitude to small business secrecy in the US, it's not at all surprising that companies can implode even when there is a lot of noise and publicity. Typically the rationale for this though is to protect counterparties, not employees per se as the author suggests. (And also just that sunlight is the best disinfectant).

beachstartup 10y ago
you're not seeing it from the other side. in those countries, you couldn't hope to land your first client if you are a small unfunded startup with no brand-name investors or significant revenue. i.e. you have to be connected to start a business, good luck trying to bootstrap anything. i believe this is a net negative. in the US, you can, because nobody can just click a few buttons and see you have no significant customer base or brand name investors.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  How is it a net negative? Should people not have the right to know exactly what kind of company they are about to do business with? When you invest in a product or platform, do you not want to be able to evaluate whether it will be around in 3 years?
  - gregmac 10y ago
    > When you invest in a product or platform, do you not want to be able to evaluate whether it will be around in 3 years? How do you judge based on that? Even Apple had a customer #1.
    - friendzis 10y ago
      There are fundamental differences between tangible products and services - change and company shutdown. Tangible goods are sold as-is, can be evaluated as such and remain functional even in the event of company shutdown (unless its heavily backend dependent). Services, on the other hand, are expected to receive improvements (and startup services are quite often sold with future improvement roadmap) and die with the parent company, possibly with all your data.
      - beachstartup 10y ago
        and when google/apple/facebook buys your service and shuts your service down, where does this logic leave your customers? these heuristics are completely invalid in today's economy. sure they sound intuitive, but they're not. http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ in fact i could make a reasonable case that having brand name funding means you're more likely to NOT be around in 3 years
  - LanceH 10y ago
    You have every right to know it. Put it in the contract before signing. They (a private company) has every right not to tell you and not to do business with you.
  - beachstartup 10y ago
    first of all, how do you evaluate what is going to be around in 3 years given this data? haven't you seen ANY of the recent acquisition/shutdowns by google, yahoo, facebook, etc? you're fooling yourself into thinking anything has any longevity based on who just bought who, or invested in whom. quite frankly this line of thinking is naive. and ultimately no, they do not have the 'right' to know who owns your business, they can use their best judgment based on availability of data, or no data. you think corporations have rights? are you sure your thinking is internally consistent with the rest of your beliefs about corporations/companies? they could force you to divulge, or not sign a contract, just like a business partner or a bank. that's as far as the rights should extend... the extent of their leverage in negotiating. forcing individuals/sole proprietorships/partnerships/LLCs to reveal how much revenues and who owns them they have is not good, in my opinion. you can feel free to disagree. you've probably never bootstrapped a company or sold anything for a living so i get why you feel that way. http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Just because there's another side doesn't mean it's equally valid.

by dbuxton 10y ago

beachstartup 10y ago

you're not seeing it from the other side. in those countries, you couldn't hope to land your first client if you are a small unfunded startup with no brand-name investors or significant revenue. i.e. you have to be connected to start a business, good luck trying to bootstrap anything. i believe this is a net negative. in the US, you can, because nobody can just click a few buttons and see you have no significant customer base or brand name investors.

enraged_camel 10y ago
How is it a net negative? Should people not have the right to know exactly what kind of company they are about to do business with? When you invest in a product or platform, do you not want to be able to evaluate whether it will be around in 3 years?
- gregmac 10y ago
  > When you invest in a product or platform, do you not want to be able to evaluate whether it will be around in 3 years? How do you judge based on that? Even Apple had a customer #1.
  - friendzis 10y ago
    There are fundamental differences between tangible products and services - change and company shutdown. Tangible goods are sold as-is, can be evaluated as such and remain functional even in the event of company shutdown (unless its heavily backend dependent). Services, on the other hand, are expected to receive improvements (and startup services are quite often sold with future improvement roadmap) and die with the parent company, possibly with all your data.
    - beachstartup 10y ago
      and when google/apple/facebook buys your service and shuts your service down, where does this logic leave your customers? these heuristics are completely invalid in today's economy. sure they sound intuitive, but they're not. http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ in fact i could make a reasonable case that having brand name funding means you're more likely to NOT be around in 3 years
- LanceH 10y ago
  You have every right to know it. Put it in the contract before signing. They (a private company) has every right not to tell you and not to do business with you.
- beachstartup 10y ago
  first of all, how do you evaluate what is going to be around in 3 years given this data? haven't you seen ANY of the recent acquisition/shutdowns by google, yahoo, facebook, etc? you're fooling yourself into thinking anything has any longevity based on who just bought who, or invested in whom. quite frankly this line of thinking is naive. and ultimately no, they do not have the 'right' to know who owns your business, they can use their best judgment based on availability of data, or no data. you think corporations have rights? are you sure your thinking is internally consistent with the rest of your beliefs about corporations/companies? they could force you to divulge, or not sign a contract, just like a business partner or a bank. that's as far as the rights should extend... the extent of their leverage in negotiating. forcing individuals/sole proprietorships/partnerships/LLCs to reveal how much revenues and who owns them they have is not good, in my opinion. you can feel free to disagree. you've probably never bootstrapped a company or sold anything for a living so i get why you feel that way. http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
st3v3r 10y ago
Just because there's another side doesn't mean it's equally valid.