4 ms·

It's interesting to note that many of the potential acquiring companies were the IPOs of the dot-com pre-Sarbox era. Where would we be today if some of the grea

by Todd 16y ago

It's interesting to note that many of the potential acquiring companies were the IPOs of the dot-com pre-Sarbox era. Where would we be today if some of the great companies of this last decade had been able to IPO? We would at least have a larger number of companies able to acquire more smaller-scale companies. Better for jobs and the economy, at the very least. Sadly, Washington doesn't seem to be in the mood to make any of this easier these days.

marcamillion 16y ago
Well...you have to remember that Washington is not only in the business of spurring the economy, but avoiding disasters. While I don't think heavy regulation and onerous filing processes make the system completely fail-safe, it does provide some amount of deterrence to would-be crooks. You can't completely get rid of everything, so we just have to work within the system we have. Fortunately, man is ingenius. If it weren't for a weaker IPO market and an adjusted acquisitions market, I don't think we would have seen the birth of Y-Comb. The main function of Y-Comb is to facilitate much earlier stage exits (i.e. $5M, or even earlier) if needs be. You can't do that with traditional VC. So it's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.
- anamax 16y ago
  > While I don't think heavy regulation and onerous filing processes make the system completely fail-safe, it does provide some amount of deterrence to would-be crooks. How about some supporting evidence? After all, AIG was regulated by at least two federal authorities and some foreign ones. They got into trouble selling a product that US regulators asked them to sell. Fannie and Freddie were essentially govt run. We keep hearing about how banks and their management need to have more "skin in the game". How about making regulators and politicians do the same?
- marcamillion 16y ago
  @anamax Did you try to run a scam in the real estate bubble? You probably didn't. Therefore the regulations worked. The reality is that with absolutely no regulation, there is an incentive to do lots of hanky panky. With regulation, you take away the incentive to the casual 'crook', or 'opportunity taker'. However, no amount of regulation will prevent the most hard-nosed of crooks. Just like no amount of security will stop the most hardcore hacker/burglar. With regards to the mortgage crisis, there were financial incentives to skirt regulation. People respond directly to incentives, so it is no surprise that happened.

by Todd 16y ago

marcamillion 16y ago

Well...you have to remember that Washington is not only in the business of spurring the economy, but avoiding disasters. While I don't think heavy regulation and onerous filing processes make the system completely fail-safe, it does provide some amount of deterrence to would-be crooks. You can't completely get rid of everything, so we just have to work within the system we have. Fortunately, man is ingenius. If it weren't for a weaker IPO market and an adjusted acquisitions market, I don't think we would have seen the birth of Y-Comb. The main function of Y-Comb is to facilitate much earlier stage exits (i.e. $5M, or even earlier) if needs be. You can't do that with traditional VC. So it's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

anamax 16y ago
> While I don't think heavy regulation and onerous filing processes make the system completely fail-safe, it does provide some amount of deterrence to would-be crooks. How about some supporting evidence? After all, AIG was regulated by at least two federal authorities and some foreign ones. They got into trouble selling a product that US regulators asked them to sell. Fannie and Freddie were essentially govt run. We keep hearing about how banks and their management need to have more "skin in the game". How about making regulators and politicians do the same?
marcamillion 16y ago
@anamax Did you try to run a scam in the real estate bubble? You probably didn't. Therefore the regulations worked. The reality is that with absolutely no regulation, there is an incentive to do lots of hanky panky. With regulation, you take away the incentive to the casual 'crook', or 'opportunity taker'. However, no amount of regulation will prevent the most hard-nosed of crooks. Just like no amount of security will stop the most hardcore hacker/burglar. With regards to the mortgage crisis, there were financial incentives to skirt regulation. People respond directly to incentives, so it is no surprise that happened.