4 ms·

Don’t understand this take at all. The public is free to just not buy the stock if they don’t want. You think the problem is that investors are leaving too muc

Don’t understand this take at all. The public is free to just not buy the stock if they don’t want. You think the problem is that investors are leaving too much potential for growth on the table when companies IPO? They should wait even longer and keep more of that growth private?

will_brown 7y ago
I think a company going public should not operating at $150M losses using VC money...letting them cash out and profit by selling to the public. I also think there are other fundamental benefits to the economy. Yes the public is free not to buy...just as non-accredited investors would be free not to invest in unregistered securities yet regulations are still in place for a reason to protect would be investors. It doesn’t seem unreasonable that is your company operates at a $500,000,000.00 loss over 3 years you can’t avail yourself to the public market and sell your stock to non accredited investors.
- jdavis703 7y ago
  I know people who are wealthy enough to be accredited investors. However I have way more financial literacy than some of these so-called accredited investors. That I’m forbidden from buying and selling certain assets only because I’m not rich enough (yet) really goes against the whole pull yourself up by your own bootstraps ideology.
  - ska 7y ago
    The pull yourself up by your bootstraps stuff isn't the issue here, it's risk management. Accreditation is not in place to define who is informed and smart enough to make the investments, it is defining who can afford to take the loss, and who at least has the resources to do it properly.
    - dcosson 7y ago
      There are lots of other ways for people with limited money to lose it, and there always will be. Casinos, lottery tickets, credit card debt, frivolous purchases, etc. I can’t think of any reasonable argument why allowing a free-thinking adult to, say, put a bit of savings into a friend or relative’s new startup is so much worse than the rest of these that it needs to be illegal.
      - ska 7y ago
        It's the imbalance of power. I don't think accreditation is perfect, but it is fairly reasonable. It is really, really easy to take advantage of naive investors. Sure, there are probably examples of sophisticated investors who don't meet the criteria. But the numbers are tiny, and probably much smaller than the numbers who think they are, but are in fact not. Don't forget, you are still allowed to lose your life savings at "regular" investing. And Casinos have different regulations constraining their ability to fool punters... Accreditation was introduced as risk management, after all. Any time you do something like that you can have a few outliers who are negatively affected. But if the policy is basically sound, overall it is a net win. I think that is the case with accreditation. It's not there to stop you from investing $10k in your friends startup. It's to stop companies from bilking $10k from thousands and thousands of people. Could your friends & family case stand to be eased up a bit? Probably. Does it account for much in the overall scheme. Probably not. Bear in mind the difference between intent and efficacy. All of the things you mention also have regulation or legislative constraints that in theory are also supposed to make it harder for people to naively get themselves in trouble. Why should investment be different? For what it's worth, I also think it should be easier to invest small amounts in higher risk ventures - but that counterbalance should be to put limits on the structuring those ventures are allowed to do in order to offer it. Keep everything relatively simple and transparent, keep the terms and structure easy to understand without having to pay a decent lawyer 2k every time to review...
- freewilly1040 7y ago
  Well there people who disagree and would like to invest in them. Why should your opinion be forced on them?
  - will_brown 7y ago
    There are people who want to invest in ICOs, Ponzi schemes...others want to rape, murder...why should anyone’s opinions be forced on these people?
    - freewilly1040 7y ago
      ICO’s and Ponzi scheme involve misrepresentations to the investor and/or theft
      - blotter_paper 7y ago
        #NotAllICOs
      - will_brown 7y ago
        But you agree people still want to invest in them right? I think ICO proved that there is a market for known fraud/pump and dumps, you may think you can get in and out and make a buck because a bunch of morons don’t see the fraud.
        EpicEng 7y ago
        >But you agree people still want to invest in them right No... people may want to invest in them because they are being actively mislead. You can't just ignore the fraud aspect, it literally makes all the difference.
    - praneshp 7y ago
      4/26/2019: Peak HN was reached at a record 9:58 AM PDT
    - throwawaymath 7y ago
- ssnistfajen 7y ago
  To sell to the public requires someone willing to purchase the shares first. That's how the market works. If someone invests in Slack despite the conitnued losses, it means they see value in the company based on existing metrics. Barring companies from public listings based on some arbitrary numerical threshold is very unreasonable. Even more so when only the losses are emphasized in your previous comments while ignoring the revenue growth. That alone creates a very one-sided and biased view of Slack's financial situation.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

will_brown 7y ago

I think a company going public should not operating at $150M losses using VC money...letting them cash out and profit by selling to the public. I also think there are other fundamental benefits to the economy. Yes the public is free not to buy...just as non-accredited investors would be free not to invest in unregistered securities yet regulations are still in place for a reason to protect would be investors. It doesn’t seem unreasonable that is your company operates at a $500,000,000.00 loss over 3 years you can’t avail yourself to the public market and sell your stock to non accredited investors.

jdavis703 7y ago
I know people who are wealthy enough to be accredited investors. However I have way more financial literacy than some of these so-called accredited investors. That I’m forbidden from buying and selling certain assets only because I’m not rich enough (yet) really goes against the whole pull yourself up by your own bootstraps ideology.
- ska 7y ago
  The pull yourself up by your bootstraps stuff isn't the issue here, it's risk management. Accreditation is not in place to define who is informed and smart enough to make the investments, it is defining who can afford to take the loss, and who at least has the resources to do it properly.
  - dcosson 7y ago
    There are lots of other ways for people with limited money to lose it, and there always will be. Casinos, lottery tickets, credit card debt, frivolous purchases, etc. I can’t think of any reasonable argument why allowing a free-thinking adult to, say, put a bit of savings into a friend or relative’s new startup is so much worse than the rest of these that it needs to be illegal.
    - ska 7y ago
      It's the imbalance of power. I don't think accreditation is perfect, but it is fairly reasonable. It is really, really easy to take advantage of naive investors. Sure, there are probably examples of sophisticated investors who don't meet the criteria. But the numbers are tiny, and probably much smaller than the numbers who think they are, but are in fact not. Don't forget, you are still allowed to lose your life savings at "regular" investing. And Casinos have different regulations constraining their ability to fool punters... Accreditation was introduced as risk management, after all. Any time you do something like that you can have a few outliers who are negatively affected. But if the policy is basically sound, overall it is a net win. I think that is the case with accreditation. It's not there to stop you from investing $10k in your friends startup. It's to stop companies from bilking $10k from thousands and thousands of people. Could your friends & family case stand to be eased up a bit? Probably. Does it account for much in the overall scheme. Probably not. Bear in mind the difference between intent and efficacy. All of the things you mention also have regulation or legislative constraints that in theory are also supposed to make it harder for people to naively get themselves in trouble. Why should investment be different? For what it's worth, I also think it should be easier to invest small amounts in higher risk ventures - but that counterbalance should be to put limits on the structuring those ventures are allowed to do in order to offer it. Keep everything relatively simple and transparent, keep the terms and structure easy to understand without having to pay a decent lawyer 2k every time to review...
freewilly1040 7y ago
Well there people who disagree and would like to invest in them. Why should your opinion be forced on them?
- will_brown 7y ago
  There are people who want to invest in ICOs, Ponzi schemes...others want to rape, murder...why should anyone’s opinions be forced on these people?
  - freewilly1040 7y ago
    ICO’s and Ponzi scheme involve misrepresentations to the investor and/or theft
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      #NotAllICOs
    - will_brown 7y ago
      But you agree people still want to invest in them right? I think ICO proved that there is a market for known fraud/pump and dumps, you may think you can get in and out and make a buck because a bunch of morons don’t see the fraud.
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        >But you agree people still want to invest in them right No... people may want to invest in them because they are being actively mislead. You can't just ignore the fraud aspect, it literally makes all the difference.
  - praneshp 7y ago
    4/26/2019: Peak HN was reached at a record 9:58 AM PDT
  - throwawaymath 7y ago
ssnistfajen 7y ago
To sell to the public requires someone willing to purchase the shares first. That's how the market works. If someone invests in Slack despite the conitnued losses, it means they see value in the company based on existing metrics. Barring companies from public listings based on some arbitrary numerical threshold is very unreasonable. Even more so when only the losses are emphasized in your previous comments while ignoring the revenue growth. That alone creates a very one-sided and biased view of Slack's financial situation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]