3 ms·
> And these days you run the risk of some social justice warrior micro fund buying 2 shares going to CALSTRS or whatever and running a proxy fight. I would not
by lovich 4y ago
> And these days you run the risk of some social justice warrior micro fund buying 2 shares going to CALSTRS or whatever and running a proxy fight. I would not want to take a company public these days and I don't see problems with companies staying privately held.
If you’ve reached the size of being a public company, lawsuits are a Tuesday. If the flavor of the frivolous is driving executives and investors decision making, then it’s a cultural choice.
> Oh come on, a lot of good companies stay private bc the SEC makes it a pain in the ass (and expensive) to be public. And it's making it worse with stupid shit like ESG reporting or SOX compliance they just keep adding.
It does make it a pain but it also increases the trust investment has in your company to not do things like trade assets between two vehicles you control with no proof that it’s not to your benefit
Generally agree that these aren’t victims though. To borrow a term from Eve, it seems like they decide to venture into null sec space and are surprised they could get hurt
- 1123581321 4y agoIt used to be more manageable to go public before becoming the size where lawsuits and legal fees mean nothing, is the point.
- collegeburner 4y agoProxy fights are worse than lawsuits. Lawsuits cost money and waste lawyers time, but proxy fights waste the board and executives time and distract them from running the company. Also if you want more companies to be public than this is a bad argument. Also these deals arent suffering from a "lack of transparency". The LPs know exactly what they're doing, they're literally marketed as continuation funds. You really can't complain about high net worth individuals or institutional investors getting "taken advantage of" like you can with some random guy investing his 401k in the public markets. Smh.