4 ms·

You're correct, and the reason I say this particular tyranny of the majority is not evil is because Google has always explicitly stated that they never intend t

You're correct, and the reason I say this particular tyranny of the majority is not evil is because Google has always explicitly stated that they never intend to let their outside shareholders have any power over corporate decisions. Same with Facebook...in fact, these companies have basically stated that if they weren't legally required to have an IPO, they wouldn't. If Google had ever claimed that they would listen to outside shareholders, or even if they hadn't gone out of their way to state that they wouldn't, then the power grab would be deceptive and evil.

helmut_hed 15y ago
Google and Facebook were/are "legally required" to have IPOs? I believe they are only required to release financial statements. Even if that were true, though, claiming this is their sole reason to IPO strikes me as disingenuous, given the improvement in liquidity it provided/will provide for the fortunes of the company's insiders. Surely that played a significant role in their decision-making.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- SatvikBeri 15y ago
  A company is legally required to go public when it has more than 500 shareholders. Google had significant cash reserves before going public and has never had a period where they spent enough cash to go below what they received from the IPO. Facebook is in a similar position of having tons of cash and nothing to do with it. Not to mention, both companies delayed their IPO as long as legally possible, which strongly suggests that they wouldn't have filed if they could get away with it. That's not to say that there are no benefits from becoming a public company. It makes life much better for the employees who received stock options (though it doesn't provide as much of a benefit to, e.g., Larry Page and Sergey Brin). But it's fair to say that neither Google nor Facebook were enthusiastic about going public.

helmut_hed 15y ago

Google and Facebook were/are "legally required" to have IPOs? I believe they are only required to release financial statements. Even if that were true, though, claiming this is their sole reason to IPO strikes me as disingenuous, given the improvement in liquidity it provided/will provide for the fortunes of the company's insiders. Surely that played a significant role in their decision-making.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
SatvikBeri 15y ago
A company is legally required to go public when it has more than 500 shareholders. Google had significant cash reserves before going public and has never had a period where they spent enough cash to go below what they received from the IPO. Facebook is in a similar position of having tons of cash and nothing to do with it. Not to mention, both companies delayed their IPO as long as legally possible, which strongly suggests that they wouldn't have filed if they could get away with it. That's not to say that there are no benefits from becoming a public company. It makes life much better for the employees who received stock options (though it doesn't provide as much of a benefit to, e.g., Larry Page and Sergey Brin). But it's fair to say that neither Google nor Facebook were enthusiastic about going public.