4 ms·
Why are you focusing on acquisitions? There are profitable companies that remain private, like 37signals (plus ones you never hear about because there's no poin
by paul 18y ago
Why are you focusing on acquisitions? There are profitable companies that remain private, like 37signals (plus ones you never hear about because there's no point in talking about how much money you make) and also IPO, which is rare but potentially huge. Google alone is worth $86B, at that IPO was only 4 years ago, so your "$10B in the past 5 years" number is clearly incomplete.
- netcan 18y agoIf your thesis is correct, then these are really the ones that need focusing on. If the world is about to be be bombarded with startups, they can't all be bought or go to IPO. The remaining startups will need to find a middle ground of some sort.
- pg 18y agoI don't think there's any limit to the number that could get bought. The upside that founders are willing to trade in exchange for safety is an opportunity that would call acquirers into being if they didn't already exist. And why couldn't there be 100 or 1000 times as many public companies? Stranger things have happened in history.
- netcan 18y ago"And why couldn't there be 100 or 1000 times as many public companies? Stranger things have happened in history." They would need to be smaller or the economy would need to be bigger. Ties in with your other essay.
- sielskr 18y agoThere could be 100 times as many U.S. public companies while Sarbanes-Oxley remains in effect?
- marvin 18y agoObviously not, but that wasn't the point.
- sielskr 18y agoSarbanes-Oxley is probably not going to be repealed or significantly reformed, so was the point purely theoretical?
- marvin 18y agoIt's a mistake to view political barriers as insurmountable. It's practically impossible to repeal the legislation, but maybe someone will open another liquid market for equities through some weird loophole. And remember that we are talking about social change in a timeframe of decades here. There is no telling what could happen. Efficiency and reason tend to win in the end. There is much to be gained by having less bureaucracy and red tape for public companies, assuming that they are public companies of a different type than what they are today.
- fallentimes 18y agoPrivate companies can issue dividends too - it's what we plan on doing if we're fortunate enough to get that far (1). M&A is for suckers (2) and IPOs aren't worth the trouble anymore unless you desperately need liquidity (e.g. Google) or you're not profitable. 1 - Assuming the capital gains tax remains similar to what it is currently. 2 - http://is.gd/2Fla http://is.gd/2Fla http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=304790 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=304790