4 ms·

More companies going public, earlier is better for markets and society. Having companies stay private growing from 0 to 100B value allows VC bros to capture al

More companies going public, earlier is better for markets and society. Having companies stay private growing from 0 to 100B value allows VC bros to capture all the growth and then unload onto the public via IPO or selling to a larger BigTech firm.

devmor 1y ago
If you mean specifically the case of VC companies, this is true. I think the opposite is the case when we’re talking about “naturally grown” companies that didn’t take on serial investor money.
chii 1y ago
> then unload onto the public via IPO this implies they're unloading at a valuation that is higher than it is worth. If so, why do "the public" make the purchase?
- steveBK123 1y ago
  Have you met retail investors? Meme stocks. 0DTE options. NFTs. ICOs. It’s called FOMO.
gkanai 1y ago
> More companies going public, earlier is better for markets and society. I would disagree. Japan is a good example of a market where there are a lot of small public companies and they're largely held by the founders. There is not enough share holder pressure and these small public companies are often barely profitable and run poorly. I am sure there are other markets that are similar to Japan where there are publicly traded companies without enough buyers or liquidity or transparency, etc.
- anon191928 1y ago
  Japan does not have a growing stock market index or economy. So Japan with aging population is not a good example. It does not grow in real terms. It's just an old peoples country at this point and for the future. Nikkei performed bad for decades
- stereolambda 1y ago
  I wouldn't automatically say this is bad. If the money that would end up being more profits percolates throughout society, employees, communities etc., and even the founders themselves (as opposed to concentrated capital), it is actually fine and could produce a healthier society. On the other hand, I grant you that it might (also) feed corruption. But then, I wouldn't bet on concentrated capital not being corrupt as well.

devmor 1y ago

If you mean specifically the case of VC companies, this is true. I think the opposite is the case when we’re talking about “naturally grown” companies that didn’t take on serial investor money.

chii 1y ago

> then unload onto the public via IPO this implies they're unloading at a valuation that is higher than it is worth. If so, why do "the public" make the purchase?

steveBK123 1y ago
Have you met retail investors? Meme stocks. 0DTE options. NFTs. ICOs. It’s called FOMO.

gkanai 1y ago

> More companies going public, earlier is better for markets and society. I would disagree. Japan is a good example of a market where there are a lot of small public companies and they're largely held by the founders. There is not enough share holder pressure and these small public companies are often barely profitable and run poorly. I am sure there are other markets that are similar to Japan where there are publicly traded companies without enough buyers or liquidity or transparency, etc.

anon191928 1y ago
Japan does not have a growing stock market index or economy. So Japan with aging population is not a good example. It does not grow in real terms. It's just an old peoples country at this point and for the future. Nikkei performed bad for decades
stereolambda 1y ago
I wouldn't automatically say this is bad. If the money that would end up being more profits percolates throughout society, employees, communities etc., and even the founders themselves (as opposed to concentrated capital), it is actually fine and could produce a healthier society. On the other hand, I grant you that it might (also) feed corruption. But then, I wouldn't bet on concentrated capital not being corrupt as well.