Is Irrational Exuberance Good For Innovation?
from the questions,-questions,-questions dept
With big name VCs worrying about the lack of meaningful exits (read: no real IPO market, and no, Google buying YouTube doesn't count), some are beginning to wonder if the continuing chill in IPOs is harming innovation by making it quite difficult to fund companies that are doing truly innovative things. While there are some mergers and acquisitions, they're still not all that common -- and as the article makes clear, mergers and acquisitions aren't necessarily the greatest way to drive innovation forward. Often the acquiring company is only interested in one aspect of what it has bought, and lets many of the other, more creative and innovative aspects fall aside. So, do we need IPOs to drive innovation? There are two schools of thought here. One is that all those IPOs, while they encouraged lots of investment money to go into new companies and new ideas, didn't really help innovation. All it did was create a bubble where the investment risk was shifted from professional investors (the VCs and their investors) to the public. When the bubble burst, it lost a lot of people a lot of money. However, the flip side is that, while any individual deal may be overhyped and bad, a bubble-like atmosphere with easy money flowing all around actually does help drive progress by allowing companies to quickly throw up many different ideas to see what sticks. Many of them will fail, often wasting millions of dollars, but the ones that come through it all and withstand the test of time are what drives the economy forward. In other words, with a free and open IPO market, a lot of individual investors get screwed, but the ability to easily fund even the most wacky ideas leads to some real progress.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
money, money, money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
science?
Truth is, the people doing true reseach and inovation are few and far in between. The rest just good at using the buzz words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it will include Web 2.0 and.. umm.. Social Networking! and Nanotech. and its machine washable, walks your dog, teaches your children how to read and fire medium range surface to surface artillary pieces.
buy now, and in this incredible offer Il send you Nothing, at no extra cost (plus shipping and handling) *some boxes may contain flesh-eating nanotech robots bent on world domination. if found, return to sender**.
**do not get blood all over the UPS return label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Screwed?"
And if there is any misunderstanding of the risks involved, it is more often the result of the false sense of security provided by SEC regulations that, while punishing businesses and investors, offers no hope of compensation - or really any promise of ethical behavior - from the companies they "regulate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
strange science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation?
Capitalism is a kind of Darwinian exercise in survival of the fittest, and a I think that there certainly are new business models that emerged from the dot.com bust (ebay, yahoo!, Amazon). And the "investors" (who didn't really know what the hell they were doing, and therefore, I wouldn't even call them investors) who got "screwed" were asking for it.
Personally, the most interesting thing I find about this area right now is how Google is treating this merger with YouTube. I've only read a little about it (can’t find much info on it), but from what I understand, they are going to acquire YouTube, and let it run on its own. If this is the case (which I’m definitively NOT sure of), then Google would be putting itself in a position of acquiring companies simply because they are good companies to own. This would be more along the lines of a Warren Buffet / Berkshire Hathoway type of scenario, and quite a change from Google’s philosophy of swallowing companies whole.
I do know Google would like to emulate the long term outlook and successful strategy employed by Buffett (who wouldn’t) and have specifically stated such, so maybe this is their first step in that direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironic
Heh. Im sure it doesnt mean anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ahhahaha... i want one already, useful skills to teach your kids....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]