No VC-Backed Companies Go Public In Q2
from the first-time-in-30-years dept
It's rather surprising to find out that, for the first time in about thirty years, not a single venture-backed company went public last quarter. Even in the worst of the various downturns that have happened over the past thirty years, there were always at least a few venture-backed companies that were able to make it out. This news has some folks fretting about what it means for the VC community -- with many pointing out that a bunch of VCs have moved away from "quick flip" internet investments into more long-term alternative energy bets.I'd also guess that Sarbanes-Oxley has a lot to do with this. Going public is a lot less appealing these days thanks to the expenses required under that law. Rather than "cleaning up" the market, it's basically made going public a toxic process, so that everyone stays private and looks for acquisition opportunities. That said, it was obvious during the boom years that companies were going public way too quickly -- and being a public company is no picnic, with the required short-term thinking it demands.
So, what happens instead? There's been some talk of creating some sort of middle road. Rather than taking companies fully public, or selling them off to big players, what about a limited market of private equity investors who would let some of the original VCs and founders cash out, while keeping the company away from public market reporting requirements? This could potentially make a lot more sense for all involved. It basically adds another layer between VCs and the public markets where the private equity guys could either eventually take the company public or sell it off themselves. Even if this doesn't really work out, one thing is pretty clear: VCs will find a way to get money out of investing in startups, even if it's not in taking companies public.
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
Filed Under: ipos, public markets, q2, venture capital
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's not a very good guess but it is your only guess : the article is just an excuse to knock SOX which your commentators have established you have never understood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm. Well, actually, no the article isn't just an excuse to knock SOX. You don't think it's interesting that no VC-backed startup has gone public for the first time in 30 years? That seems worth commenting on.
Also, the focus of the post was on what the lack of an accepting public market might mean for VCs, with the conclusion that they would adapt, whether or not SOX is there.
So to say that this is just bashing SOX suggests that you didn't even read the post.
As for not understanding SOX, I'd disagree, but it's not like you presented any evidence, so my guess is you're just trolling. If you'd like to actually discuss the facts, we can do that, but given what you wrote, my sense is you don't want to discuss. Your comment was "just an excuse to knock" me. Except you failed. Miserably.
Would you like to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sarbanes-Oxley Irrelevent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOX??
I've recently been in Dublin for business, and I was shocked by how little work is going on in the various big building sites around the city (as opposed to the level of activity just 3 months ago). All the big jobs seem to be on hold, with thousands of constructor workers out of work.
As a CISSP-certified former IT security guy, the main effect of SOx is to make executives sweat that all the BS they're spinning can be backed up with plausable denial. Most of the work I was involved in around SOx had little to do with increasing transparency and everything to do with covering the proverbial.
In that regard, it's definately had a negative effect on floatations, 'cos now the VCs can't dump crappy companies on the exchange and run with the money, leaving the poor saps who invested taking the hit when the dodgy accounting bites back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further proof that the cure is worse than the disease...
The result?
No innovation, because it's become too difficult. Be prepared for even more quarters with few to no VC-backed startups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Further proof that the cure is worse than the disease...
In a sense you are correct. SOX was the stupidest legislation in history since our financial institutions were able to create financial instruments (CDO) that were nothing more than a pyramid scheme. The companies are harming themselves through improper risk management and improper accounting, the legislation is not at fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]