News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Silicon Valley’s ‘unicorns’ have regulators worried by erikpukinskis on Saturday April 02, 2016 @04:56PM (#11413398)
Why would I want to sell a company that I enjoy running to a bunch of people who want to turn it into cash?

Public markets seem to be for people who want to take on some debt or are tired of being responsible for the future of their business.

Re:Silicon Valley’s ‘unicorns’ have regulators worried by justin66 on Saturday April 02, 2016 @08:07PM (#11414203)
> Why would I want to sell a company that I enjoy running to a bunch of people who want to turn it into cash?

Liquidity. You might not be happy about other people "turning it into cash," but that doesn't necessarily mean you or your investors don't need cash.

Re:Silicon Valley’s ‘unicorns’ have regulators worried by djcapelis on Saturday April 02, 2016 @04:57PM (#11413410)
Isn't that true for all forms of investment? Including VC?
Re:Silicon Valley’s ‘unicorns’ have regulators worried by erikpukinskis on Saturday April 02, 2016 @05:55PM (#11413675)
To some extent, yes. But if the company is private, a minority shareholder can only sue a majority holder under the terms of the sale. In a public company they can sue under the terms of the SEC. If the company is private, the majority shareholder can act against financial interests if they like.

Public companies are trying to box out specific areas where they might legally do that: C-corps, mission-based exemptions during public sale, etc

But—and this is full on opinion now—I suspect when the chips are down, the courts will rule that Google can't just burn a pile of value because "we like Science" or somesuch thing. They'll get away with it as long as the pile of money is growing. And hopefully that's "forever". But maybe forever isn't as long as we think it is. The world is changing. Snapchat cometh.

Re:Silicon Valley’s ‘unicorns’ have regulators worried by Animats on Saturday April 02, 2016 @10:51PM (#11414691)
I suspect when the chips are down, the courts will rule that Google can't just burn a pile of value because "we like Science" or some such thing.

That's when stockholders file lawsuits alleging violation of director fiduciary responsibility. This can happen with a startup if the management proposes a funding round that's a significant lose for existing shareholders. The directors have the obligation to act in the best interest of the stockholders, not the management.

It also comes up when a company has assets and is losing money, and the stockholders want to liquidate and get some money out, while management wants to burn all the cash out to the bitter end.

Re:Silicon Valley’s ‘unicorns’ have regulators worried by Houstonymous on Saturday April 02, 2016 @05:01PM (#11413423)
I'm going to present two points of view here:

1. Well they used to be for when society recognized that once a large societal and social phenomenon that is a large corporation (really just lots of people agreeing to work together to do something), that at some point that abstract group had some kind of obligation to the public, given, at some point, it becomes hard to separate the public from the corporations (given who staffs 95% of the roles at such mega-corps).

So basically, public markets were for allowing the public to invest in what had essentially become public phenomenon.

Also, once a company becomes public, it's fucking naive to call it "enjoyable" and assume that's as nuanced as you get when thinking about that decision.

Also, you're an idiot. "A company going public wants to take on some debt."

No, they want to sell equity, specifically because they would rather do that than sell bonds ie raise debt.