So the banker who expected Zuckerberg to bow and scrape was still badly mistaken. Zuckerberg isn't really "asking investors for their money" in the IPO, because he doesn't really need that money. That's the point.
Facebook might not have been "forced" to go public, but they still don't really need the cash from the IPO
If they didn't need the cash from the IPO why did they IPO? If they wanted liquidity for employees and investors, then they need to go public and hence should at least pay a modicum of respect (guess who is buying those shares that those investors and employees are selling?)If facebook actually did need the cash, why wait until they hit the 500 investor limit? Hitting that limit is clearly playing a role in the timing of the IPO, even if it didn't "force" an IPO.
If the exit wasn't important, they would stay private and run the business.
What's the percentage of firms with >500 investors that don't IPO?
I wonder if increasing the number of investors past 500 is more about using equity as a recruiting/retention tool than it is about cash.
I think we can agree on the two facts, namely:
- the firm probably doesnt need the cash
- the members of the firm and investors do want the exit provided by an IPO
For posterity's sake let's make this clear: the SEC rule regarding 500 owners is as follows:
> Companies with more than $10 million in assets whose securities are held by more than 500 owners must file annual and other periodic reports. These reports are available to the public through the SEC's EDGAR database.
Source: Securities Act of 1934, paraphrased in http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml
It requires firms to file special reports. The reason why people presume that it means that the firm must go public is simple: there are only a few additional requirements to go public, and the economic advantages in many cases outweigh the paltry effort.
For posterity's sake, this is worth repeating: THERE IS NOTHING FORCING A FIRM TO GO PUBLIC. NOTHING.