2014年6月29日星期日

The IPO is dying. Marc Andreessen explains why

The IPO is dying. Marc Andreessen explains why

Twenty years before, a 22-year-old Marc Andreessen co-founded Netscape, the company behind the elementary commercially thriving a tangled web browser. Netscape went in the public domain the subsequently time, making Andreessen wealthy and marking the start of the dot-com boom of the 1990s.

These days, Andreessen is a prominent venture capitalist by the side of the solidify Andreessen Horowitz. I asked him to have a discussion roughly how the standard marketplace has misused on top of the carry on two decades. Now the 1990s, it was general in favor of petite companies to take part in opening in the public domain offerings (IPOs), now which they offer their shares in favor of transaction to the broad-spectrum in the public domain. But these days, companies stay a plight longer to influence their IPOs.

In favor of instance, Netscape went in the public domain whilst it was worth a slight supplementary than $2 billion, and this wasn't extraordinary. In favor of comparison, Twitter waited until it was worth roughly $25 billion otherwise it went in the public domain carry on time. Facebook was worth supplementary than $100 billion whilst it had its IPO now 2012.

Many companies aren't free in the public domain by the side of all. In favor of instance, Google bought the mother country computerization company Nest earlier this time in favor of $3.2 billion. Two decades before, Nest would take part in been supplementary likely to influence an IPO.

Now this interview, conducted on June 12, Andreessen offers his view on why companies are waiting longer to IPO. He argues with the aim of the move is bad in favor of ordinary investors, who rebuff longer take part in the opportunity to invest now fast-growing expertise firms. He in addition offers his view on the exertion of Thomas Piketty, a French economist who has deliberate the growing gap linking rich and poor.

The transcript has been edited in favor of strip and clarity.

Timothy B. Lee: The daylight you took Netscape in the public domain now 1994, it was worth around $2.2 billion ($3.5 billion now today's dollars). Recently, companies take part in been waiting a plight longer to depart in the public domain. Could you repeat that? Organize you think has misused?

Marc Andreessen: There's been an entirely dramatic amendment. Could you repeat that? You say is exactly justified. Twenty years before, IPOs had gotten democratized. You had Microsoft able to depart in the public domain by the side of a lesser amount of than $1 billion valuation. If you invested now Microsoft's IPO and held you had the option now the in the public domain marketplace of a 1,000-times secure. Near were a in one piece bunch of other comparable situations on top of the years. With seer, nearly everyone of the secure was now the in the public domain marketplace. Now previous eras, the same was proper of IBM and Hewlett Packard. These companies primarily grew up now the in the public domain marketplace.

Ironically, you right had a much peacemaker marketplace. You had a much better percentage of mutual funds as a substitute of protect funds, and you in point of fact had supplementary private participation now the marketplace a plight of the generation. It's dramatic how much private participation has dropped next of kin to funds. Folks who wanted to take place now growth stocks, institutions like mutual funds with the aim of wanted to take place now growth stocks who would take place longs. [E.G. They were trade assets and holding them now hopes of long-term investment returns.]

You in addition had a relatively kind regulatory natural world, pre-Sarbanes-Oxley [corporate supremacy legislation enacted now the wake of the Enron scandal] and otherwise all the other kind of corporate reforms with the aim of had taken place. Now with the aim of natural world it was in point of fact quite generous [to take place a in the public domain company].

Basically with the aim of all on track to amendment in the manner of 2000. A in one piece hardheaded of "closing the barn exit in the manner of the horse had run out" kind of things happened. Sarbanes-Oxley happened. The irony of Sarbanes-Oxley was with the aim of it was intended to prevent supplementary Enrons and Worldcoms but it ended up being a extremely large stretch on petite companies.

Timothy B. Lee: Could you repeat that? Is it roughly Sarbanes-Oxley with the aim of makes it so burdensome?

Marc Andreessen:The compliance and coverage supplies are tremendously burdensome in favor of a petite company. It requires fleets of lawyers and accountants who happen now and organize years of exertion. It's this indication with the aim of if you control everything down to the nth assign, nothing command depart in the wrong. It's this bizarre, bureaucratic, top-down mentality with the aim of if lone we may well become everything predictable, in that case everything would take place charisma, everything would take place wonderful.

It has the opposite effect. It's biased enormously with regard to companies with the aim of are large a sufficient amount to hire fleets of lawyers and accountants, biased in opposition to companies with the aim of are very brood and in favor of whom there's still a plight of unpredictability.

The flash incident with the aim of happened is decree blond revelation. The indication is with the aim of having the status of a company detective, you are not, under extreme penalties, permitted to break single shareholder in rank with the aim of one more does not take part in. It has really reduced the capability of companies to communicate with shareholders. It puts everything under supplementary study with a plight supplementary peril.

You might say that's a safe indication, shareholders ought to take place treated equally. The hindrance is the shareholder foot itself has misused dramatically. You've had a dramatic growth now protect funds. Very short-term trading and dramatic growth now short-selling [investors gambling with the aim of a stock's value command fall]. If you're a in the public domain company, you suit the shuttlecock linking military longs and shorts. They bat your standard around like it's a chew toy.

Nearly everyone American retirement savings is invested now the in the public domain standard marketplace. With the aim of raises the collective question of how are we free to reimbursement in favor of retirements.
The shorts command right become stuff up. They command become up rumors and innuendo and stuff you wouldn't believe. I went through this personally myself. Crazy levels of individual rumors, all kinds of right horrendous things. There's this tremendous gaming of the standard value. They make use of Yahoo message boards and chat accommodation.

So in that case you're the company, and you're dealing with these crazy rumors and all this crazy doings each daylight. A rumor comes unfashionable with the aim of your executive is unpleasantly. A rumor comes unfashionable saw with the aim of you lost a large contract. A rumor comes unfashionable with the aim of you're running dumpy of coins. Normally someone would call you up, [ask if the rumor was true], and you'd say rebuff. But under decree FD you can't organize with the aim of. So the running joke is could you repeat that? You need to start putting unfashionable a day after day detail sheet saw here's all the things with the aim of are thought roughly us that's not proper.

It's technically illegal to manipulate the marketplace. But near are hardly constantly at all hand baggage [enforcing these laws]. Basically the protect funds run entirely wild and organize whatever they poverty.

And in that case there's like 8 supplementary of these things. Near are these really abstract, imaginary approaches to corporate supremacy with the aim of wind up being embedded now your topic. And the growth of incessant internet television journalism, so you're now this incessant 24-hour news cycle roughly everything concerning your company.

Timothy B. Lee: Why is a changeable standard value such a large deal? Can't the first in command right ignore it?

Marc Andreessen:This comes across like I'm complaining roughly how challenging it is to take place in the public domain and of way the answer is with the aim of you need to suck it up.

But in favor of brood companies, everything is connected: Standard value, employee drive, capability to recruit extra employees, capability to keep employees, capability to sign customer contracts,  capability to raise debt financing, capability to deal with regulators. Each single part of your topic tops up being connected and it tops up being attached back to your standard value.

The hindrance is whilst your standard value gets hammered by at all of this stuff, whilst your standard value gets cuff by a false rumor, with the aim of now itself can destabilize your company. These companies with the aim of depart in the public domain too quick are by the side of peril of free into a death spiral by the side of at all instant now a way that's super intense and very hard to cause unfashionable of it for the reason that it becomes self-reinforcing.

And the kicker on all of this is: God help you if you constantly need to raise money again. The shorts command drive your standard to zip to prevent you from raising money. So you are now extreme mortal danger if you're in the public domain and you need to raise money.

The upshot of all with the aim of is the efficient death of the IPO. The digit of in the public domain companies now the US has dropped dramatically. And in that case in the same way, growth companies depart in the public domain much soon. Microsoft went unfashionable by the side of under $1 billion, Facebook went unfashionable by the side of $80 billion. Gains from the growth increase to the secretive investor, not the in the public domain investor.

Nearly everyone American retirement savings is invested now the in the public domain standard marketplace. Nearly everyone Americans can't invest now secretive companies and nearly everyone Americans can't invest now venture investment and secretive justness funds. They're in point of fact prohibited from liability so by the second. If you both prohibit them from investing now secretive growth and wire the marketplace so they can't cause into in the public domain growth, in that case you can't take place invested now growth. With the aim of raises the collective question of how are we free to reimbursement in favor of retirements. That's the question with the aim of needs to take place asked with the aim of upstart asks for the reason that it's too chilling.

Tags : IPO

没有评论:

发表评论