| ▲ | Karrot_Kream 9 hours ago | |||||||
When companies stay private longer, private capital stays tied up for longer, decreasing public liquidity and keeping bad private investments afloat for longer. Part of the creative destruction of the dot com bust was the legion of badly performing companies that went public and were thoroughly rejected by public investors, offering an exit to later investors and employees. Right now badly performing companies can limp along tying up liquidity and locking up employee equity only to head to an eventual bankruptcy or bad IPO. | ||||||||
| ▲ | throw0101c 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
> Part of the creative destruction of the dot com bust was the legion of badly performing companies that went public and were thoroughly rejected by public investors, offering an exit to later investors and employees. That's not how I remember it. I remember lots of publicly traded company shares being gobbled even though their business plans[1] were essentially: 1. Collect underpants 2. ? 3. Profit "Going for marketshare" and not making a profit was still popular as recently as Uber/DoorDash/etc. Cisco still (AIUI) hasn't reached back to is DotCom peak. Are the current multiples of many tech stocks sensible? | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | runako 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
> badly performing companies can limp along tying up liquidity and locking up employee equity "Just raised a Series E/F/G/H/I" companies | ||||||||