His point is that sellers can do whatever suits their interests best, they don't have a duty to pick a fair price. And that it's on the buyer to decide whether to accept it or reject the price.

Duh? That point was actually implied by my initial comment.

Nobody said anything about fairness or duty.

My point was that if the seller is trying to maximize its self-interest by maximizing the IPO price, leaving no room for growth after IPO, then buyers probably want to take a pass at that price.