Comments on: Why it still makes sense to go Public http://venturebeat.com/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/ News About Tech, Money and Innovation Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:36:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Entrepreneurial Characteristics http://venturebeat.com/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/comment-page-1/#comment-536300 Entrepreneurial Characteristics Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:12:29 +0000 http://www.venturebeat.com/contributors/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/#comment-536300 More info please.... Your topic about Why it still makes sense to go Public needs more comments. I'd like to spend me Monday nights reading about entrepreneurial characteristics More info please…. Your topic about Why it still makes sense to go Public needs more comments. I’d like to spend me Monday nights reading about entrepreneurial characteristics

]]> By: Mission Creek :: Why going public still makes sense http://venturebeat.com/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/comment-page-1/#comment-16593 Mission Creek :: Why going public still makes sense Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:48:24 +0000 http://www.venturebeat.com/contributors/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/#comment-16593 [...] full story here [...] [...] full story here [...]

]]> By: Adam Rifkin http://venturebeat.com/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/comment-page-1/#comment-16592 Adam Rifkin Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:32:07 +0000 http://www.venturebeat.com/contributors/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/#comment-16592 Lise and Andre, good points. It was interesting to me that cosmetics company Bare Escentuals (BARE) went public the same day as Shutterfly and sparked a lot of interest. Then I looked at some of the details for Bare Escentuals (88% a year revenue growth since 2001, 30% operating margins) and realized that technology or not, it's growth stories that resonate with the market. We already knew that, but it's helpful to be reminded of it whenever a company like BARE -- or athletic apparel maker UnderArmour (UARM), which went out last year -- goes public. When more young Silicon Valley companies exhibit those kind of growth characteristics, they too will resonate with the public markets. Lise and Andre, good points.

It was interesting to me that cosmetics company Bare Escentuals (BARE) went public the same day as Shutterfly and sparked a lot of interest.

Then I looked at some of the details for Bare Escentuals (88% a year revenue growth since 2001, 30% operating margins) and realized that technology or not, it’s growth stories that resonate with the market.

We already knew that, but it’s helpful to be reminded of it whenever a company like BARE — or athletic apparel maker UnderArmour (UARM), which went out last year — goes public.

When more young Silicon Valley companies exhibit those kind of growth characteristics, they too will resonate with the public markets.

]]> By: Andre http://venturebeat.com/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/comment-page-1/#comment-16589 Andre Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:09:18 +0000 http://www.venturebeat.com/contributors/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/#comment-16589 Kudos to Ms. Buyer for pointing out that SOX is not the primary reason for the IPO drought. if I hear some pinhead journalist mention that again, I will vomit. I do, however, think that this piece is slightly off the mark. The lack of IPOs is not merely a function of market jitters. This second resurgence in the Valley (call it Boom 2.0 if you will) has been marked by companies that are far more narrow in their scope. Successful IPOs, and public companies for that matter, tend to deliver a more full-featured and wide-ranging product/service. This time around, we are seeing companies that merely deliver features. Entrepreneurs are going the bootstrap route and trying to avoid taking large amounts of VC funding up front. The result is that it is simply more difficult to deliver anything but one-dimensional products/services. Flickr and Blinkx are great ideas/technologies, but are too narrow to be stand-alone enterprises -- they need to be combined with other features to create a powerful, rounded-out and sustainable product/service. IPOs are great and frequently make people very rich - but they shouldn't be forced. Kudos to Ms. Buyer for pointing out that SOX is not the primary reason for the IPO drought. if I hear some pinhead journalist mention that again, I will vomit. I do, however, think that this piece is slightly off the mark. The lack of IPOs is not merely a function of market jitters. This second resurgence in the Valley (call it Boom 2.0 if you will) has been marked by companies that are far more narrow in their scope.

Successful IPOs, and public companies for that matter, tend to deliver a more full-featured and wide-ranging product/service. This time around, we are seeing companies that merely deliver features.

Entrepreneurs are going the bootstrap route and trying to avoid taking large amounts of VC funding up front. The result is that it is simply more difficult to deliver anything but one-dimensional products/services.

Flickr and Blinkx are great ideas/technologies, but are too narrow to be stand-alone enterprises — they need to be combined with other features to create a powerful, rounded-out and sustainable product/service.

IPOs are great and frequently make people very rich – but they shouldn’t be forced.

]]> By: Matt Marshall http://venturebeat.com/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/comment-page-1/#comment-16588 Matt Marshall Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:30:10 +0000 http://www.venturebeat.com/contributors/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/#comment-16588 Ben, thanks, fixed! Ben, thanks, fixed!

]]> By: Ben Marklein http://venturebeat.com/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/comment-page-1/#comment-16586 Ben Marklein Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:30:46 +0000 http://www.venturebeat.com/contributors/2006/09/29/why-it-still-makes-sense-to-go-public/#comment-16586 Could use some editing: "One oft-sighted issue are the costs" should be "One oft-cited issue is the cost". Could use some editing: “One oft-sighted issue are the costs” should be “One oft-cited issue is the cost”.

]]>