SAN FRANCISCO, Ca.: The dirty word that no one would address at Dell‘s press event this afternoon? “Privatization.”

The computer maker held the press event to introduce the press to its new software group. But the meeting was overshadowed by news this morning that private equity firm Blackstone has dropped its bid for Dell, bringing an abrupt halt to the company’s plans to go private. The New York Times reported that Dell’s board has no one but itself to blame for the debacle.

Dell execs would not respond to requests for comment on the failing deal, preferring to remain tight lipped about the whole business.

With a media firestorm swirling around them (and press hungry for answers), Dell execs hope to settle customer and partner anxiety with talk of their “big data” and cloud software products. The company is pushing on with plans to provide hardware and software to existing customers, primarily mid-market companies.

“Dell has been thinking about this transition to software for a while,” said David Kloba, a general manager for Dell Software, who joined the company by way of acquisition. But Kloba admitted that even two years ago, his team met with the sounds of “crickets” when he broached the topic of software at Dell. Now it’s considered the future, especially given that PC sales are in decline.

Dell Software CIO Carol Fawcett

Dell’s software practice is a essentially a melting pot of products it has acquired over the years. Carol Fawcett, the chief information officer for the group, got the job after Dell acquired her company, Quest Software.

“Dell wants to be an end-to-end solutions provider, a one stop shop,” said Fawcett in an interview. “But we don’t want to be another Oracle.”

Fawcett said her team is focused on expanding the current software suite, which already includes units dedicated to mobility, data protection, and security. Fawcett said Dell’s products can meet each customer’s IT needs — whether it’s a single product or a full solution.

But just like its privatization plans, Dell is in a precarious spot. Joshua Greenbaum, an IT analyst with Enterprise Applications Consulting, said it needs to make a choice between offering the ”integrated portfolio … the soup to nuts” and offering software that “fills a gap.” “It’s hard to do both,” he said.

Related: Michael Dell also sees a future in storage — Dell launched a $60M fund to support startups.

For now, Dell’s vision is expansive. Both Fawcett and Kloba welcomed a comparison to consumer device giant Apple, albeit with more of an enterprise focus.

Fawcett also referenced another competitor in the small- to medium-sized business space: Intuit, the maker of QuickBooks software.

“Mid market is our bread and butter,” she said. When asked about whether Intuit and Dell will be the two companies associated with software for SMB’s, Fawcett immediately shot back, “I’d say Dell.”

Carol Fawcett image via Quest Software’s website 

With news circulating about Icahn’s involvement, Dell shares rose one percent this morning to $14.30.

The Dell privatization saga has experienced twists and turns with shareholders stepping up to fight the sale. Icahn announced last week he would buy six percent of the company.

The activist investor has sided with shareholders, including Southeastern Asset Management and T Rowe Price who opposed the terms of the deal, in arguing that the buyout “significantly undervalues” the world’s third largest computer maker.

A special committee on the board has said it would welcome Icahn’s input on the sale process.

In a letter to Dell’s board, Icahn took a stand against CEO Michael Dell and private equity firm Silver Lake Management’s plan to go private at $13.65 a share. He proposed instead that Dell pay shareholders a special dividend of $9 per share in a combination of cash on hand and additional debt.

Evercore Partners, a Dell advisor, has been running a “go shop” process. According to Bloomberg, Hewlett-Packard and Lenovo have both taken advantage of the buy-out talks in order to get a look at Dell’s books but are unlikely to make a bid.

This is a guest post by Mona DeFrawi

The entrepreneurship industry is the economic growth engine of the U.S., and it has been blocked from realizing its potential due to the broken IPO markets. The economy stopped growing when good IPO activity disappeared,  and economic and job growth have been flat or declining ever since.

The timing is no coincidence.

The depressed economic growth of the past decade can be traced directly back to the demise of IPOs, showing signs as early as 1996 with the advent of electronic trading. I have often said that high-frequency trading (HFT) doesn’t support long-term investment potential, and has an eroding effect. There is too much liquidity and not enough stability in shareholder base composition for young IPO companies.

This market-wide phenomenon of valuations detached from fundamentals has created downward pressure on valuations, while dramatically increasing uncertainty and lack of confidence in IPOs.

As a result, companies are either stalling their decision to go public, or they are going public to mismatched valuations and disappointing aftermarket results.

So how did we get into this mess?

The Internet Bubble popped

The Internet Bubble popped in a lot of investors’ faces. No one wants or needs another Pets.com. Let’s not kid ourselves — if the IPO markets were better and could handle the traffic, we could easily see 200 IPOs this year from amazing companies grown over the past 10 years, but backlogged at the starting gate.

While many companies are attempting quiet filings in accordance with the Jobs Act, most are failing to complete their IPOs. 15 years ago, all of these growing technology companies would have gone public easily and successfully.

But the high frequency trading world of the bulge bracket banks and their short-term hedge fund clients — who buy most of the IPO allocations today — aren’t designed for growth companies. Traders need highly volatile pops based on hype, so companies like Facebook are perfect targets for their investing needs.

We need fewer Goliaths, and more David’s

The post-bubble 21st century outlook brought a perception that companies need to be very large to have a successful IPO.

What isn’t understood is that creating a long-term shareholder base counterbalances high frequency trading. Companies should take charge of their stock trading activity pre- and post-IPO.

Your bankers are there to support an excellent transaction, but there isn’t sufficient aftermarket support.

The problem with the large banks

It now takes an average of 10 years to IPO vs. less than 5 years prior to the bubble.

At least 300-500 percent of IPO allocations today trade in the first 48 hours of an IPO. As the markets have gotten worse, venture capitalists have are bringing their IPOs to large banks. There is a false perception that only the large banks can get these deals done.

Large banks clearly state that they are not fiduciaries in their IPO agreements. While intermediary “stop gap” measures, such as late stage secondary cash-outs and M&As are offered, it’s dangerous for them to consider long-term options. The long-term markets will collapse under the pressure to cash out now.

The markets must return to supporting economic growth rather than short-term profit extraction, at which they’ve become quite expert. This is a dead end strategy where the parasite eventually kills the host.

What can we do?

We actually have far more power to change IPO activity than perceived. First we must focus collectively on bringing back healthy, functional IPO markets again.

The traditional IPO process hasn’t worked well in our disrupted markets for over a decade. Yet for the past five years, the nation has been experiencing its biggest-ever backlog of great companies, which have already been incubated and funded, hired hundreds and thousands in high-paying jobs, and have excellent potential.

We are facing an issue of a broken IPO infrastructure, not a broken market cycle.

Companies can easily change their IPO prospects, but must invest in preparation. Banding together as an industry, issuers and investors can swiftly re-align transactional and aftermarket activities to actual performance. While everyone has demanded an improved IPO mechanism that provides an on-ramp and full cycle management of IPOs, few realize that they have power to change it.

It is our duty to revitalize the entrepreneurship and venture industries that are critical to America’s economic and job growth. Changing perceptions and actions always requires a transition, but we can most certainly grow healthy IPO markets again.

Mona DeFrawi’s work with Equidity is focused on U.S. capital formation, economic development and job creation. Devoted for 25+ years to supporting the entrepreneurial companies that contribute most to U.S. economic growth, technological leadership and improving our lives, she has delivered results in fundraising, IPOs, corporate development and investor relations.

Broken IPO image via Shutterstock 

Just a few days after we reported that Dell’s largest investor would fight the $24.4 billion buyout, another shareholder has spoken out against the sale.

“We believe the proposed buyout does not reflect the value of Dell, and we do not intend to support the offer as put forward,” said Brian Rogers, chief investment officer of investment management firm T. Rowe Price, in a statement. As Reuters points out, T. Rowe Price does not have a history of publicly speaking out against deals such as this.

The firm controls about 4.4 percent of Dell shares as of Sept. 30, according to data from Thompson Reuters.

Private equity firm Silver Lake Partners and Dell founder and CEO Michael Dell led the deal. Dell has poured his personal funds into the buyout, which would enable him to control a majority stake in the newly privatized company.

Investors began their public fight against the deal on Friday. Southeastern Asset Management said in a regulatory filing and letter addressed to Dell’s board of directors that it would fight the sale. The firm made the case that Dell stock should be valued at up to $24 per share rather than the $13.65 offer price.

“Unfortunately, the proposed Silver Lake transaction falls significantly short of that and instead appears to be an effort to acquire Dell at a substantial discount to intrinsic value at the expense of public shareholders,” the firm said.

According to Reuters, three other major shareholders are also expected to oppose the offer.