Hand Army Fan far side of the moon Member since Dec 2007 2009 posts
re: Tech IPO winners vs losers: A Historical LookPosted by Hand on 1/3/13 at 5:37 pm to Meauxjeaux
Think about the IPO process and how relevant it is to tech as an industry. Tech isn't capital intensive in the traditional sense. They aren't going to need that funding to build more of XYZ. It's human capital intensive,... and that's what tech IPO's finance. It's a way for that human capital, and the PE that's been funding them, to cash out. When they go public, for the most part, the companies are peaking. Obviously, there are exceptions. Look at those that have prospered and the marketshare that they've captured. Those companies usually have really, really good products that achieve widespread adoption.
PE has matured as well. It's been interesting to me how many of the tech firms that have survived and prospered have internal PE teams that fund external.
tirebiter LSU Fan ATL Member since Oct 2006 5434 posts
re: Tech IPO winners vs losers: A Historical LookPosted by tirebiter on 1/4/13 at 2:21 pm to Hand
Not an IPO, but the purchase price paid by Yahoo for Broadcast.com to Cuban was in the stratosphere of ridiculousness. Even then a simpleton would have asked what management was thinking. I never have understood why retail investors feel a need to get in on a hot IPO as history illustrates a fleecing is usually commencing.
re: Tech IPO winners vs losers: A Historical LookPosted by OFWHAP on 1/4/13 at 4:51 pm to tirebiter
quote: I never have understood why retail investors feel a need to get in on a hot IPO as history illustrates a fleecing is usually commencing.
Most retail investors have no idea the percentage of IPOs that end up being unsuccessful. People see that Groupon and LinkedIn had huge pops in their IPOs and figure that every single tech company will have a similar IPO.