Started By
Message

re: Tech IPO winners vs losers: A Historical Look

Posted on 1/3/13 at 5:37 pm to
Posted by Hand
far side of the moon
Member since Dec 2007
2065 posts
Posted on 1/3/13 at 5:37 pm to
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.
Posted by tirebiter
7K R&G chile land aka SF
Member since Oct 2006
9383 posts
Posted on 1/4/13 at 2:21 pm to
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.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram