[goldcd]

Reading the story and the links, made me think. We have VC chucking in massive money and expecting billions in return and failing that dish out a swift euthanasia to the vast the majority within the cohort that didn't do well enough. Then Growth-stage funders, who seem to have more conservative investment/expected returns - but still "high expectations" compared to a regular old business or an interest rate. My personal knowledge comes from the other end, "guy with some cash started a company, knew some people with some spare cash, built it and sold it into an existing corporate and exited" He became guy with a bit of spare cash, who moved one up the totem pole with his next company. From both ends, it all seems a bit "jerky" and inefficient - potentially profitable companies fail as they either don't match the ridiculously high goals set for them - or don't have enough cash reserves to get them over a small blip in monthly revenue. Maybe more importantly, as a startup your employees care about this - as you've tied their income/job to the prospects of the company. Therefore that "next round of funding" determines whether anybody turns up on Monday. Now if your company IPOs this all becomes much simpler - keep the shareholders happy, grant employees options - the vast pool of money you're swimming in smooths out the bumps - or at least makes the rules clearer. There are rules, motivations and just generally "things" that happens "pre-IPO" and stuff that happens "post" - and they are very different. Different from a financial perspective - but from a company perspective it's just people going to work, making something interesting, and wanting money..

[goldcd]

My point is that many companies are 'profitable' in a financial absolute sense - but not up to the expectation of the non-market owners. If we had a better system (similar to post-float IPO) before IPO to handle this and allow people outside of funding-rounds to invest/sell - I can't see how this wouldn't benefit us all.