[miohtama]

What is a flurry startup and what is a mature company is relative.

For example, Amazon originally IPO'ed in 1999 after raising only 10M USD.

Especially since the last financial crisis over regulation has hindered SMEs access to the public markets. Being a public company means that you can often raise money on better terms. If only large enterprises can access good money, then SMEs and indirectly innovation is hurt.

EU has realized this and is now trying to make SME listing easier (mostly through de-regulation).

> Currently, out of the 20 million SMEs in Europe, only 3,000 are listed on stock-exchanges. "We want to change this," said Valdis Dombrovskis, EC vice-president responsible for financial services: "We propose rules that will make it easier for SMEs to access to a wide range of funding at all stages of their development and to raise capital on public markets."

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1568_en.htm

https://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/sme-financing.24fl/

[adventured]

> For example, Amazon originally IPO'ed in 1999 after raising only 10M USD.

Small correction, Amazon's IPO was in May 1997. The $10m in venture capital is correct though ($2m common, $8.2m preferred).

They of course had a relatively small business, which matches with the $10m in VC and times. $15.7m in sales for fiscal 1996. Their sales ramp is impressive considering the Web at the time: $875k in 1Q96, $2.2m in 2Q96, $4.1m in 3Q96, $8.5m in 4Q96, $16m in 1Q97.

They raised $50x million in the IPO, and had a $560 million valuation at the end of the first day of trading.

Their S1:

https://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=124...

[eries]

I cite this fact all the time when talking to people about how capital markets have changed dramatically. But even I find it hard to remember the actual numbers. They are so mind boggling by modern standards. It wasn’t that long ago!

[miohtama]

Thank you! This was long long time ago and I did not fact check my memories.

[jorts]

I meant operationally mature as in they have the financial controls, auditing and reporting to be public. That's not trivial for a company to do, especially a startup.

[miohtama]

It is not trivial, but it is not unheard of. There is a fixed minimum cost on the compliance and it must offset the better price you get from public money or reputational benefits of being public. The trick is make sure that this cost is low as possible, but still ensuring the markets' integrity and fairness.

* Quality information is available for investors to make rational investment decisions

* Information is available fairly - no insider trading

[baybal2]

> still ensuring the markets' integrity and fairness.

Existing reporting requirements does not ensure markets' integrity and fairness in much of the world, US included.

I think, to some extend, the presumption of truthfulness in financial reporting is even giving edge to bad players, and penalises "boring" businesses that have nothing to show but dividends, and a track record paying them.

It is much easier to "pool the wool" with some fancy paid off analyst reporting for a tech business with dubious repute than say a concrete factory.

[baybal2]

There were times in India and Pakistan when every major city had a stock exchange. Pakistan held to tradition longer than India, and owners of 3 largest stock exchanges merged them into Karachi stock exchange, and later PSX only in 2016.

In Pakistan, most listed businesses are much more "boring" than ones in US. Concrete factories, brick makers, seedling producers, farms. Regulations on disclosure are near nil, but locals care not for that as few buy shares for anything but dividends and a good track record paying them.

I myself vehemently oppose the idea of collective ownership of means of production, which public companies embody, but I do think that there is a visible "skew" in US with regards to business liquidity: all kinds of pets.com have a go, while clearly not bad businesses reliably making money have to be sold at discounts that will be considered big even by developing countries standards.

[mises]

> I myself vehemently oppose the idea of collective ownership of means of production, which public companies embody

I wouldn't call this "public" ownership, as the "public" does not own a company. Investors own a company, the pool of investors is simply enlarged such that the public may invest.

[baybal2]

In my understanding, collective ownership !== public ownership and is just anything where the amount of owners is > 1

[k_sh]

I've always taken "public ownership" to imply "publicly-traded company", which means John Q. Public can call up his broker and buy some shares in the company.

This in contrast to privately-held companies, which can and do have many owners, but whose owners are acquired through partnership, investment, key employees within the company, and M&A - but not through the sale of securities.

[adamsea]

Does that mean you oppose all companies or business which are owned by more than a single person?

[baybal2]

Yes

[memmcgee]

No that's still private ownership. Amazon, for example, is not collectively owned, even though it's owned by more than just Jeff Bezos.