[veyron]

    Facebook might not have been "forced" to go public, but they still don't really need the cash from the IPO

If they didn't need the cash from the IPO why did they IPO? If they wanted liquidity for employees and investors, then they need to go public and hence should at least pay a modicum of respect (guess who is buying those shares that those investors and employees are selling?)

[surrealize]

The people buying the shares are ultimately the public; the bankers are just middlemen, and replaceable ones at that.

If facebook actually did need the cash, why wait until they hit the 500 investor limit? Hitting that limit is clearly playing a role in the timing of the IPO, even if it didn't "force" an IPO.

[veyron]

Facebook as the corporate entity doesn't need the cash; the investors and employees need the exit. In light of that, Mark as an investor and employee does need their cash.

If the exit wasn't important, they would stay private and run the business.

[surrealize]

Sure, the extra liquidity is nice for people who hold shares. But, at the same time, the IPO is clearly not a big deal to Zuckerberg, as evidenced by 1. the fact that they've waited until now, and, yes, 2. by the hoodie.

What's the percentage of firms with >500 investors that don't IPO?

I wonder if increasing the number of investors past 500 is more about using equity as a recruiting/retention tool than it is about cash.

[veyron]

I think you trivialize a very important point, namely that the IPO is a big deal for pretty much everyone (as its used as a recruiting tool for employees and as an exit proposition for VC firms), especially to Zuckerberg (who invariably spun stories of potential exits as part of the process).

I think we can agree on the two facts, namely:

- the firm probably doesnt need the cash

- the members of the firm and investors do want the exit provided by an IPO

[surrealize]

OK! </thread>