On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:06:58 +1100
"Craig Southeren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see the major problem with IPOs is that it tends to steer innovation
> towards technology that can be made marketable within a short time frame,
> say 6-18 months. Anything that takes longer than that is probably not
> attractive to VCs, and hence will get left on the shelf until someone who
> has already made their money comes along and invests in it.
This last point is important. The internet gold rush has resulted in a
lot of money coming into the hands of "geeks" who have a different
agenda from the traditional rich folk, who made their money by
inheritance, or property, banking etc.
It will hopefully bring about a different culture amongst venture
capitalists. I think it is likely these new investors will be more
willing to back risky technology, and maybe have more of a social
conscience as well.
Best wishes,
Peter
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:06:58 +1100
"Craig Southeren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jamie Honan
> > Sent: Friday, 11 February 2000 09:31
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [SLUG] IPO's
> >
> > This isn't a reflection on Giles or the job or the company but
> > about a general trend.
> >
> > What are people's opinions about IPO's and the enormous sums of
> > money involved?
> >
> > I'm wondering if this is healthy. Certainly people deserve
> > considerable benefits, but aren't there downsides to this?
> >
> > - creation of haves and have-nots
>
> There always are, and always will be, haves and have-nots. This can only be
> changed by individuals, not by pointing the finger at processes or events.
>
> I don't see the people involved in IPOs, or the IPO process itself, as being
> any worse than, say, investment bankers, or stock traders, or property
> developers. These sorts of people make millions of dollars all the time, and
> some choose to spend it on themselves, and some on improving their
> community.
>
> In the end, it comes down to the individuals.
>
> > - are the sums involved in IPO's healthy for the ecomnomy
>
> In general, yes. Process that keeps money flowing through the economy are
> usually good. Anything that causes money to be stagnant, is usually bad. One
> of the reasons why Australia's economy is so dull is that most of people's
> capital is tied up in their house mortagages because the tax regime makes is
> sensible to do so. Other economies such as the the US and Japan where house
> ownership is not so widespread have much more vibrant economies
>
> > - loss of sense of community (maybe this sense was false anyway)
>
> In what way does an IPO cause a loss of sense of community?
>
> > On the other hand:
> >
> > - if fools are throwing their money around only a fool doesn't take it
> > - is it envy that belittles others success?
>
> Both of these are probably true, but are not the major down-sides to the
> current IPO boom in our industry.
>
> I see the major problem with IPOs is that it tends to steer innovation
> towards technology that can be made marketable within a short time frame,
> say 6-18 months. Anything that takes longer than that is probably not
> attractive to VCs, and hence will get left on the shelf until someone who
> has already made their money comes along and invests in it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig Southeren
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Equivalence - Home of FireDoor, MibMaster & PhonePatch
> For Open Source H.323 - see http://www.openh323.org
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web: http://www.equival.com.au
> Fax: +61 2 4368 1395 Voice: +61 2 4368 2118
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
> To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> unsubscribe in the text
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
