Hacker News
points by whateveracct 3 days ago | 0 comments
In today's world, yes.

But in the past, rules & regulations basically forced companies to IPO at a certain size. This meant that when they IPO'd, there was still growth upside.

Those rules are gone now, so they can stay private and have all the growth happen privately. When they IPO now, it's more just an exit. The growth was captured by insiders only.

[–] extraextra 3 days ago
There weren't any size caps on IPOs and no regulation can tell a company what multiples to IPO at, that's just false information

If it was really "just an exit", people wouldn't buy the IPO and it would flop

Of course people believe there is room for more growth, that's why they are buying it

Even in this thread you can see people (not me) arguing that the IPO is too cheap and it's easily worth 3 trillion $ like numbers mean nothing

[–] scott_weber 3 days ago
Possibly parent is thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumpstart_Our_Business_Startup... which did change some conditions, though not in terms of "multiples".
[–] necovek 3 days ago
People participate in betting and chance games even if the odds are against them.

Sometimes, there is no logic behind what people do, ultimately hoping to strike gold once while wasting money otherwise.

[–] extraextra 3 days ago
If that's your interpretation of things, that there is no logic behind some of the smartest people in the world throwing tens of billions at Anthropic with no logic behind it, I have no further comments
[–] necovek 2 days ago
A general statement I made is mostly to refute that people invest exclusively when the data is clearly supporting that investment with guaranteed returns: basically, the fact that people will buy does not mean that they have guaranteed returns.

Some might be looking to capitalize early and exit quickly; some are creating demand because they have other drivers in their portfolio (eg. Nvidia or Micron); some might really believe in the company; and some might be gambling with their disposable investment money for their high-risk/high-gain part of portfolio.

[–] extraextra 1 day ago
Well, you're not refuting anything because no one claimed "that people invest exclusively when the data is clearly supporting that investment with guaranteed returns."

What you're attempting to do is called the straw man fallacy and it's a cheap shot.

[–] whateveracct 3 days ago
they were not forced but they were forced to report like a public company even if they didn't IPO. all the cost with none of the benefit was an incentive to IPO earlier.
[–] extraextra 3 days ago
No
[–] whateveracct 2 days ago
yes tho. once you hit a certain number of shareholders (which anthropic clearly is past), you used to have to report with the regularity and rigor of a public company. so if you do, why not IPO and get some cash?

that and other changes that enabled private investment at this scale. it's all about privatize the pump socialize the dump via IPO

[–] extraextra 1 day ago
You're just typing gibberish

The rule is still in place, if a company has more than 2000 shareholders, of which minimum 500 are non-accredited (employee stock based compensation does NOT count), the company has to do ongoing financial reporting

You're misinformed

[–] whateveracct 1 day ago
right but before, employees' shares counted. that's one of the changes i'm talking about.