Comments on: Bleak VC Quarter? Why?

By: A Changing of the Guard | Redfin Corporate Blog

A Changing of the Guard | Redfin Corporate Blog — Fri, 20 May 2011 06:39:07 +0000

[...] said that no one wants to run a public company; the other reported that his hand shook every time he had to sign off on a public company’s [...]

By: It’s Easier to Run a Mile If You’re Ready for a Marathon | Redfin Corporate Blog

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:49:08 +0000

[...] time I sign a 10K or 10Q, my hand shakes a little.” Bill Gurley wrote that “no one wants to manage a public company.” Both acknowledged that IPOs were still a possible outcome, but not one on which most [...]

By: In Defense of Sarbanes-Oxley | Redfin Corporate Blog

In Defense of Sarbanes-Oxley | Redfin Corporate Blog — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:29:36 +0000

[...] bringing independence and accountability to financial disclosures has become the chief villain. Bill Gurley and Fred Wilson were some of the first, in the summer 2008, to complain of Sarbanes-Oxley. But [...]

By: Honey, I Shrunk the Startups! (Guide for Scoring TechCrunch 50 at Home) | Redfin Corporate Blog

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:38:16 +0000

[...] Gurley says an IPO isn’t worth the Sarbanes-Oxley headaches. Others are just waiting for the market to tick up. But if those were the real problems, we’d see [...]

By: Ryan Graves

Ryan Graves — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:27:11 +0000

I love this challenge of the NYT. The optimist in me definitely is rooting for your theory over his! Great post.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:28:01 +0000

Even if its expected to be a weak VC quarter, there is no need for entrepreneurs to panic. There are ways to self-finance a company using some creative tactics. Big huge advertising budgets and customer support centers are absolutely not needed anymore with the advent of social media in the past 4 years. See here… http://www.readtheanswer.com/index.php?RTA=web2

By: Mark MacLeod

Mark MacLeod — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:09:08 +0000

Bill,

I agree that there is a supply issue. I have been a CFO for 4 VC-backed companies (on my 5th now). Private is good. I dealt with SOX compliance while integrating my 3rd startup into its acquirer. What a nightmare!

The nightmare notwithstanding, I think we risk over analyzing this. It’s one quarter. The fundamentals of both early stage investing and late stage exiting are not changed. Despite the credit crunch, i-bank writedowns, recession threat, etc. It’s a timing issue and not a fundamental change.

Mark

By: Aruni Gunasegaram

Aruni Gunasegaram — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:11:18 +0000

Bill – Saw you mentioned on Fred Wilson’s blog, which I read often. Not sure if you remember me, but you were a judge on a MOOT Corp panel for my first venture, Isochron Data Corp., back in 1998 here at UT Austin.

I’ve done a few things since then (feel free to check out the About page on my blog) the most important being having two kids!

I just joined ATI a few weeks ago to help them with their Operations and Finance.

Next time you are in Austin, let me know and if you have time, I’d love to meet up.

With regards to this post, I agree with it being supply issue and entrepreneurs and directors alike not wanting to manage a public company. What would be interesting is to examine the social reasons behind that in addition to Sarbanes Oxley, etc.

Aruni

By: Will the Last High-Tech IPO Please Turn out the Lights? | Redfin Corporate Blog

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:18:16 +0000

[...] of prominent venture capitalists, including Fred Wilson and now Bill Gurley, are writing this week about the dearth of IPOs first reported by Matt Richtel in the New York [...]

By: Spencer Rascoff

Spencer Rascoff — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:41:40 +0000

Bill,

Welcome back.

I completely agree. It’s a supply problem not a demand problem. Obviously the buyside still has strong demand for successful pre-IPO companies — look at how many mutual funds and hedge funds are leading late stage private rounds. Two of Zillow’s VCs fall into this category — PAR Capital and Legg Mason.

Others who have argued that it’s a supply problem frequently point to SarBox or RegFD. And clearly the more onerous regulatory environment has complicated things and made it more challenging to run a public company. But there are other challenges also — the grind of hitting quarterly numbers under a microscope, and of course activist hedge funds which are increasingly targeting tech companies in ways that they never used to — witness YHOO and CNET.

Has anyone seen data on total VC$ raised per company before liquidity? I’m wondering whether it’s really true that web2.0 requires less capital. (That’s obviously the lore, but is it actually the case?) If so, then the IPO drought is less of a problem because employees and VCs can still earn healthy returns through M&A exits (which typically happen earlier and at lower prices).

I agree with Bryan’s comment — “it seems most web entrepreneurs’ dream today is to sell to Google for $100M, not IPO at $1B”. That’s spot on. But it presupposes a small amount raised in order for the $100M sale to be a successful exit.