When companies are private, founders can share more about their future dreams with investors; report less; and the shares are illiquid, constraining short-term changes in valuation.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If a company is profitable, the founder is in control. If it's not, investors are in control.
There is a long history of founders returning to companies and doing great things. Founders are able to set the vision for their companies with an authority no one else can.
With less competition to fear, companies are emboldened to raise their mark-ups and profits. That lifts share prices and thus the wealth of already wealthy shareholders.
When I was in the private sector, one characteristic that differentiated the best entrepreneurs from the others was that they were not in it for the stock options, but for a mission - to deliver something that was helpful... Every entrepreneurial journey, it turns out, is like this.
In my experience, there are only two valid reasons to take a company public: access to growth capital and investor fatigue.
From the business point of view, always encouraging the people in our company to own stock in the company, and if we're going to build something great, to have a lot of people share in the benefits of that greatness.
We really wake up every day trying to build businesses. That is the goal of private equity. It's a misnomer out there that private equity profits by shrinking companies. In fact, it's just the opposite. Private equity creates value by growing great companies.
The big companies are the private industry. But they're faced with a short-term need to show a profit in short-term.
One of the perks of being the founder is that you get to build the company in your image.
Every public company depends to some extent on the trust of its investors.
No opposing quotes found.