I have to say this particular article really seems like spin.
1. Facebook is still not “essentially” a public company
The problems which are being raised aren't so much saying FB is becoming a identical to a public company but that it's getting of some and only some of the benefits of publicness. That is exactly why this is dodgy, why the SEC is looking into it and so forth (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfina...). Quote the letter of law a few dozen times more to us and it won't change a thing. Certified investor only regardless, it's raising a lot of money in something that looks like a public auction on terms that aren't those of a public corporation. Yes IANAL but I'm from alone in viewing this as "skirting" regulation. The point is that it is more dodgy, not less, to occupy a gray between public and private corporation because you are roping investment while giving out less information (and it's true I keep repeating "information, vee vant information...").
this isn’t an IPO no matter how badly some members of the tech press want it to be.
What do you call raising a few billion dollars with stocks issuance? It indeed doesn't technically qualify as an IPO but I think that almost enhances "be evil" as a slogan here...
The reason entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg, Reid Hoffman, and countless others who opted to [not] sell their companies in the last few years do not want to go public has nothing to do with disclosing quarterly numbers
[+] [-] joe_the_user|15 years ago|reply
1. Facebook is still not “essentially” a public company
The problems which are being raised aren't so much saying FB is becoming a identical to a public company but that it's getting of some and only some of the benefits of publicness. That is exactly why this is dodgy, why the SEC is looking into it and so forth (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfina...). Quote the letter of law a few dozen times more to us and it won't change a thing. Certified investor only regardless, it's raising a lot of money in something that looks like a public auction on terms that aren't those of a public corporation. Yes IANAL but I'm from alone in viewing this as "skirting" regulation. The point is that it is more dodgy, not less, to occupy a gray between public and private corporation because you are roping investment while giving out less information (and it's true I keep repeating "information, vee vant information...").
this isn’t an IPO no matter how badly some members of the tech press want it to be.
What do you call raising a few billion dollars with stocks issuance? It indeed doesn't technically qualify as an IPO but I think that almost enhances "be evil" as a slogan here...
The reason entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg, Reid Hoffman, and countless others who opted to [not] sell their companies in the last few years do not want to go public has nothing to do with disclosing quarterly numbers
Publish those numbers and show us...