Should not the company hire some kind of professional(s) who will observe both sides(mostly the bank) and provide objective feedback? It seems like they were jumping into unknown territory without any knowledge.
I really can't believe all companies go IPO blind like I get impression from the article.
Most companies think they are hiring those professionals when they go with GS. Forcing GS to state very clearly that they do not have any fiduciary responsibility to their clients is kind of a bfd.
Look at these cases; there's a lot of guesswork, it's not rocket science. If you have no clue what your business is worth, and are deferring completely to a third party, why are you even going public?
Comments
Should not the company hire some kind of professional(s) who will observe both sides(mostly the bank) and provide objective feedback? It seems like they were jumping into unknown territory without any knowledge. I really can't believe all companies go IPO blind like I get impression from the article.
Most companies think they are hiring those professionals when they go with GS. Forcing GS to state very clearly that they do not have any fiduciary responsibility to their clients is kind of a bfd.
I'm with you.
Look at these cases; there's a lot of guesswork, it's not rocket science. If you have no clue what your business is worth, and are deferring completely to a third party, why are you even going public?
The public is who decides what a publicly-traded business is worth.