The issue with IPOs as the marker of "success" is that public market investors are much more hostile to companies without the VC stamp of approval - they're relying on the implicit due diligence of the VC firms to make sure that there are no issues with the technology, the patent landscape, and other various hangups. (This applies much more to health care companies, where my VC experience was, but the mentality is the same as the public market investors are the same regardless of industry.)
Having the "stamp of approval" is a bare minimum requirement to go public; you can't find enough buyers of the securities without it. The pricing, as you say, is affected by the financials and (I dispute this, but hey, it's not germane) the underwriters.
Comments
The issue with IPOs as the marker of "success" is that public market investors are much more hostile to companies without the VC stamp of approval - they're relying on the implicit due diligence of the VC firms to make sure that there are no issues with the technology, the patent landscape, and other various hangups. (This applies much more to health care companies, where my VC experience was, but the mentality is the same as the public market investors are the same regardless of industry.)
Could you help clarify this? In my experience the only things that seem to matter are the offering bank and the financials.
Having the "stamp of approval" is a bare minimum requirement to go public; you can't find enough buyers of the securities without it. The pricing, as you say, is affected by the financials and (I dispute this, but hey, it's not germane) the underwriters.