Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkral who wrote (174868)	6/16/2003 12:30:08 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

OT: My wag is that many owners of privately held companies, which companies expect to remain privately held forever, would never consent to the high rates of dilution and massive transfer of wealth to employees that has gone on in publicly held companies, and that the average private investors would not consent to keep throwing money at companies to the extent and duration that public investors have been willing to do. Therefore, I am wondering whether companies like SEBL that have historically relied on the largesse of outside shareholders to pay a portion of high employee expenses (without calling them expenses), would have found themselves in trouble if they had been private companies and had to generate money from operations to pay market rates to keep top rate employees as well as have something left over for owners. But I have no definitive answer for this. I would further speculate that private investor/owner's standards of what is acceptable company business performance for a private company is generally more stringent than a public investor's/owner's standards of what is acceptable company business performance for a public company. And again, I am not talking about small, privately held tech companies that are grooming themselves to flip their shares to the public in an IPO, or are grooming themselves to flip their shares to a CISCO who itself may have an overvalued share currency. I am speaking about privately held companies that expect to remain private for years and need to produce enough from the business operations to pay their employees well and still produce a decent annual return on investment for the owners. Just my wag, Huey