Although hated, this comment raises interesting points.
Indeed, kids are given much more freedom and are less "disciplined" than ever before.
At the same time, there's never been so much pressure and coerciveness than right now. You "don't have to take the meds", but you most likely will do that.
Indeed, kids are given much more freedom and are less "disciplined" than ever before.
Excuse me? Less disciplined, sure, but not more free. Kids today have no freedom. They are supervised by adults from when they wake up til they go to sleep. In school they are explicitly encouraged to not resolve conflicts on their own but instead to go to a teacher. The play that they engage in is not only always supervised, but also usually adult-structured. No groups of 2–5 kids going off to play by themselves and making up their own games, they have to participate in whatever nonsense the adults are forcing on them. Children aren't children in the brave new world, they're liabilities.
Regarding unicorns (> U$1 billion valuation), the U.S should implement certain regulations.
These startups have market caps that are larger than thousands of public companies that go through several laws and openly disclosure their financial information.
Not only does this lack information hurt shareholders that are not "part of the club", but also stakeholders that rely on the company in other matters.
Consider that the people & companies investing in pre-IPO U$1B companies are extreme expert investors. They take the risk on.
Now if we're talking about post IPO, then actual financial regulations kick in and market-traders are afforded the protections that they have now (which is still sometimes significant)
Imposing additional regs on a 'privately held' company simply because they accepted enough money to give them a U$1B valuation punishes them for growth.
Additionally, valuations are sometimes voodoo calculations for example (and someone else can check my math) but is someone gave me $1 for 1/10,000,000 of my company, wouldn't that be a billion dollar valuation?
Obviously not a credible one - but - where's the line? $1M for 1/1000? It's still not a billion real dollars.
If you look at linkedin's valuation it's based on current potential for future revenue. But revenue that is like 10 or 20 years in the future. (reference: my foggy recollection of Peter Thiel's lecture in Sam Altman's startup school)
Maybe I'm confused as to how valuations actually work.
Sure, valuations are "tricky", but you could still impose regulations on the amount of invested capital (e.g. only regulate after >U$200M is invested).
Also, stating that `U$1B companies are extreme expert investors` is certainly an overstatement. What often happens is not even reliant on expertise or due diligence, but networks and insider "games".
"Consider that the people & companies investing in pre-IPO U$1B companies are extreme expert investors"
And regular employees getting paid in options.
"Imposing additional regs on a 'privately held' company simply because they accepted enough money to give them a U$1B valuation punishes them for growth."
No, it doesn't. It shows an acceptance of reality.
Enron was a public company, Lehman was a public company in the financial sector (even more heavily regulated), Volkswagen is a public company...
I don't think that regulation would fix anything. And as some people have already mentioned, AirBnB or Uber, have blatantly broke the law and they keep growing and breaking even more laws in various countries.
These are just anecdotal examples. Hundreds of unmentioned public companies have faced hurtful consequences that unicorns didn't have to worry about.
In the end, what's urgent isn't regulation on their specific industries, but on their practices and obligations as private companies with a massive market capitalization.
The thing with regulation is that you have to fund the agencies that enforce them. If you keep with the Republican, "free market! Anti-regulation" thing of defunding these regulatory agencies, then of course they're going to be flaunted.
A third of the 173 unicorns in Fortunes 2/1/16 list are Chinese. I only recognize a few of the big name ones.
If you thing the US has accounting and valuation issues, wait for the Chinese unicorns to pan out.
>We aren’t a bank yet, but we are applying to the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA)
and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for authorisation to become one.
I don't want to be negative, but this is a huge consideration.
After 2008, unfortunately, regulations have made it much more difficult to incorporate a bank and comply with the law. Is a million enough for that?
Other way round. UK have regulators have realised there is a lack of competition in banking arena and have made it much easier to start new banks. Several challenger banks have already received their licenses under the new rules
>After 2008, unfortunately, regulations have made it much more difficult to incorporate a bank
The capital requirements to launch a bank have actually been relaxed since the financial crash. The government wants more competition in the industry and the regulator has been working to make that happen.
Without VC money, startups are led by "culture" (i.e. collective personality and desires of each member of the team). It has amazing results in the long-term.
With VC money, startups replace their culture (seen as irrelevant) by short-term expectations. Pressure , competition and hierarchy are built. Good for short/medium-term valuation. Terrible for long-term commitment.
