Comments on: Answer To Silicon Valley's Liquidity Question: Think Smaller

By: Facebook Taps Ex-Genentech Exec Ebersman As CFO

Facebook Taps Ex-Genentech Exec Ebersman As CFO — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:37:43 +0000

[...] in April, after the biotech giant was bought out by Roche. Though buzz continues to grow about an impending Facebook IPO, Zuckerberg has said the company has no plans to go public. The company recently took a $200 [...]

By: Week 2 Highlights at GigaOM and True Ventures « True Entrepreneur Corps Blog

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:04:07 +0000

[...] Greg were invited by Paul Walborsky, GigaOM’s CEO, to go and check out GigaOM’s 2nd Bunker Series Session held at True’s headquarters. The event is an invite only gathering in which a veritable [...]

By: Week 2 Highlights at GigaOM and True Ventures « Andrew Boni dot com

Week 2 Highlights at GigaOM and True Ventures « Andrew Boni dot com — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:43:48 +0000

By: VCs Think Smaller In The New Normal « Outside The Box

VCs Think Smaller In The New Normal « Outside The Box — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:11:16 +0000

[...] Business, Markets, Technology Leave a Comment From Om Malik’s great post entitled Answer To Silicon Valley’s Liquidity Question: Think Smaller: Earlier today we hosted one of our GigaOM Bunker Series sessions, monthly events that we’re [...]

By: AV

AV — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 05:02:08 +0000

I’m not buying the smaller private exchanges yet – yes they support smaller liquidity events, but at some point, the venture investors in companies will want a full exit. Perhaps the venture model itself needs to change, especially since most companies do not require the levels of funding they used to, particularly those that are web-related. I took a look at some of the private exchange options out there recently: http://www.ventureexaminer.com/venture-examiner/2009/6/18/exploring-private-exchanges.html

By: Bulk Email Software

Bulk Email Software — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:43:24 +0000

Twitter is like a breath of fresh air on the Social Media scene. I have been on it for just a few weeks now and I have met several interesting people. It is a platform to network with people you would like to meet in real life.

By: Jon Callaghan

Jon Callaghan — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:43:10 +0000

where, not were. . . sorry

By: Jon Callaghan

Jon Callaghan — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:42:24 +0000

Om,

Sorry to miss this morning. Heard from 3 attendees today that the session was incredible. Congrats. As for liquidity, I think we’re about to see a resurgence of IPO activity. This won’t happen immediately, but the simple fact is that risk capital has no where to go for returns, and many very solid private companies have been built over the past 5+ years that now represent really good public capital investments.

There are many large (>$50mm) revenue companies in growth markets with predictable businesses that would benefit greatly from public capital. At the same time, there are public market investors that have no were to go for alpha or beta.

Returns on a risk-adjusted basis look great in young tech companies.

Jon

By: Faisal Iqbal

Faisal Iqbal — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:01:13 +0000

But the Main thing or you can the basic requirement is the must do strong the roots of Technology or simplify the main user needs!

By: Uday Subbarayan

Uday Subbarayan — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:32:02 +0000

@Om: Sorry…valley has to think BIG.

I mean the ideas, technologies,risks,…values. The $ should follow, not lead the thinking process.

Uday.

By: Libran Lover

Libran Lover — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:26:22 +0000

Am I the only one to whom this post’s formatting looks badly mangled – both in Google Reader and as a stand-alone web page?

By: Marcos Polanco

Marcos Polanco — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:44:10 +0000

SV absolutely has to think *different*. It has go much bigger in cleantech, what with its vastly longer cycle, but thinking “smaller & a lot more” for the web 2.0-type deals. That has to be massified.

By: Curtis

Curtis — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:53:09 +0000

@Om,

I don’t buy it. Google was generating revenue organically, whereas most of FB’s revenue is contract revenue (welfare payments) and Twitter has none. Add to this the fact that it was commonplace in the capital markets to refer to web companies as part of a “paradigm shift”, which meant it was easier to sell dirt packaged as “magic soil”. Last issue is Sarbannes-Oxley, which I think is the nail in the coffin.

I’m sure a great discussion took place, but let’s not forget H&Q and the like made a killing selling “magic soil.”

My $.02.