No that’s not what I’m saying...there is a difference between a company that is registering for an IPO and an existing publicly traded company.
And let’s not pretend Tech companies IPOing at losses is somehow protection to small investors...I don’t see anyone clamoring to allow these small investor be allowed to get in on unicorns pre IPO.
Really? This sentiment is blanketed all over HN and other investment forums. One of the major macro changes to the investment landscape is rapidly growing companies staying private longer such that the gains benefit a much smaller pool of investors.
WE know the truth. The ipo buyers don't.
And as others have pointed out you are exactly wrong about efforts to make public investment available earlier. Besides founders who would love to have more fundraising options, there is plenty of evidence and outcry that small investors are not getting access to economic growth: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/private...
One has demonstrated the ability to turn a profit and the other has not. This seems a bit like asking "Why is radiation considered a valid cancer treatment and rhino horn isn't when both have failed to help people before?"
There are exceptions and sleight of hand (like when Uber doesn't reveal costs to get drivers, but this is 100% true for formerly-profitable companies too. You could make a much better argument for skipping on those, or by forcing more disclosure in S-1s. But painting broadly based on total profitability is just too simplistic.
and luckily for investors there is nothing else to invest in