Display:
Schumpeter: The eclipse of the public company | The Economist

FOR most of the past 150 years public companies have swept all before them. Wall Streeters have dissolved their cosy partnerships to go public. Communists have abandoned their five-year plans in favour of stockmarket listings. And Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have bowed before the god of the IPO--the initial public offering that takes a start-up public and makes its founders rich.

But is the sun finally setting on the public company?

The result has been a revolution among small and mid-sized businesses in America. Larry Ribstein, a professor of law at the University of Illinois, calculates that about a third of American businesses large enough to file tax returns are now organised as partnerships or what he calls "uncorporations". Plenty of big businesses, too, are shunning the stockmarket, with its costly reporting requirements and impatient investors. Publicly traded partnerships and real-estate investment trusts mix and match features from corporations and uncorporations. Many big firms, such as Alliance Boots (a health-and-beauty group) have abandoned public stockmarkets and embraced private equity.

The most fashionable investment vehicles--leveraged buy-out firms, hedge funds and venture-capital funds--are spearheading the "uncorporate" revolution. These firms are usually organised as partnerships, though some, such as the Blackstone Group, are also listed. Corporate raiders often raise money by creating funds in the form of partnerships. Their targets are often restructured as partnerships.



"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Aug 27th, 2010 at 03:33:03 PM EST
... stock markets will do nothing to eliminate all the evils associated with stock markets, they will just migrate to a new arena.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Aug 27th, 2010 at 05:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... and that fellow writing in the Economist is no Schumpeter.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Aug 28th, 2010 at 01:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One suspects that the results of putting his ideas into practice would be, (have been?), uncreative destruction.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Aug 28th, 2010 at 09:45:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Having read Schumpeter's Business Cycles, I can say that the destruction caused by the Economist "Schumpeter" concept of innovation including "financial innovation" does indeed extend to include pure and simple destruction, nothing creative about it.

Labeling the re-creation of Gilded Age Version 1 financial games as "innovation" is, indeed, part of the defense mechanism of an obsolete system against creative destruction, but defenses like those are like levies built of sand: they work until the flood comes.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Aug 29th, 2010 at 03:57:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series