Andreessen on Financial Crises, No IPOs, and Obama

Kevin Maney writes: Just before the worst of the market meltdown, I interviewed tech stalwart Marc Andreessen in front of an audience at Silicon Valley’s Churchill Club. We got talking about the situation on Wall Street and how it has affected tech IPOs — i.e., there are none. That led to an exchange about who […]

Portfolio_3
Kevin Maney writes: Just before the worst of the market meltdown, I interviewed tech stalwart Marc Andreessen in front of an audience at Silicon Valley's Churchill Club.
We got talking about the situation on Wall Street and how it has affected tech IPOs -- i.e., there are none. That led to an exchange about who he supports for president

From the interview transcript:About the lack of an IPO market:> The biggest and most important to Internet companies in the last five years have not been investable in the public market. MySpace got bought too early. Facebook hasn't gone public. You Tube got bought. Flicker got bought. You kind of go down the list of all these companies. Google,

I think to their credit, went public but other than that, you know, even VMware, again, it's a huge hit in this decade. Only went public after it had already sold as a public company. Only went public as essentially as a wholly-owned subsidiary of EMC.So basically, the sort of thing that happened all through the '80s and
'90s of -- tech companies would basically get into their expansion stage and then go public, in part to have access to capital, in part to have an M&A currency, in part as a branding and a credibility event and in part, because there was a base of investors that wanted to invest in high-growth technology companies. Those days, at the moment, are just over. Like it's just frozen.

About the broader picture in financial markets:> Now,

I think that corresponds to a broader change that's happened in the equity markets which is with Sarbanes-Oxley and lawsuits and liability and Enron and WorldCom and all the rest of it, all the new government regulations and fear and paranoia around investors getting cheated by public company management teams basically. The whole idea of being a public company is much less attractive for anybody than it used to be and it's become much harder, much more expensive.And so the net effect of what's happening is not only are tech companies not going public but also the public equity markets are essentially de-equitizing, they're essentially shrinking. Basically, over time, in the public equity markets, if there are no new offerings, some companies go out of business, which takes companies out of the pool and then other companies merge, which takes companies out of the pool.
Other companies get bought out by private equity, which takes companies out of the pool. And so left on its own, the pool of publicly investable companies will shrink and you can only replenish that through IPOs. And so if there are no IPOs, there it goes. And so essentially, what's happening is there's a two-tier class system that's developed on Wall Street, which is there's the investments for normal people and then there's the investments for, as John McCain might say, "Really fancy rich people," you know, the cosmopolitan types. And specifically, there are hedge funds, private equity funds, private investments, Angel investments, venture capital funds. You know you can typically only legally invest in those if you are a so-called accredited investor, if you have a certain net worth, if you have a certain level of sophistication in the markets and if you have access to those investments. You can just go out into an exchange and buy those things. And so the pool of investments available to sort of super sophisticated people growing very quickly.
The pool investments available to normal people shrinking very fast.
I don't think that was the goal with all the reforms in the last five or ten years but that has certainly been the effect.Is it a crisis in terms of company formation? Not yet. Could it reverse itself? Yes, at any point. Does it -- oh, the other thing that's happening, there's more and more effort being put towards establishing essentially private exchanges. So a number of the investment banks are either looking at doing basically setting up exchanges where you can buy and sell shares in private companies sort of internally to a bank or if you're a client of the bank.In the long run, I think it's a very interesting social and economic and political question of whether we really want to live in a world where public companies of shrinking, the base of public companies are shrinking.

About who he supports for president:> I'm hugely pro-Obama for a number of reasons and maybe the core reason that

I run into with my friends in the Valley who say, "How on earth can you support a Democrat" is that I think Obama is much more centrist especially on economic issues than people think. And in particular, I say that because of his background and his education from the
University of Chicago, in particular and his economic advisor who's a professor at the University of Chicago named Austin Goldsby. And his
-- and the people who know him -- University of Chicago is not known as a radical leftist school. It's like the heart of like free market ideology. And those guys, even the ones who disagree with him on politics, those people -- those professors say, "This guy's a serious guy. He knows what he's talking about. He gets it. He's not some raving, liberal lunatic who's going to come along and try to Hugo
Chavez everything."It would be nice if there were more of a -- obviously, it would be nice if there was more of a track record where that was easy to say but I think that's a pretty safe bet. The other guy has a number of highly-qualified advisors like Meg Whitman who I hope have a lot of influence over there because otherwise, he himself admits he doesn't know anything about economics. He's never been in the business so I think it's a little bit of a crapshoot. So we will see. Also on Portfolio: