Connect with us

Business

The public company isn’t dead, it’s misunderstood

Published

on



Record levels of private capital and the recent and rapid rise of VC-funded unicorns suggest to some that public markets are a thing of the past, a holdover from the capitalism of yesteryear. Financial news of the past two decades is littered with stories of companies delaying IPOs and growing despite it — Meta, Uber, Airbnb and the like. Some still remain private, most notably Elon Musk’s SpaceX. If they can find success without going public, why should anyone else?

Take the example of Klarna — a 20-year-old company — which recently had a successful IPO on the NYSE, with a nice pop on its first day.

Why would a company like Klarna choose to go public? Public companies have to deal with public investors, follow specific rules on governance, and disclose extensive information. Klarna had no trouble accessing private capital in the past. Surely some of their original backers were looking for liquidity, but there is plenty of private liquidity around if that is all they need.

Many companies have decided that the private markets are a better place to be. Over the last couple of decades, the number of listed companies and new IPOs in developed markets has dropped dramatically. The rigor and scrutiny of being publicly traded, and the perceived pressures that come with opening up the shareholder roll, are burdens many companies would prefer to avoid.

So why go public? The answer is that there are great benefits to being a listed company in a deep, global market. While there are plenty of capital options besides going public, public markets help companies grow up. That discipline and credibility, as well as the opportunity for founders, employees, and investors to benefit from the value created, still make public markets the destination of choice.

And while listings did indeed drop over the past 30 or so years, in that same timeframe, global public market capitalization rose to over $90 trillion, or about 112% of global GDP. Public markets aren’t dead — they’re just misunderstood. The idea that companies must choose between the quarterly spin cycle and the refuge of private markets is a myth. With the right strategy and the right investors, public companies still deliver superior long-term value.

Avoid the short-term cycle

It’s true, public companies spend a lot of time on the quarter — hitting or missing targets, talking to the Street, etc. But the reality is that providing estimates of your next quarter’s earnings only encourages traders to make short-term bets and increases the volatility of your stock price. It’s a habit, not a requirement.

The best companies recognize that such a myopic focus on the quarterly cycle is a distraction from building a great business. To avoid it, most companies don’t issue quarterly earnings guidance anymore; by 2024, only 21% of S&P 500 companies were still doing so, down from 36% in 2010.

Attract the right shareholders

Public companies have plenty of opportunities to talk to the investment community. But “investors” are not a monolith, something many CEOs find out too late. They have different horizons and incentives; some are seeking durable returns over decades, while others are simply looking for alpha. This is not criticism. It’s reality.

But evidence shows that an increase in short-term, transient investors is associated with cuts to long-term investments (R&D, marketing, etc.) in order to increase short-term earnings, leading to temporary boosts in equity valuations that reverse over time. While CEOs can’t bar investors from buying stock in the public markets, they can have an investor strategy that tries to attract the best long-term investors by understanding their time frames and incentives.

Companies that find success in this regard employ several key tactics: they engage consistently with large shareholders throughout the year (rather than limiting interactions to AGM seasons). They deploy CEO and board-level leadership for key shareholder meetings and, importantly, align IR professional incentives with long-term shareholder success metrics rather than short-term sell-side ratings. This comprehensive approach reduces an emphasis on 90-day cycles, creates deeper shareholder support, and unlocks mutual value for both investors and public companies.

To be sure, there are advantages to staying private for companies in certain circumstances. But public markets remain an unmatched source of capital, credibility, and the opportunity to scale. It’s time to stop viewing them as a necessary evil and instead as a strategic asset — as long as companies can navigate them with intent and with the right strategies in place.

Public companies aren’t dying, but CEOs who don’t adapt their investor strategy will.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Hegseth likens strikes on alleged drug boats to post-9/11 war on terror

Published

on



Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended strikes on alleged drug cartel boats during remarks Saturday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, saying President Donald Trump has the power to take military action “as he sees fit” to defend the nation.

Hegseth dismissed criticism of the strikes, which have killed more than 80 people and now face intense scrutiny over concerns that they violated international law. Saying the strikes are justified to protect Americans, Hegseth likened the fight to the war on terror following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

“If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you. Let there be no doubt about it,” Hegseth said during his keynote address at the Reagan National Defense Forum. “President Trump can and will take decisive military action as he sees fit to defend our nation’s interests. Let no country on earth doubt that for a moment.”

The most recent strike brings the death toll of the campaign to at least 87 people. Lawmakers have sought more answers about the attacks and their legal justification, and whether U.S. forces were ordered to launch a follow-up strike following a September attack even after the Pentagon knew of survivors.

Though Hegseth compared the alleged drug smugglers to Al-Qaida terrorists, experts have noted significant differences between the two foes and the efforts to combat them.

Hegseth’s remarks came after the Trump administration released its new national security strategy, one that paints European allies as weak and aims to reassert America’s dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

During the speech, Hegseth also discussed the need to check China’s rise through strength instead of conflict. He repeated Trump’s vow to resume nuclear testing on an equal basis as China and Russia — a goal that has alarmed many nuclear arms experts. China and Russia haven’t conducted explosive tests in decades, though the Kremlin said it would follow the U.S. if Trump restarted tests.

The speech was delivered at the Reagan National Defense Forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute in California, an event which brings together top national security experts from around the country. Hegseth used the visit to argue that Trump is Reagan’s “true and rightful heir” when it comes to muscular foreign policy.

By contrast, Hegseth criticized Republican leaders in the years since Reagan for supporting wars in the Middle East and democracy-building efforts that didn’t work. He also blasted those who have argued that climate change poses serious challenges to military readiness.

“The war department will not be distracted by democracy building, interventionism, undefined wars, regime change, climate change, woke moralizing and feckless nation building,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

US debt crisis: Most likely fix is severe austerity triggered by a fiscal calamity

Published

on



One way or another, U.S. debt will stop expanding unsustainably, but the most likely outcome is also among the most painful, according to Jeffrey Frankel, a Harvard professor and former member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Publicly held debt is already at 99% of GDP and is on track to hit 107% by 2029, breaking the record set after the end of World War II. Debt service alone is more than $11 billion a week, or 15% of federal spending in the current fiscal year.

In a Project Syndicate op-ed last week, Frankel went down the list of possible debt solutions: faster economic growth, lower interest rates, default, inflation, financial repression, and fiscal austerity. 

While faster growth is the most appealing option, it’s not coming to the rescue due to the shrinking labor force, he said. AI will boost productivity, but not as much as would be needed to rein in U.S. debt.

Frankel also said the previous era of low rates was a historic anomaly that’s not coming back, and default isn’t plausible given already-growing doubts about Treasury bonds as a safe asset, especially after President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff shocker.

Relying on inflation to shrink the real value of U.S. debt would be just as bad as a default, and financial repression would require the federal government to essentially force banks to buy bonds with artificially low yields, he explained.

“There is one possibility left: severe fiscal austerity,” Frankel added.

How severe? A sustainable U.S. debt trajectory would entail elimination of nearly all defense spending or almost all non-defense discretionary outlays, he estimated.

For the foreseeable future, Democrats are unlikely to slash top programs, while Republicans are likely to use any fiscal breathing room to push for more tax cuts, Frankel said.

“Eventually, in the unforeseeable future, austerity may be the most likely of the six possible outcomes,” he warned. “Unfortunately, it will probably come only after a severe fiscal crisis. The longer it takes for that reckoning to arrive, the more radical the adjustment will need to be.”

The austerity forecast echoes an earlier note from Oxford Economics, which said the expected insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds by 2034 will serve as a catalyst for fiscal reform.

In Oxford’s view, lawmakers will seek to prevent a fiscal crisis in the form of a precipitous drop in demand for Treasury bonds, sending rates soaring.

But that’s only after lawmakers try to take the more politically expedient path by allowing Social Security and Medicare to tap general revenue that funds other parts of the federal government.

“However, unfavorable fiscal news of this sort could trigger a negative reaction in the US bond market, which would view this as a capitulation on one of the last major political openings for reforms,” Bernard Yaros, lead U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, wrote. “A sharp upward repricing of the term premium for longer-dated bonds could force Congress back into a reform mindset.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The $124 trillion Great Wealth Transfer is intensifying as inheritance jumps to a new record

Published

on



Nearly $300 billion was inherited this year as the Great Wealth Transfer picks up speed, showering family members with immense windfalls.

According to the latest UBS Billionaire Ambitions Report, 91 heirs inherited a record-high $297.8 billion in 2025, up 36% from a year ago despite fewer inheritors.

“These heirs are proof of a multi-year wealth transfer that’s intensifying,” Benjamin Cavalli, head of Strategic Clients & Global Connectivity at UBS Global Wealth Management, said in the report.

Western Europe led the way with 48 individuals inheriting $149.5 billion. That includes 15 members of two “German pharmaceutical families,” with the youngest just 19 years old and the oldest at 94.

Meanwhile, 18 heirs in North America got $86.5 billion, and 11 in South East Asia received $24.7 billion, UBS said.

This year’s wealth transfer lifted the number of multi-generational billionaires to 860, who have total assets of $4.7 trillion, up from 805 with $4.2 trillion in 2024.

Wealth management firm Cerulli Associates estimated last year that $124 trillion worldwide will be handed over through 2048, dubbing it the Great Wealth Transfer. More than half of that amount will come from high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth people.

Among billionaires, UBS expects they will likely transfer about $6.9 trillion by 2040, with at least $5.9 trillion of that being passed to children, either directly or indirectly.

While the Great Wealth Transfer appears to be accelerating, it may not turn into a sudden flood. Tim Gerend, CEO of financial planning giant Northwestern Mutual, told Fortune’s Amanda Gerut recently that it will unfold more gradually and with greater complexity

“I think the wealth transfer isn’t going to be just a big bang,” he said. “It’s not like, we just passed peak age 65 and now all the money is going to move.”

Of course, millennials and Gen Zers with rich relatives aren’t the only ones who sat to reap billions. More entrepreneurs also joined the ranks of the super rich.

In 2025, 196 self-made billionaires were newly minted with total wealth of $386.5 billion. That trails only the record year of 2021 and is up from last year, which saw 161 self-made individuals with assets of $305.6 billion.

But despite the hype over the AI boom and startups with astronomical valuations, some of the new U.S. billionaires come from a range of industries.

UBS highlighted Ben Lamm, cofounder of genetics and bioscience company Colossal; Michael Dorrell, cofounder and CEO of infrastructure investment firm Stonepeak; as well as Bob Pender and Mike Sabel, cofounders of LNG exporter Venture Global.

“A fresh generation of billionaires is steadily emerging,” UBS said. “In a highly uncertain time for geopolitics and economics, entrepreneurs are innovating at scale across a range of sectors and markets.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.