By Ted Rossman
Different perspectives make the world go ’round, but it’s still interesting to examine points of view as dramatically different as those of the Wall Street Journal and CNNMoney in these recent articles about the health of the IPO market.
The WSJ writes, “the IPO market stinks,” whereas CNNMoney counters, “the IPO market roars back.” The WSJ writes, “the IPO market will never return to its rip-roaring past, so deal with it already.” CNNMoney responds, “the once-dead IPO market is becoming attractive again,” and even likens the current situation to the heyday of the 1990s.
Most striking of all is the fact that these two authors have drastically different recaps of Calix’s March IPO. The WSJ calls it “unremarkable,” and notes that the IPO raised even less than the amount that VCs poured into the company. CNNMoney, on the other hand, touts Calix as a successful IPO, and disagrees (by a whopping $200M!) with the WSJ’s account of how much venture capital Calix raised throughout its history.
The stark differences between the two articles seem like more than simple differences of opinion. As with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in-between. It’s a good reminder to consider multiple sources, especially in this era of outspoken punditry and lightning-fast news cycles.
Tags: IPO, journalism, venture capital