Another dynamic at work might be how much longer companies stay private these days, encouraged by their VC/PE backers. In the old days, even if the sole purpose of an IPO wasn't really about funding R&D or operations, but rather to provide an exit point for VC/PE, they'd never actually say that explicitly (no one wants to feel like a sap/patsy/bag holder) ... I'm amazed how many prospectuses now just say "Use of funds: Get VC liquid". They're increasingly taking the sweetest part of the move all for themselves.
The net gain for the US stock market since 1926 has been delivered by the best-performing 4% of listed companies https://www.hyperion.com.au/app/uploads/2020/08/Hyperion_Equity-returns-driven-by-the-few_FINAL.pdf , and the lifetime return of all stocks (which have a shockingly short median lifespan as listed companies of 7.5 years) is -2.29% with the most frequent outcome being a complete 100% loss.
I have not read the study, and what I say may be covered.
Do you think the stability of fund availability for government contractors and the mission-driven and long-term focus of the government leads to higher productivity, as these contractors/ government are not trying to make quick money and to pay back their investors?
Went through the paper. GIGO. The authors should have spent some time learning how contracts are structured and govt reqs before trying their economath. They would have found that both their primary and secondary measures are distorted. Not taking a position on whether X set of firms is more productive than Y set, just stating that the paper probably shouldn't have been published in its current form.
I also think about Blechley Park, or the Manhattan Project, or the Apollo Project. Note the use of "Project", as these sorts of national emergency-driven groups assembled all the best experts in the field, gave them blank checks, and watched them accomplish great things. Can you imagine competing commercial ventures building the atomic bomb or putting a man on the moon as quickly as they did?
"Creative destruction" might be okay for breakfast cereal or mobile 'phones, but we still don't have our too-cheap-to-meter fusion power or flying cars yet.
I had some input in crop insurance contracting. The USDA contracted some rangeland policy development to a university. The researcher successfully completed the project and then was reported deceased, which I heard through the grapevine was due to working himself to death. I would say that exceeded anything I would have done or would expect from a corporation. Thanks.
Would you have a source on that 95% number? I would be keenly interested in using that in a presentation, as it sounds similar to the anecdotal "80% of all restaurants fail in the first three years" or "75% of stock returns come from dividends" https://gfmasset.com/2019/07/75-of-sp-500-returns-come-from-dividends-1980-2019/ (unless it's actually 90% https://www.cnbc.com/2010/12/06/at-stake-dividends-make-up-90-of-total-return.html , or 40-15%... or 15% https://www.mackenzieinvestments.com/en/institute/insights/the-re-emergence-of-dividends#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20dividends%20have,two%2Dthirds%20of%20total%20returns.
Another dynamic at work might be how much longer companies stay private these days, encouraged by their VC/PE backers. In the old days, even if the sole purpose of an IPO wasn't really about funding R&D or operations, but rather to provide an exit point for VC/PE, they'd never actually say that explicitly (no one wants to feel like a sap/patsy/bag holder) ... I'm amazed how many prospectuses now just say "Use of funds: Get VC liquid". They're increasingly taking the sweetest part of the move all for themselves.
The net gain for the US stock market since 1926 has been delivered by the best-performing 4% of listed companies https://www.hyperion.com.au/app/uploads/2020/08/Hyperion_Equity-returns-driven-by-the-few_FINAL.pdf , and the lifetime return of all stocks (which have a shockingly short median lifespan as listed companies of 7.5 years) is -2.29% with the most frequent outcome being a complete 100% loss.
I have not read the study, and what I say may be covered.
Do you think the stability of fund availability for government contractors and the mission-driven and long-term focus of the government leads to higher productivity, as these contractors/ government are not trying to make quick money and to pay back their investors?
Yes, in the study they emphasise this long-term orientation of the government funding as a key driver of the higher productivity.
Went through the paper. GIGO. The authors should have spent some time learning how contracts are structured and govt reqs before trying their economath. They would have found that both their primary and secondary measures are distorted. Not taking a position on whether X set of firms is more productive than Y set, just stating that the paper probably shouldn't have been published in its current form.
Could this observation simply be related to the concept of "natural monopolies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly ?
I also think about Blechley Park, or the Manhattan Project, or the Apollo Project. Note the use of "Project", as these sorts of national emergency-driven groups assembled all the best experts in the field, gave them blank checks, and watched them accomplish great things. Can you imagine competing commercial ventures building the atomic bomb or putting a man on the moon as quickly as they did?
"Creative destruction" might be okay for breakfast cereal or mobile 'phones, but we still don't have our too-cheap-to-meter fusion power or flying cars yet.
Plus, what would happen if the 'move fast and break things' mentality had taken hold of the Manhattan Project???
I had some input in crop insurance contracting. The USDA contracted some rangeland policy development to a university. The researcher successfully completed the project and then was reported deceased, which I heard through the grapevine was due to working himself to death. I would say that exceeded anything I would have done or would expect from a corporation. Thanks.