Posted by: ashu January 29, 2011
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Channa,
At the risk of oversimplification, let me share these thoughts:
Facebook remains a privately held company. That means, it does NOT have to disclose its finances to the public. That further means, except for the IRS, no one really knows how much in taxes Facebook pays to the US government. Yes, savvy business journalists/analysts can piece together various strands of available information, and try to come up with a number that aims to tell us how much money Facebook makes and pays out. But in the absence of hard information, such guesses are just that: educated guesses.
IF Facebook, as a company, goes through an IPO tomorrow, then investors around the world can buy its shares, and information about Facebook's balance sheets, cash flows, earnings statements will be regularly available to us to study/analyze/interpret via www.sec.gov
Just because MZ is in the news a lot, and because there's a movie made about him, and so on . . . that should NOT lull us to think that therefore we know all about Facebook, and that Facebook is a 'transparent' company.
By law, publicly held companies (i.e. those listed on stock exchanges, and have public shareholders) have to disclose their (material) information on a regular basis. Others need not, therefore do not.
Likewise, IR Tamang, who I know casually, runs a privately held company in Nepal. So does Min Bdr Gurung of Bhatbhateni. So does Birendra Basnet of Buddha Air, and the list goes on and on . . . of those who run privately held small or big companies in Nepal.
[From what I know about these people, all of them have -- thanks to mouth-watering economic growth rates in India and China -- increasing South Asia-wide ambitions: that means, they want to be in a position to compete with the best in South Asia. That further means that they are keenly aware that in order to realize their ambitions, they have to get their systems, internal governance, their tax stuff all very kosher and pukka and tagada so that when foreign investors/partners show up to do business, they can deal with them confidently, without having to make excuses. To that end, these people are already a part of their various global trade associations and they attend various global trade shows. Cheating on taxes and cutting corners here and there may have been yesterday's routes to success in Nepal, but in today interconnected business world, it's much, much harder to succeed that way for long: and these people know it very well. And if they are indeed cheating and cutting corners, they will be found out, and their investors will lose both money and reputation.]
Meantime, such private owners and their small circle of partners/investors need NOT disclose their companies' financial stuff to the public. A privately held company is NOT a political democracy: To succeed for a long haul, such a company needs to keep its private investors happy. And the proven way to do that is by keeping customers, communities and tax people happy so that the company continues to generate consistently good returns on the investments.
Re: Tamang: That he was an "unsuccessful lecturer" 15 years ago is totally IRRELEVANT now. Who in Nepal or anywhere defines who is a successful lecturer or who is an unsuccessful one? Though I am all for "successful lecturers", I also think that it's wise for "unsuccessful ones" to find something else to do in life. If anything, Tamang should be applauded for NOT wasting his life on what he was NOT (according to you) good at, and then going on to do something else in which he has found success for himself and his investors. From what I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, you need NOT be a success at lecturing to also eventually succeed as an entrepreneur. If anything, these two skills are probably inversely correlated! Only in bad Nepali poetry are repeat failures celebrated with a tinge of romanticism: in the real world, a smart person learns from his or her failures, changes course, and then finds something else in which s/he is likely be a success.
oohi
ashu
.
At the risk of oversimplification, let me share these thoughts:
Facebook remains a privately held company. That means, it does NOT have to disclose its finances to the public. That further means, except for the IRS, no one really knows how much in taxes Facebook pays to the US government. Yes, savvy business journalists/analysts can piece together various strands of available information, and try to come up with a number that aims to tell us how much money Facebook makes and pays out. But in the absence of hard information, such guesses are just that: educated guesses.
IF Facebook, as a company, goes through an IPO tomorrow, then investors around the world can buy its shares, and information about Facebook's balance sheets, cash flows, earnings statements will be regularly available to us to study/analyze/interpret via www.sec.gov
Just because MZ is in the news a lot, and because there's a movie made about him, and so on . . . that should NOT lull us to think that therefore we know all about Facebook, and that Facebook is a 'transparent' company.
By law, publicly held companies (i.e. those listed on stock exchanges, and have public shareholders) have to disclose their (material) information on a regular basis. Others need not, therefore do not.
Likewise, IR Tamang, who I know casually, runs a privately held company in Nepal. So does Min Bdr Gurung of Bhatbhateni. So does Birendra Basnet of Buddha Air, and the list goes on and on . . . of those who run privately held small or big companies in Nepal.
[From what I know about these people, all of them have -- thanks to mouth-watering economic growth rates in India and China -- increasing South Asia-wide ambitions: that means, they want to be in a position to compete with the best in South Asia. That further means that they are keenly aware that in order to realize their ambitions, they have to get their systems, internal governance, their tax stuff all very kosher and pukka and tagada so that when foreign investors/partners show up to do business, they can deal with them confidently, without having to make excuses. To that end, these people are already a part of their various global trade associations and they attend various global trade shows. Cheating on taxes and cutting corners here and there may have been yesterday's routes to success in Nepal, but in today interconnected business world, it's much, much harder to succeed that way for long: and these people know it very well. And if they are indeed cheating and cutting corners, they will be found out, and their investors will lose both money and reputation.]
Meantime, such private owners and their small circle of partners/investors need NOT disclose their companies' financial stuff to the public. A privately held company is NOT a political democracy: To succeed for a long haul, such a company needs to keep its private investors happy. And the proven way to do that is by keeping customers, communities and tax people happy so that the company continues to generate consistently good returns on the investments.
Re: Tamang: That he was an "unsuccessful lecturer" 15 years ago is totally IRRELEVANT now. Who in Nepal or anywhere defines who is a successful lecturer or who is an unsuccessful one? Though I am all for "successful lecturers", I also think that it's wise for "unsuccessful ones" to find something else to do in life. If anything, Tamang should be applauded for NOT wasting his life on what he was NOT (according to you) good at, and then going on to do something else in which he has found success for himself and his investors. From what I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, you need NOT be a success at lecturing to also eventually succeed as an entrepreneur. If anything, these two skills are probably inversely correlated! Only in bad Nepali poetry are repeat failures celebrated with a tinge of romanticism: in the real world, a smart person learns from his or her failures, changes course, and then finds something else in which s/he is likely be a success.
oohi
ashu
.