companies that had their ipo in 2017

Bread Kithcen authors

4 min read

·

06-03-2025

11

0

Share

2017 IPOs: A Retrospective Look at Successes, Failures, and Market Trends

2017 witnessed a surge in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), a period marked by both spectacular successes and notable failures. Analyzing these events provides valuable insights into market dynamics and the factors contributing to IPO performance. While a comprehensive list of every 2017 IPO is beyond the scope of this article, we'll explore some key players, trends, and lessons learned from that year's market activity. We will not directly quote or cite ScienceDirect articles as they primarily focus on academic research, not detailed financial market data on specific company IPOs. However, the analysis presented here aligns with general economic and financial principles commonly discussed in such academic literature.

A Year of Contrasting Fortunes:

2017 presented a mixed bag for companies going public. Several factors influenced the outcomes, including:

• Global Economic Growth: The global economy was experiencing moderate growth, leading to a generally positive investment climate. This contributed to the increased number of IPOs. However, regional variations and uncertainties in geopolitical situations created volatility.

• Technological Advancements: The continued rise of technology companies, particularly in areas like cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and fintech, fueled significant investor interest. Many tech IPOs were highly anticipated and often saw substantial gains in their initial trading.

• Investor Sentiment: Investor confidence played a significant role. Periods of heightened optimism translated into higher valuations and more successful IPOs, while periods of uncertainty led to more cautious investment and potentially lower valuations or even failed IPOs.

Notable IPOs of 2017:

While a complete list is impractical, some significant 2017 IPOs warrant discussion to illustrate the range of outcomes:

• Snap Inc. (SNAP): Snap's IPO was highly anticipated, but its performance was initially disappointing. The stock price struggled after its debut, highlighting the risks associated with highly valued, yet relatively young, companies with unproven long-term profitability. This serves as a cautionary tale of the importance of underlying business fundamentals beyond hype. The company's reliance on advertising revenue and its struggles with user growth contributed to investor skepticism.

• Spotify Technology SA (SPOT): Spotify opted for a direct listing instead of a traditional IPO, a less common approach at the time. While the direct listing avoided some of the costs and complexities of a traditional IPO, it also meant less immediate capital infusion for the company. Spotify's performance post-listing showcased the potential and challenges of alternative IPO approaches.

• Farfetch (FTCH): This luxury online retailer's IPO was relatively successful, reflecting investor confidence in the growth of e-commerce in the luxury goods sector. Their ability to leverage technology and appeal to a global customer base contributed to their positive market reception. This demonstrates the success achievable with a well-defined niche and strong execution.

• Dropbox (DBX): Dropbox's IPO was somewhat muted, highlighting that even established companies with significant user bases can face challenges in the public market. Concerns about slowing user growth and competition in the cloud storage market might have tempered initial investor enthusiasm.

(Note: The performance of these companies post-IPO has varied considerably. This information reflects their initial public offering and immediate aftermath, not long-term success.)

Analyzing the Trends:

Several trends emerged from the 2017 IPO landscape:

• Technology Dominance: Technology companies continued to dominate the IPO market, reflecting the sector's rapid growth and attractiveness to investors. However, the performance of these IPOs varied significantly, showcasing that even within a high-growth sector, individual company performance depends on execution and market conditions.

• Valuation Concerns: Some companies went public at valuations that appeared stretched, leading to post-IPO declines. This underscores the importance of realistic valuation, considering factors beyond revenue growth like profitability, debt levels, and competitive landscape.

• Increased Regulatory Scrutiny: The increased regulatory scrutiny of IPOs, particularly regarding disclosures and investor protection, influenced how companies approached their public offerings. This led to more rigorous preparation and potentially a more cautious approach by both companies and underwriters.

Lessons Learned:

2017's IPO market offers several key lessons for businesses considering going public:

• Focus on Fundamentals: Solid business fundamentals—strong revenue growth, profitability, and a sustainable business model—remain crucial for success. Hype alone is insufficient to sustain long-term growth in the public market.

• Realistic Valuation: Overly optimistic valuations can lead to post-IPO disappointment. A realistic assessment of the company's value, considering market conditions and competitor landscape, is critical.

• Effective Communication: Clear and transparent communication with investors is essential to build confidence and manage expectations.

• Strategic Timing: The timing of an IPO is crucial. Market conditions, investor sentiment, and the company's own readiness must be carefully considered.

Beyond 2017:

While 2017 provided valuable insights, the IPO market continues to evolve. Factors like the rise of SPACs (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) and the increasing influence of retail investors have significantly reshaped the landscape. Analyzing the 2017 IPOs, however, offers a useful framework for understanding the interplay of various factors that influence the success or failure of a public offering. By studying both successes and failures, future companies can better prepare for their own IPO journey, aiming for sustainable long-term growth rather than short-term gains. This analysis emphasizes the importance of a long-term, fundamental approach to business and the strategic management of investor expectations. The market remains dynamic and requires constant adaptation and vigilance.