Are Public Market Investors Missing Out on the Next Generation of Growth?

For decades, public markets were the primary arena in which investors accessed the scaling phase of many of the world’s most important companies.

Today, that model is becoming less straightforward, with companies such as SpaceX, OpenAI, and Stripe having already reached enormous scale before most public-market investors can access them directly.

Private markets have expanded into a multi-trillion-dollar capital formation ecosystem, capable of funding companies through stages that once would have required a public listing. 

This raises a serious question: is the traditional IPO no longer the start of the public growth journey, but increasingly the point at which private-market value transfers into public ownership?
 

Private markets have become core capital infrastructure

Private markets are no longer a peripheral allocation, with several trends highlighting the scale of the shift:

•    Private markets are estimated at around $16 trillion globally.
•    More than 1,450 private companies have achieved unicorn status.
•    Institutional investors are allocating larger portions of portfolios to private assets.
•    Venture capital, growth equity, private credit, infrastructure and real estate have all expanded significantly.

The implication is not simply that private markets are bigger. They are increasingly performing functions once associated with public markets: funding expansion, supporting liquidity, financing infrastructure and allowing companies to scale without listing.
 

The “staying private longer” debate is more nuanced than it looks

The popular argument is that companies are staying private for longer. In parts of the market, especially venture-backed technology, it appears difficult to ignore.

Supporters of the argument point to several developments:

•    Venture-backed technology companies spent approximately 5 years in private hands before their IPOs during the 1980s.
•    Recent research suggests that figure is now closer to 12 years.
•    Some recent cohorts have approached 14 years before reaching public markets.
•    Companies are often achieving far larger valuations before listing.

However, this should not be treated as a universal market claim. Vanguard has challenged the broader narrative, arguing that:

•    Average company age at IPO has not materially increased across the wider US market over the past two decades.
•    The number of investable public companies has remained relatively stable.
•    Public market investors continue to capture the majority of the overall equity market value.

The question is not whether all companies are staying private longer. It is whether the companies most associated with technological disruption, network effects and exponential scaling are doing so.
 

Why the IPO incentive has changed

Public markets still offer liquidity, governance, visibility and scale. But they also impose constraints that private companies may increasingly prefer to defer.

Companies considering a listing must weigh:

•    Higher reporting and compliance costs.
•    Greater regulatory scrutiny.
•    Quarterly earnings expectations.
•    Continuous market pricing.
•    More visible pressure from shareholders and analysts.

At the same time, private capital has become deeper and more specialised:

•    Venture capital has become more institutionalised.
•    Growth equity can fund later-stage expansion.
•    Sovereign wealth funds and crossover investors can provide scale capital.
•    Private credit can support complex funding needs.
•    Secondary markets can provide liquidity before IPOs.

This changes the economic role of a listing. In previous cycles, IPOs often funded the next phase of growth. Increasingly, they may provide liquidity, price discovery and exit optionality after much of that growth has already occurred.
 

Public investors may be arriving later

This is the central investor issue. 

The question is not simply whether companies are staying private longer, but whether more value is being created before public investors gain access. SpaceX is the clearest example.

The company is already one of the world’s most valuable private businesses, with recent reports suggesting an IPO could value it at up to $2 trillion. 

If SpaceX lists anywhere near that level, public investors would not be buying an early-stage growth story. They would be buying into a company that has already captured enormous private-market value.

Other major private companies point to the same issue:

•    OpenAI
•    Stripe
•    Databricks
•    Anthropic

Public markets still play a vital role in liquidity, governance and capital formation. But the nature of IPO investing may be changing. 

Rather than entering the start of the growth journey, investors may increasingly arrive after much of the private-market uplift has already occurred.
 

ETFs and semi-liquid vehicles are becoming the access layer

Asset managers are already addressing this access gap, though the response is not limited to ETFs. It includes listed vehicles, semi-liquid funds and evergreen structures designed to give a broader investor base exposure to assets that historically sat outside public portfolios.

Several developments are blurring the public-private boundary:

•    Private credit exposure is increasingly being offered through ETF-style structures.
•    Semi-liquid funds are attracting greater investor interest.
•    Interval funds have grown rapidly in the US.
•    ELTIFs are expanding across Europe.
•    LTAFs are becoming more established in the UK.

This is not simply a product innovation story - it is a market-structure story.

Asset managers are attempting to create an access layer between illiquid private assets and investors accustomed to public-market liquidity. In some cases, that means private credit packaged inside more familiar vehicles. In others, it means listed or semi-liquid products holding exposure to private companies such as SpaceX.

The direction of travel is clear: public and private markets are increasingly resembling a continuum rather than two separate ecosystems.
 

Access does not eliminate liquidity risk

The bridge between public and private markets is useful, but structurally imperfect. 

Investors should consider:

•    Private assets can be difficult to value.
•    Liquidity may be limited or conditional.
•    Fees can be higher than traditional public-market products.
•    Transparency can vary significantly.
•    Liquidity mismatches may become more visible during market stress.

A product may offer access to private assets, but that does not mean the underlying exposures behave like listed securities. Valuation frequency, redemption mechanics, secondary-market depth and manager discretion all become central to understanding the risk.

The issue is not simply access. It is whether value creation, liquidity and valuation risk are being transferred from private markets into public-facing portfolios at a later stage of the company lifecycle.
 

The boundary is blurring

The debate over whether companies are truly staying private longer will continue.

What appears clearer is that private markets are playing a larger role in company formation, growth financing and portfolio construction.

More capital is available outside public markets, more companies can reach scale before listing, and more products are being created to provide access to assets previously reserved for institutional investors.

For public market investors, the key question may no longer be whether a company will eventually go public. It may be whether the most attractive part of the growth journey has already occurred before public investors are invited in. 

Back to News