One of the most interesting things I learned this week was how differently public and private companies operate, even though both might sell similar products or services. At first, I thought the main difference was just whether the company’s stock is traded on the market, but now I see that it affects almost every part of how the business is run.
A private company is owned by a small group of people, often founders, investors, or families, and their decisions are usually faster and more flexible. They don’t have to report financial details publicly or deal with shareholder pressure. However, raising large amounts of money can be harder, and growth may be slower without public investment.
A public company, on the other hand, sells shares to the public on the stock market. This can bring in huge amounts of capital and help the company expand quickly. But it also brings stricter regulations, more transparency, and pressure to keep shareholders happy. Decisions can become slower and more focused on short-term results to maintain stock value.
Personally, I think it depends on the company’s goals. If the priority is control and flexibility, staying private might be better. But if the aim is growth and large-scale impact, going public could open more doors.
Now I am wondering, is it smarter for a company to stay private and keep control, or go public and aim for massive growth?
The medical device industry is diverse and compromises of both public and private companies. Privately owned companies benefit from reasons that you mentioned such as faster and more flexible decision making. A private medical device company gives the owners more control with their products including the development and marketing. There can be more opportunities to invest long-term towards innovation which can be hindered for public companies that have to fulfill requirements for SEC regulations and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Regarding your question, I also agree that it depends on the company, their goals, as well as their history. For example, a company that went from private to public is Stryker corporation. This change in 1979 followed by successful acquisitions has allowed them to expand their product line range while investing in research. Even though the company was making millions in sales as a private company, they have made billions of dollars in revenue growth for several years as a public company. Therefore, I think it depends on a company's capabilities and the decisions or obligations of the owners and shareholders.
I feel it is a cop out again to say it depends on the business, but if I am going to think about from the biomedical perspective, I feel perhaps going through the public domain is better? In my head, I am getting into this degree because I'd like to be a part of the process in helping develop medical advances for patients in need. If that is gonna be the case, I feel a company should aim for it to have a massive growth that is beneficial in the idea of throwing a wide net out there as well as having those stricter regulations and transparency because it is affecting so many people. I think biomedical companies that focus on the private sector would be utilized in areas that maybe focus on contracting to certain departments (just as a generalized example, the defense department of governmetn). This could be things like an exosuit style apparatus or perhaps a focus of studies on TBIs from explosive injuries.
Although I agree that each ownership structure has advantages, I find it interesting how a company's innovation strategy and risk tolerance can vary depending on whether it’s private or public. The amount of risk that public firms are prepared to take on early-stage innovation may be limited because they frequently have to defend all significant R&D expenses to shareholders. However, because they are not subject to quarterly financial pressure, private enterprises may take more bold moves in product development. This is really important in the biomedical industry, where innovations frequently take years and don't always provide results right away.
That being said, I believe that a hybrid strategy such as remaining confidential throughout the research stage and going public after the product pipeline is developed, might be the best course of action. It lets a business take innovative chances at an early stage and then use public funds for extensive production, testing, and distribution. Several biotech businesses who remained private during the early rounds of clinical trials and only went public when they were prepared to scale have found success with this model.
For the Biomedical Industry and Medical devices especially, I feel like in a vacuum keeping the company private is the best thing. Being able to invest money from the company into long term projects, as well as provide the best quality care to patients even if it isn't the most cost efficient in the short term, is vital in this industry. Not only will this improve many peoples lives, it will also give long-term positives to your company that may be from long term research finally paying off or just from good brand image from giving good quality products at lower costs. Having to answer to stakeholders who may only prioritize their dividends over the companies overall actual health could impede all of that. Unfortunately, in reality I think the choice ultimately comes down to money. Going public could generate a huge influx of money that your company could really use to fund it's ability to operate as well as long term projects, that may be impossible to fund otherwise. Going public can accelerate your companies growth, but I think that there are significant drawbacks that it preferable to avoid it if possible.
For long-term goals in order to remain an established company, going public is almost a requirement in my mind. A private company when it goes public should hit the ground running. As in, the company should already have some momentum in the market in order to please potential shareholders and generate interest in investment. Going public with just an idea can generate significant capital. For example, Nikola motors is a great example of this. They have been developing prototypes of semi trucks running on alternatives to the diesel engine, including a hydrogen-powered truck. With an idea, they went public, rolled a truck down a hill, got a lot of money, lost it all, and the company went bankrupt. With this in mind, the idea of solely going public will never create a strong company unless someone has something truly revolutionary with the proof to back it up. This also can work similarly in medical devices. Going public with only a revolutionary medical device is a false reality that almost no one has achieved.
Choosing between going public or staying private depends on the kind of strength a company seeks—public companies benefit from access to large-scale capital, increased visibility, and liquidity for shareholders, which can accelerate expansion and attract top talent, but they also face regulatory burdens, short-term market pressures, and diluted founder control; meanwhile, private companies enjoy operational flexibility, strategic agility, and long-term focus without the distractions of quarterly earnings or shareholder demands, though they may struggle with limited funding and valuation opacity—so for businesses rooted in deep tech, biomedical innovation, or regulatory complexity, staying private longer often allows for deeper technical development and strategic control, while going public may be better suited for scaling clinical trials, global partnerships, or infrastructure-heavy growth.
