It seems pretty clear that public companies (with recent IPOs especially) are most affected; seed stage the least. Raising a seed or A round really shouldn't be any different (the sums involved are smallish for the funds, even with multiple investments and reserves), but it's entirely possible it will be (or, that it will be used as an excuse).
I'm going to hypothesize that the push to cloud, and need for improved computer security, is a much much stronger positive trend than the current economic issues. I'd be more concerned if I were a B or IPO stage company which relied on local/state/federal government sales (e.g. some kind of government-optimized CRM), or maybe an expensive consumer product. Genuine luxury seems like it should do ok, especially non-deferrable luxury servies, but "aspirational luxury" for middle class and lower class might suck. However, really cheap entertainment might win, too -- much better to be video games than movies in a downturn.
Surely public companies have no need to care that much? Once your shares are sold, they're out there, you don't care all that much if they decline in value.
The people for whom this is really bad news are the companies who were planning an IPO in the near-to-mid-term future.
1) "Fiduciary duty" in 2011 in the USA seems to mean maximizing share price at all times. If you don't, you're out of a job.
2) Compensation is largely tied to stock price -- either via options, or via bonuses paid explicitly on stock price.
One thing you can do is bury your own specific bad news in a general downturn, since you'll be blamed a lot less for external things. E.g. if you have recalls, bad numbers, etc. to announce, announce them on a day when everyone is getting hammered for exogenous reasons.
But yes, definitely worse for companies who have registered but not completed IPOs.
Point 3) is that it is nice to keep the stock price high if you need to do an additional offering down the road.
This is probably the only real reason why a company should care about its stock price. Tying executive compensation to the stock price encourages the company to think on a quarterly basis. I don't think this is good in the long term.
Nitpick: much better to be _small_ video games. The big ones easily push into the same financial territory (for making them) as movies, and have way less avenues to monetize afterwards. (No "DVD sales", no money from the rental market, no TV deals...)
Sushi is $100 an hour? Where do you go for Sushi? I've been several times to an _excellent_ Sushi bar, in Los Angeles, and the worst damage I ever did was $75. And that was really trying for it. (Sidenote: gold flakes on Sushi don't add in any way to the taste, but they sure look shiny ;)
I'm going to hypothesize that the push to cloud, and need for improved computer security, is a much much stronger positive trend than the current economic issues. I'd be more concerned if I were a B or IPO stage company which relied on local/state/federal government sales (e.g. some kind of government-optimized CRM), or maybe an expensive consumer product. Genuine luxury seems like it should do ok, especially non-deferrable luxury servies, but "aspirational luxury" for middle class and lower class might suck. However, really cheap entertainment might win, too -- much better to be video games than movies in a downturn.