Let's say I am a dividend investor looking for a steady cashflow stream.
Why would an asset class like medium-size technology companies pursuing highly competitive cut-throat markets, requiring long lock-ups of capital (Dropbox was founded in 2007, so someone has been sitting on those shares for 9 years already) be more attractive than similar dividend-flowing asset classes like real estate or energy MLPs?
Are the dividends so outsized that Dropbox is basically swimming in cash and the yield is much better than I can get with similar asset classes? Do they have a stronger foothold in the market with expected longevity to out-survive an office tower, apartment complex or gas pipeline? Is it likely to attract better talent than Valley's established public companies (GOOG, AAPL, FB) or Valley's hyper-growth startups with IPO potential (Uber), and that better talent will out-compete the rivals on products, execution and market share (and, as corollary, fall under "dividend growth" umbrella, in theory allowing me to buy larger yields at substantial discount)?
Dropbox would have to compensate investors for (a) lack of liquidity and (b) for being in technology software market, known to be particularly unforgiving with its "winner takes all" mentality. Its peers would be highly risky single purpose private REITs (think casinos and fracking companies in North Dakota).
To accommodate that compensation the yields would likely have to be in the double-digits range, so let's say with profits of $20 mln of which $10 mln is allocated to dividends the expected valuation would be in the range of $60-100 mil (10-15% expected yield which seems reasonable in this rate environment with the type of risk described).