Contrasting this offering, where there were no underwriters and things proceeded spectacularly, with the Dropbox IPO, where the underwriters added negative value, speaks profoundly to the future role of private markets in the capital markets for technology companies. Disclaimer: I bet my career on private markets supplanting public ones, in respect of certain technology companies, many years ago.
I don't get this argument. Don't the underwriters provide an obvious service that will always have utility for some private companies: risk management?
IPOs have (a) companies issuing stock, (b) private investors selling stock and (c) public investors pricing an asset never before continuously priced. All this happens simultaneously. If the ball drops on one, it drops on them all. Underwriting is a good way to manage that risk.
Private markets challenge that simultaneity. Instead of selling into the IPO, companies can sell some in the private markets and some after going public. Instead of having every insider sell on opening day, they can sell in private secondaries and then after the lock-up. That leaves element (c) isolated. That's difficult--Spotify still hired bankers--but it doesn't need underwriting.
Another way to look at it: three services were bundled into the traditional IPO. Bankers charged richly for the bundle. Private markets give companies the option, to dis-assemble the bundle and price and time them separately.