Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stripe valued at $159B, 2025 annual letter

stripe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 253 posts

Re: Stripe valued at $159B, 2025 annual letter

#81

Post by bryanlarsen »

kasey_junk wrote: post #68
bryanlarsen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure they already have more than the 500 non-accredited or 2000 accredited shareholder total that would trigger most of those reporting requirements anyways. So Stripe already has most of the drawbacks of being a public company without the benefits.

The reporting isn’t the drawbacks of being public, it’s the investors. They get to _choose_ who they let in if they are private (by definition). They don’t need the public’s money and don’t want the headache of dealing with the public. I’d completely agree if I were them. Disclaimer: ex-stripe who is still an investor.

The vast majority of public shareholders don't vote their shares. A VC is much more likely to apply unwanted pressure to the board/management than the general public is.

IMO, the best reason to avoid an IPO is to stay out of the media.

Re: Stripe valued at $159B, 2025 annual letter

#82

Post by johnny_canuck »

jameskilton wrote: post #14
fourseventy wrote: post #2

It's insane that they aren't public yet. Their investors must be pressuring them like crazy to IPO.

Stripe has been doing annual tender offers. Their stance on not being public yet is that they don't need to be, as an IPO is mainly a way to raise money. As an ex-Stripe, I understand the sentiment, and the tender offers are a nice middle ground for now, but I still would like to see them go public eventually.

Are there caps on how much you could sell during the tender offer? I had one come through my email ~3 years ago for a company I previously worked for. IIRC it allowed you to sell up to 10% of your stock.

Re: Stripe valued at $159B, 2025 annual letter

#83

Post by giancarlostoro »

jameskilton wrote: post #14
fourseventy wrote: post #2

It's insane that they aren't public yet. Their investors must be pressuring them like crazy to IPO.

Stripe has been doing annual tender offers. Their stance on not being public yet is that they don't need to be, as an IPO is mainly a way to raise money. As an ex-Stripe, I understand the sentiment, and the tender offers are a nice middle ground for now, but I still would like to see them go public eventually.

I'm glad. I don't think every company needs to be on the stock market, and companies that are profitable like Stripe is, absolutely do not need to be on the stock market. Why? So people can buy and sell their stock on a whim?

Re: Stripe valued at $159B, 2025 annual letter

#86

Post by elictronic »

malfist wrote: post #51
gmd63 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Needing to maximize shareholder value is a myth. There is no law that requires you to do that - people like to use the idea as an excuse to do scummy business.

Sure, it's a dubious legal requirement at best. But you try telling people that on an earnings call and watch your valuation plummet because you took a long position and the market wanted a next quarter position. And even if you don't care about selling your stock personally, it does impact your ability to raise funds.

Short term investors don’t matter. They are going to pull out and move to the next thing.

Re: Stripe valued at $159B, 2025 annual letter

#87

Post by cmiles8 »

fourseventy wrote: post #2

It's insane that they aren't public yet. Their investors must be pressuring them like crazy to IPO.

The markets are skeptical at the moment. A bunch of tech IPOs in the last few years have tanked 70+% since the IPO and that can be devastating to a company.

Also there’s a ton of overhead associated with being public that nobody really wants to do so companies now stay private as long as they can get away with.

Re: Stripe valued at $159B, 2025 annual letter

#88

Post by fnordpiglet »

tyre wrote: post #34
jameskilton wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stripe has been doing annual tender offers. Their stance on not being public yet is that they don't need to be, as an IPO is mainly a way to raise money. As an ex-Stripe, I understand the sentiment, and the tender offers are a nice middle ground for now, but I still would like to see them go public eventually.

I hope they never go public (also as an ex-Stripe!) I can't really see a net-positive benefit to having public shareholders and reporting requirements. Do we think Stripe's leadership needs feedback from random investment advisors or analysts? Do employees need the distraction of daily-updating stock prices? Would quarterly reporting incentivize better decision making? In my opinion: ehhhhhhhhhhhh I see the benefit,…

The latest self funded tenders have been pretty tiny. I wouldn’t term it as “liquidity” as much as a symbolic gesture.

Re: Stripe valued at $159B, 2025 annual letter

#89

Post by paxys »

colesantiago wrote: post #74
paxys wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need an annual income of $200K to become an accredited investor. If you don't have that, you anyways shouldn't be participating in risky private markets. If anything they should also restrict options trading, sports gambling, prediction markets etc. to accredited investors.

Why don't we extend this to the risky public manipulated stock market?

Because that is what the SEC was created for, and (in theory) it is their job to protect regular invesors from market risks. Now how effectively that works is a different conversation, but at the very least you have reporting requirements, earnings releases, material disclosures, insider trading laws, SIPC insurance, circuit breakers etc. It is very unlikely that you are going to lose all your money in a stable blue chip company or broad index fund, but a regular joe trying to invest in a hot "private investing opportunity" is absolutely going to be taken for a ride.

Re: Stripe valued at $159B, 2025 annual letter

#90

Post by elictronic »

arcticbull wrote: post #58
gmd63 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Needing to maximize shareholder value is a myth. There is no law that requires you to do that - people like to use the idea as an excuse to do scummy business.

Depends. In Michigan it is binding precedent, see Dodge v. Ford (1919). Delaware corporations must act in the interests of shareholders.

This case was specifically about dividends and long term shareholder value, not quarterly results.
Post reply on HN