11–20 of 112 posts
Honesty I don't get why a company has to go public and gamble its future on a herd of people that they have no clue about the business and just try to make profit out of you based on speculation. Stay private and get loans. At least loan rates will not change by 1000% overnight based on some nonsense that someone wrote on his Twitter.
The banks backing spotify made about as much from their "non IPO" compared to what they would have made from a traditional IPO so I don't think too many bulge bracket banks are worried about this trend. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/spotify-l... > Avoiding the lock-up period was a very important part of our decision to list Spotify directly, but there were also clear financial benefits. This was…
This was listed as, I think, a positive but I see it as an extreme negative. Why invest in your company if you don't have the conviction that it will be worth more 3-6 months from now. You are thinking as a potential new investor, and your interests are not aligned with employees and early investors. Employees and early investors have had what is likely to be a large fraction of their net worth tied up in one company…
All I said was its very reasonable, as evidenced by the fact that every IPO over the past 40 years has had a lockup, to have a 3-6 month hold period for existing share holders when you go public.
That's it. I( and GOOG, FB, AMZN, SNAP, and the rest of the entire tech community that went public ) all believe that a 3- 6 month hold window is a very reasonable ask given that they all had one.
Sorry if I confused you, I hope this clears things up:)
Honesty I don't get why a company has to go public and gamble its future on a herd of people that they have no clue about the business and just try to make profit out of you based on speculation. Stay private and get loans. At least loan rates will not change by 1000% overnight based on some nonsense that someone wrote on his Twitter.
The banks backing spotify made about as much from their "non IPO" compared to what they would have made from a traditional IPO so I don't think too many bulge bracket banks are worried about this trend. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/spotify-l... > Avoiding the lock-up period was a very important part of our decision to list Spotify directly, but there were also clear financial benefits. This was…
Incorrect. They opened at $120, jumped to $165 then dropped to $149.
The banks backing spotify made about as much from their "non IPO" compared to what they would have made from a traditional IPO so I don't think too many bulge bracket banks are worried about this trend. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/spotify-l... > Avoiding the lock-up period was a very important part of our decision to list Spotify directly, but there were also clear financial benefits. This was…
> I think they are right but they really have no proof that they avoided the IPO pop discount. They actually opened trading at $165.90 and closed at $149.01. Incorrect. They opened at $120, jumped to $165 then dropped to $149.
NYSE set a reference price of $132
Shares made their debut with an opening price of $165.90
Shares peaked at $169 shortly after trading began
Shares closed at $149.01
https://www.fastcompany.com/40554046/heres-how-spotifys-stoc...
Honesty I don't get why a company has to go public and gamble its future on a herd of people that they have no clue about the business and just try to make profit out of you based on speculation. Stay private and get loans. At least loan rates will not change by 1000% overnight based on some nonsense that someone wrote on his Twitter.
Honesty I don't get why a company has to go public and gamble its future on a herd of people that they have no clue about the business and just try to make profit out of you based on speculation. Stay private and get loans. At least loan rates will not change by 1000% overnight based on some nonsense that someone wrote on his Twitter.
The whole point of owning part of a company is to collect dividends and/or sell your shares for more than you bought them for. But without going public, it can be difficult to do the latter.
Honesty I don't get why a company has to go public and gamble its future on a herd of people that they have no clue about the business and just try to make profit out of you based on speculation. Stay private and get loans. At least loan rates will not change by 1000% overnight based on some nonsense that someone wrote on his Twitter.
The whole point of owning part of a company is to collect dividends and/or sell your shares for more than you bought them for. But without going public, it can be difficult to do the latter.
I thought it might help to share our motivations for eventually listing our company vs taking more VC:
a. The public markets force transparency. This aligns with our values.
b. Governance enforced by VCs (especially in the UK) is largely founder-unfriendly. There are no prefs, investor majority consents or other unfair terms in company governance when you’re public.
c. Secondaries - shares sold by employees or early investors - can be sold at any time, at fair market value.
d. Capital raising - debt or equity - as a public company comes with fewer strings.
e. Friends and family and supporters can participate - especially from their retirement accounts. This is really important - the wealth creation being broad has a real good-news feel. Sharing the wealth.
f. Trust is built with the public - I feel - more when you’re publicly listed and ‘established’.
The ‘downsides’ of quarterly market updates I’m sure are more intense than it feels from the outside, but I’d like to think our growth story happening in a public sphere will help build trust so when we do need more capital a broader base of investors feel confident engaging with us.
Thoughts welcomed.