5 ms·

It's going to be interesting to see where they allocate the money. They're in a very tough market: competing with Uber for drivers and Amazon for drone deliveri

by danm07 10y ago

It's going to be interesting to see where they allocate the money. They're in a very tough market: competing with Uber for drivers and Amazon for drone deliveries. Literally, the most inauspicious position to be in, second to competing with Google or Elon Musk. It's funny that selling the company was their priority, and that they had to hire an investment bank to look for funders.

danvayn 10y ago
It'd probably more accurate to say Postmates is competing with Prime Now, not Amazon Air lol
- jdavis703 10y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but the blasé and pedantic tone to this comment is probably why you're getting downvoted.
  - dopamean 10y ago
    It's funny how the "lol" can change anything. I didn't think there was anything particularly wrong with the tone until I reached the very end.
    - tkxxx7 10y ago
      Even then it sounds more like "lol this is ridiculous" and not "lol you're a lil incorrect"
    - danm07 10y ago
      haha great observation... I didn't notice this before.
scapecast 10y ago
It's not uncommon for start-ups at the more mature stage to work with an investment bank to pull together a round of financing (let's say post Series B), particularly when you get into the triple-$M range. For example, Box used JP Morgan in their later rounds. Bankers have a much wider network of potential investors than founders, and they can also run the process much more efficiently. Raising $141M is different from raising $14.1M, it gets way more complex. And at that amount / valuation, what can be a financing can quickly turn into an acquisition, think what happened to Cruise Automation. Frequently the bankers do a principal investment in the same round they are raising for the company, to show that they have skin in the game, but also to position themselves for a potential IPO or M&A transaction (which is the lucrative part, you get 2-3% of the total consideration). Qatalyst is well known in the Valley, another firm is Allen & Co. Both companies do principal investments, and so do the bulge bracket firms like GS, JPM and MS. GS put money into Uber. So it's probably not "had to hire" but "decided to hire", and a perfectly common practice.

by danm07 10y ago

danvayn 10y ago

It'd probably more accurate to say Postmates is competing with Prime Now, not Amazon Air lol

jdavis703 10y ago
I didn't downvote you, but the blasé and pedantic tone to this comment is probably why you're getting downvoted.
- dopamean 10y ago
  It's funny how the "lol" can change anything. I didn't think there was anything particularly wrong with the tone until I reached the very end.
  - tkxxx7 10y ago
    Even then it sounds more like "lol this is ridiculous" and not "lol you're a lil incorrect"
  - danm07 10y ago
    haha great observation... I didn't notice this before.

scapecast 10y ago

It's not uncommon for start-ups at the more mature stage to work with an investment bank to pull together a round of financing (let's say post Series B), particularly when you get into the triple-$M range. For example, Box used JP Morgan in their later rounds. Bankers have a much wider network of potential investors than founders, and they can also run the process much more efficiently. Raising $141M is different from raising $14.1M, it gets way more complex. And at that amount / valuation, what can be a financing can quickly turn into an acquisition, think what happened to Cruise Automation. Frequently the bankers do a principal investment in the same round they are raising for the company, to show that they have skin in the game, but also to position themselves for a potential IPO or M&A transaction (which is the lucrative part, you get 2-3% of the total consideration). Qatalyst is well known in the Valley, another firm is Allen & Co. Both companies do principal investments, and so do the bulge bracket firms like GS, JPM and MS. GS put money into Uber. So it's probably not "had to hire" but "decided to hire", and a perfectly common practice.