> 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? Yes,

> 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? Yes, and furthermore, the Spotify listing is anomaly in a lot of ways due to the idiosyncratic terms under which they raised money previously, and the fact that the major labels (who are their primary vendors) had ownership stakes in them from the very beginning. In IPOs, companies raise money, and underwriters serve as insurers to guarantee the amount that the company will raise. But Spotify isn't even raising any money today! They're just providing liquidity for existing shareholders. That's dramatically different from IPOs, so of course the underwriters are superfluous for this particular case. I don't think it makes sense to generalize anything from Spotify, but certainly not the role of underwriters.