5 ms·

Talk about setting the wrong price for their stock. Looks like airbnb just handed over boatloads of money to wall street.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fennecfoxen 6y ago
They already priced well above the expected range. It's highly unlikely they would have been able find subscribers for the 51,551,723 shares of the offering at the post-IPO price, before the IPO.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > It's highly unlikely they would have been able find subscribers for the 51,551,723 shares of the offering at the post-IPO price, before the IPO. I don't believe that. They opened at $140 but couldn't have found subscribers for anything more than $68? I don't think they're that bad at modeling the markets.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  yea, but they wouldn't have needed to sell 51,551,723 shares at that price, just 24,343,869
AznHisoka 6y ago
This is a market with a lot of froth and if they listed the price at $1 trillion, speculators would have bid it up to $2 trillion just because they want to sell it to a greater fool.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Literally not how markets work, but okay.
  - AznHisoka 6y ago
    You haven’t been watching the markets lately because that’s literally how it is today with EV stocks going up 100% in a month, SPACs, etc.
tempsy 6y ago
that isn’t how an IPO works. just because your stock pops doesn’t mean you handed over money to “wall street” if you’ve raised the money you sought at the set IPO price. the investors who bought the IPO allocation got an immediate 100% return but that is not at the expense of the company.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Leading economists disagree with you: https://twitter.com/BloombergTV/status/1337400042668306435 https://twitter.com/BloombergTV/status/1337400042668306435 > the investors who bought the IPO allocation got an immediate 100% return but that is not at the expense of the company. Could they not have allocated at higher?
  - tempsy 6y ago
    all he said was it makes the stock market look bad when some people double their money in a day. has nothing to do with whether Airbnb was screwed over by wall street. no one can predict the public market appetite in this environment. Airbnb was arguably richly valued at $50B as is and is richly valued at $100B. Setting your price too high and then crashing your stock is worse for the company due to tax implications and overall investor sentiment.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      They handed over boatloads of money because that is the toll that Wall Street firms exact in illiquid markets and that is how Wall Street firms make money. I'm not saying that they were screwed over. > all he said was it makes the stock market look bad when some people double their money in a day. That is one part of what he says, very misleading. He describes it as an "error" that is due to a flaw in the "way Wall Street is organized" (ie. around capitalizing on IPOs). That's more than just saying the markets "look bad".
      - tempsy 6y ago
        No one could’ve predicted Airbnb would be bid up to $100B. Just because you’re Goldman does not mean you can predict where a share price will go on day 1. we are in a massive speculative cycle that isn’t just impacting Airbnb’s IPO but a lot of tech stocks, many up 1x-10x in a year. So to try to argue that wall street purposefully set the price too low when $50B is already high given travel hasn’t fully recovered yet is makes no sense.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
Not necessarily. I personally think it closed way too high yesterday . If I’m right, then they’ll avoid headlines of “Airbnb closed today at 30% below their IPO price” by setting a more long term reasonable price. No idea how much the “narrative” really matters in the public stock market, but people sure talk about it like it does. It might matter for employee satisfaction too?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fennecfoxen 6y ago

They already priced well above the expected range. It's highly unlikely they would have been able find subscribers for the 51,551,723 shares of the offering at the post-IPO price, before the IPO.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> It's highly unlikely they would have been able find subscribers for the 51,551,723 shares of the offering at the post-IPO price, before the IPO. I don't believe that. They opened at $140 but couldn't have found subscribers for anything more than $68? I don't think they're that bad at modeling the markets.
bagacrap 6y ago
yea, but they wouldn't have needed to sell 51,551,723 shares at that price, just 24,343,869

AznHisoka 6y ago

This is a market with a lot of froth and if they listed the price at $1 trillion, speculators would have bid it up to $2 trillion just because they want to sell it to a greater fool.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Literally not how markets work, but okay.
- AznHisoka 6y ago
  You haven’t been watching the markets lately because that’s literally how it is today with EV stocks going up 100% in a month, SPACs, etc.

tempsy 6y ago

that isn’t how an IPO works. just because your stock pops doesn’t mean you handed over money to “wall street” if you’ve raised the money you sought at the set IPO price. the investors who bought the IPO allocation got an immediate 100% return but that is not at the expense of the company.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Leading economists disagree with you: https://twitter.com/BloombergTV/status/1337400042668306435 https://twitter.com/BloombergTV/status/1337400042668306435 > the investors who bought the IPO allocation got an immediate 100% return but that is not at the expense of the company. Could they not have allocated at higher?
- tempsy 6y ago
  all he said was it makes the stock market look bad when some people double their money in a day. has nothing to do with whether Airbnb was screwed over by wall street. no one can predict the public market appetite in this environment. Airbnb was arguably richly valued at $50B as is and is richly valued at $100B. Setting your price too high and then crashing your stock is worse for the company due to tax implications and overall investor sentiment.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    They handed over boatloads of money because that is the toll that Wall Street firms exact in illiquid markets and that is how Wall Street firms make money. I'm not saying that they were screwed over. > all he said was it makes the stock market look bad when some people double their money in a day. That is one part of what he says, very misleading. He describes it as an "error" that is due to a flaw in the "way Wall Street is organized" (ie. around capitalizing on IPOs). That's more than just saying the markets "look bad".
    - tempsy 6y ago
      No one could’ve predicted Airbnb would be bid up to $100B. Just because you’re Goldman does not mean you can predict where a share price will go on day 1. we are in a massive speculative cycle that isn’t just impacting Airbnb’s IPO but a lot of tech stocks, many up 1x-10x in a year. So to try to argue that wall street purposefully set the price too low when $50B is already high given travel hasn’t fully recovered yet is makes no sense.

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

Not necessarily. I personally think it closed way too high yesterday . If I’m right, then they’ll avoid headlines of “Airbnb closed today at 30% below their IPO price” by setting a more long term reasonable price. No idea how much the “narrative” really matters in the public stock market, but people sure talk about it like it does. It might matter for employee satisfaction too?