5 ms·

Shouldn't going public on an unrealistic market cap would cause more issues than benefits? Sure, a healthy exit is ok but later pressure to recover the market c

Shouldn't going public on an unrealistic market cap would cause more issues than benefits? Sure, a healthy exit is ok but later pressure to recover the market cap in the short term can cause heavy structural damages inside any org.

throw125412423 4y ago
I'd rather have cash in my bank account and work for a company that will suffer structural damage than see my hypothetical net worth go down 60%.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  You're gonna love a job at Netflix :)
repsilat 4y ago
I think that's a more complicated explanation than necessary. If their private valuation is higher than their public valuation it means they can raise money more cheaply while private.
- echelon 4y ago
  To the benefit of the company and the people that control Stripe, not necessarily the hard working ICs that would enjoy liquidity. The opportunity cost of this restriction on their lives is huge. Had they gone public two years ago, employees would have benefitted from a market of a lifetime, with equity in one of the best tickets in town. A lot of life changing early retirements and "Fat FIRE".
  - id 4y ago
    >The opportunity cost of this restriction on their lives is huge. What restriction, exactly?
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      That they continue working at Stripe, instead of pursuing other life goals. Or to phrase parent's point differently: by not IPO'ing, Stripe forfeited the premium public markets would have been willing to pay Stripe employees for their stock.
      - id 4y ago
        Isn't that their choice, though?
        ethbr0 4y ago
        Not after Stripe decided not to IPO.
    - peanuty1 4y ago
      The restriction of not being able to liquidate their shares on the public market because of Stripe staying private for an unusually long time (Block (formerly Square), the other double-digit billion-dollar Silicon Valley payments company founded in 2009, went public in 2015). I imagine most Stripe employees that joined in 2019 and earlier expected Stripe to have gone public by now.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

throw125412423 4y ago

I'd rather have cash in my bank account and work for a company that will suffer structural damage than see my hypothetical net worth go down 60%.

arcticbull 4y ago
You're gonna love a job at Netflix :)

repsilat 4y ago

I think that's a more complicated explanation than necessary. If their private valuation is higher than their public valuation it means they can raise money more cheaply while private.

echelon 4y ago
To the benefit of the company and the people that control Stripe, not necessarily the hard working ICs that would enjoy liquidity. The opportunity cost of this restriction on their lives is huge. Had they gone public two years ago, employees would have benefitted from a market of a lifetime, with equity in one of the best tickets in town. A lot of life changing early retirements and "Fat FIRE".
- id 4y ago
  >The opportunity cost of this restriction on their lives is huge. What restriction, exactly?
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    That they continue working at Stripe, instead of pursuing other life goals. Or to phrase parent's point differently: by not IPO'ing, Stripe forfeited the premium public markets would have been willing to pay Stripe employees for their stock.
    - id 4y ago
      Isn't that their choice, though?
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        Not after Stripe decided not to IPO.
  - peanuty1 4y ago
    The restriction of not being able to liquidate their shares on the public market because of Stripe staying private for an unusually long time (Block (formerly Square), the other double-digit billion-dollar Silicon Valley payments company founded in 2009, went public in 2015). I imagine most Stripe employees that joined in 2019 and earlier expected Stripe to have gone public by now.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]