4 ms·

A list of fund raisings is not impressive. All it says is they are good at raising funds. The IPOs matter and exits matter. Revenue matters if it's sustainab

A list of fund raisings is not impressive. All it says is they are good at raising funds. The IPOs matter and exits matter. Revenue matters if it's sustainable. The list has two IPOs, which is great. But one is down 90% from it's IPO (aurora) and the other is down 98% from its IPO (bird scooters). Bird is only worth 75M today.

HWR_14 4y ago
Being down from your IPO in percentage terms seems irrelevant. If FB was down 90% from it's IPO it would still be a $13 billion company. That's not a huge behemoth that instead grew by 4x since its IPO, but that's still respectable as an exit.
- ies7 4y ago
  For me being down 90% from IPO means their exit strategy is to take the money by fooling a lot of retail investor.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    It might be success for the scammers. But it is certainly failure for the retail investors and general public. And people involved maybe should be vilified. In the end I think real successes are those that deliver reasonable dividends.
- andrewmutz 4y ago
  Fair enough. If you raise 100M, IPO for 10B, and then drop 90% to 1B, you still accomplished a great thing, I agree. You turned 100M investment into 1B. But Bird scooter raised more than 900M, and today is worth 75M. Yes, it's an IPO and that's great, but it destroyed a lot of wealth. Not clear who ended up holding the bag (VCs or the public investors), but either way it's a bad outcome
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    In this example, fair enough, Bird failed. It seems obvious from the 75 million valuation (and the being banned in city after city). And that was assuming a far smaller total raise than 900MM. They raised that much money? Their capital costs were really high, and it's possible they actually needed it. My point was mostly about the details, not claiming that Bird was a success.
- elefanten 4y ago
  Irrelevant to what? One could argue what the thesis or purpose of this piece might be, but the call to action seems to be this part: “If you’re interested in supporting, joining, or investing in a company founded by Uber alumni or you’d just like to learn more, full details are below” If you want to support, join or invest in someone on the basis of them being an Uber alumnus, you may want to know how much value was created by other alumni. The more sustainable (and, ideally, appreciating) that value is, the more likely you are to actually get to enjoy it.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    But my point was, it doesn't matter what "delta since IPO" was. If Bird had an IPO by selling a single share at $200, then dropped to $20, it lost 90% of it's value. But it would still be a billion dollar company. Paying attention to what they are worth now seems more important than what they are worth relative to a random date. "If they were raising money at 1% of their IPO value a month before, then IPO'd and then went down to 10% of their IPO value, it's a win." "Bird raised at a 10MM valuation, IPOed at a 1 billion valuation and settled at a 100MM valuation" says the same thing in a clearer way and lets you know who got screwed (people who bought IPO shares). And for employees, Bird stayed (close enough to) its IPO price for the 6 month lockups to expire and everyone to sell. In fact, it was at around 7 months in that the stock started tanking.

HWR_14 4y ago

Being down from your IPO in percentage terms seems irrelevant. If FB was down 90% from it's IPO it would still be a $13 billion company. That's not a huge behemoth that instead grew by 4x since its IPO, but that's still respectable as an exit.

ies7 4y ago
For me being down 90% from IPO means their exit strategy is to take the money by fooling a lot of retail investor.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  It might be success for the scammers. But it is certainly failure for the retail investors and general public. And people involved maybe should be vilified. In the end I think real successes are those that deliver reasonable dividends.
andrewmutz 4y ago
Fair enough. If you raise 100M, IPO for 10B, and then drop 90% to 1B, you still accomplished a great thing, I agree. You turned 100M investment into 1B. But Bird scooter raised more than 900M, and today is worth 75M. Yes, it's an IPO and that's great, but it destroyed a lot of wealth. Not clear who ended up holding the bag (VCs or the public investors), but either way it's a bad outcome
- HWR_14 4y ago
  In this example, fair enough, Bird failed. It seems obvious from the 75 million valuation (and the being banned in city after city). And that was assuming a far smaller total raise than 900MM. They raised that much money? Their capital costs were really high, and it's possible they actually needed it. My point was mostly about the details, not claiming that Bird was a success.
elefanten 4y ago
Irrelevant to what? One could argue what the thesis or purpose of this piece might be, but the call to action seems to be this part: “If you’re interested in supporting, joining, or investing in a company founded by Uber alumni or you’d just like to learn more, full details are below” If you want to support, join or invest in someone on the basis of them being an Uber alumnus, you may want to know how much value was created by other alumni. The more sustainable (and, ideally, appreciating) that value is, the more likely you are to actually get to enjoy it.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  But my point was, it doesn't matter what "delta since IPO" was. If Bird had an IPO by selling a single share at $200, then dropped to $20, it lost 90% of it's value. But it would still be a billion dollar company. Paying attention to what they are worth now seems more important than what they are worth relative to a random date. "If they were raising money at 1% of their IPO value a month before, then IPO'd and then went down to 10% of their IPO value, it's a win." "Bird raised at a 10MM valuation, IPOed at a 1 billion valuation and settled at a 100MM valuation" says the same thing in a clearer way and lets you know who got screwed (people who bought IPO shares). And for employees, Bird stayed (close enough to) its IPO price for the 6 month lockups to expire and everyone to sell. In fact, it was at around 7 months in that the stock started tanking.