4 ms·

Stripe has been doing annual tender offers. Their stance on not being public yet is that they don't need to be, as an IPO is mainly a way to raise money. As an

Stripe has been doing annual tender offers. Their stance on not being public yet is that they don't need to be, as an IPO is mainly a way to raise money. As an ex-Stripe, I understand the sentiment, and the tender offers are a nice middle ground for now, but I still would like to see them go public eventually.

adventured 8mo ago
An IPO today is mainly a way for major investors - those that want out - to liquidate out in a big way by dumping to a very large mass of investors. There is no other means to do that without signaling a gigantic loss of confidence. Raising money as a private entity is trivial these days if you're in the league that Stripe is. See: the comical AI private funding levels.
- hypeatei 8mo ago
  > An IPO today is mainly a way for major investors Major investors and insiders. Stay the hell away from IPOs if you're not an institution getting access to shares at a reasonable price.
armadyl 8mo ago
> As an ex-Stripe, I understand the sentiment, and the tender offers are a nice middle ground for now, but I still would like to see them go public eventually. This is an incredibly odd sentiment, imo. What’s the desire to see them go public unless you personally are profiting from it? Going public would quickly set Stripe on a pathway to potential enshittification and at minimum starting to squeeze the consumers and businesses it provides services to more.
- paxys 8mo ago
  If they are ex-Stripe they are likely holding shares, and so yes they would personally profit from going public.
  - jez 8mo ago
    The tender offer announced in the article is open to former employees as well, so they personally profit regardless of Stripe being public (unless the claim is that by being public the valuation would be materially higher than the stated valuation for this offer).
- shevy-java 8mo ago
  There may be a conflict of interest with ex-Stripe folks wanting to see a move towards x or y.
maratc 8mo ago
Above certain amount of shareholders, the rules for the public companies start applying, so you get all of the disadvantages of being a public company (like SEC filings, etc.) without the advantages (like ability to raise money.) IIRC this is what forced $MSFT to do IPO in 1986.
tyre 8mo ago
I hope they never go public (also as an ex-Stripe!) I can't really see a net-positive benefit to having public shareholders and reporting requirements. Do we think Stripe's leadership needs feedback from random investment advisors or analysts? Do employees need the distraction of daily-updating stock prices? Would quarterly reporting incentivize better decision making? In my opinion: ehhhhhhhhhhhh I see the benefit, but if you're joining Stripe you know the trade-off of RSUs in a company that doesn't provide daily liquidity. They provide it on a regular basis, so you're not locked in forever (a la my 2014 Gusto shares).
- malfist 8mo ago
  Do very many companies provide daily liquidity? Most of my time getting RSUs have had trading windows, once a quarter if you're lucky.
  - toast0 8mo ago
    When I was an employee of a subsidiary of Infospace, my RSUs were always worthless (honestly, I don't remember if any vested while I was there), at Yahoo, we could generally trade, although one shouldn't trade immediately after earnings, but I don't remember if this was enforced at the affiliated brokerage. At Facebook, I think it was typically a three week window every quarter. Of course, if you quit, the windows are no longer in force, although if you have material non-public information, you're still not allowed to trade. Maybe there'a a share price where you'd rather quit and sell than hold on until the window opens.
- bryanlarsen 8mo ago
  I'm sure they already have more than the 500 non-accredited or 2000 accredited shareholder total that would trigger most of those reporting requirements anyways. So Stripe already has most of the drawbacks of being a public company without the benefits.
  - kasey_junk 8mo ago
    The reporting isn’t the drawbacks of being public, it’s the investors. They get to _choose_ who they let in if they are private (by definition). They don’t need the public’s money and don’t want the headache of dealing with the public. I’d completely agree if I were them. Disclaimer: ex-stripe who is still an investor.
coldpie 8mo ago
Going public is the fastest way to turn a solid, functioning business into a hideous, infinite-growth chasing ghoul that everyone hates. Don't do it.
- bryanlarsen 8mo ago
  Instead they are mostly owned by VC's, who will more directly pressure them to do that than the general public owners will. The important part is that the Collison's control Stripe now. When that changes things may go down hill. It won't matter if it is public or not.
- WheatMillington 8mo ago
  As opposed to VC owners, who are famously satisfied with slow growth. Right?
- sensanaty 8mo ago
  And VCs are what, patient angels who invest their money out of the goodness of their hearts expecting no returns?
johnny_canuck 8mo ago
Are there caps on how much you could sell during the tender offer? I had one come through my email ~3 years ago for a company I previously worked for. IIRC it allowed you to sell up to 10% of your stock.
giancarlostoro 8mo ago
I'm glad. I don't think every company needs to be on the stock market, and companies that are profitable like Stripe is, absolutely do not need to be on the stock market. Why? So people can buy and sell their stock on a whim?

adventured 8mo ago

An IPO today is mainly a way for major investors - those that want out - to liquidate out in a big way by dumping to a very large mass of investors. There is no other means to do that without signaling a gigantic loss of confidence. Raising money as a private entity is trivial these days if you're in the league that Stripe is. See: the comical AI private funding levels.

hypeatei 8mo ago
> An IPO today is mainly a way for major investors Major investors and insiders. Stay the hell away from IPOs if you're not an institution getting access to shares at a reasonable price.

armadyl 8mo ago

> As an ex-Stripe, I understand the sentiment, and the tender offers are a nice middle ground for now, but I still would like to see them go public eventually. This is an incredibly odd sentiment, imo. What’s the desire to see them go public unless you personally are profiting from it? Going public would quickly set Stripe on a pathway to potential enshittification and at minimum starting to squeeze the consumers and businesses it provides services to more.

paxys 8mo ago
If they are ex-Stripe they are likely holding shares, and so yes they would personally profit from going public.
- jez 8mo ago
  The tender offer announced in the article is open to former employees as well, so they personally profit regardless of Stripe being public (unless the claim is that by being public the valuation would be materially higher than the stated valuation for this offer).
shevy-java 8mo ago
There may be a conflict of interest with ex-Stripe folks wanting to see a move towards x or y.

maratc 8mo ago

Above certain amount of shareholders, the rules for the public companies start applying, so you get all of the disadvantages of being a public company (like SEC filings, etc.) without the advantages (like ability to raise money.) IIRC this is what forced $MSFT to do IPO in 1986.

tyre 8mo ago

I hope they never go public (also as an ex-Stripe!) I can't really see a net-positive benefit to having public shareholders and reporting requirements. Do we think Stripe's leadership needs feedback from random investment advisors or analysts? Do employees need the distraction of daily-updating stock prices? Would quarterly reporting incentivize better decision making? In my opinion: ehhhhhhhhhhhh I see the benefit, but if you're joining Stripe you know the trade-off of RSUs in a company that doesn't provide daily liquidity. They provide it on a regular basis, so you're not locked in forever (a la my 2014 Gusto shares).

malfist 8mo ago
Do very many companies provide daily liquidity? Most of my time getting RSUs have had trading windows, once a quarter if you're lucky.
- toast0 8mo ago
  When I was an employee of a subsidiary of Infospace, my RSUs were always worthless (honestly, I don't remember if any vested while I was there), at Yahoo, we could generally trade, although one shouldn't trade immediately after earnings, but I don't remember if this was enforced at the affiliated brokerage. At Facebook, I think it was typically a three week window every quarter. Of course, if you quit, the windows are no longer in force, although if you have material non-public information, you're still not allowed to trade. Maybe there'a a share price where you'd rather quit and sell than hold on until the window opens.
bryanlarsen 8mo ago
I'm sure they already have more than the 500 non-accredited or 2000 accredited shareholder total that would trigger most of those reporting requirements anyways. So Stripe already has most of the drawbacks of being a public company without the benefits.
- kasey_junk 8mo ago
  The reporting isn’t the drawbacks of being public, it’s the investors. They get to _choose_ who they let in if they are private (by definition). They don’t need the public’s money and don’t want the headache of dealing with the public. I’d completely agree if I were them. Disclaimer: ex-stripe who is still an investor.

coldpie 8mo ago

Going public is the fastest way to turn a solid, functioning business into a hideous, infinite-growth chasing ghoul that everyone hates. Don't do it.

bryanlarsen 8mo ago
Instead they are mostly owned by VC's, who will more directly pressure them to do that than the general public owners will. The important part is that the Collison's control Stripe now. When that changes things may go down hill. It won't matter if it is public or not.
WheatMillington 8mo ago
As opposed to VC owners, who are famously satisfied with slow growth. Right?
sensanaty 8mo ago
And VCs are what, patient angels who invest their money out of the goodness of their hearts expecting no returns?

johnny_canuck 8mo ago

Are there caps on how much you could sell during the tender offer? I had one come through my email ~3 years ago for a company I previously worked for. IIRC it allowed you to sell up to 10% of your stock.

giancarlostoro 8mo ago

I'm glad. I don't think every company needs to be on the stock market, and companies that are profitable like Stripe is, absolutely do not need to be on the stock market. Why? So people can buy and sell their stock on a whim?