3 ms·
Just noting that based on the valuation of the company he is a billionaire, but GoPro is still a privately held business, so he [probably] doesn't have that sor
by mitchellh 14y ago
Just noting that based on the valuation of the company he is a billionaire, but GoPro is still a privately held business, so he [probably] doesn't have that sort of money on hand or available as short/safe investments.
There are rumors of a GoPro IPO early next spring though[1], so he may have the cash very soon.
[1]: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-17/gopro-widens-the-view-of-its-customer-base http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-17/gopro-widens...
- sliverstorm 14y agoNow that is an IPO I am looking forward to.
- pavlov 14y agoTo invest indirectly in GoPro, there's Ambarella which IPO'd some months ago. They make imaging processors used in most GoPro cameras such as the Hero2 and Hero3 models.
- mikeryan 14y agoJust noting that based on the valuation of the company he is a billionaire, but GoPro is still a privately held business, so he [probably] doesn't have that sort of money on hand or available as short/safe investments. Kind of standard for most billionaires (or even millionaires) no?
- unreal37 14y agoHe was given $200MM for his stake, so I'd say he is set for life even not counting his 51%+ remaining stake.
- pcl 14y agoThe article doesn't get into details about the structure of the deal -- the $200M could be invested in the company (i.e., a dilutive event for shareholders), rather than a simple stock purchase. I'd guess that it's probably some mix of the two.
- antr 14y agoNo difference with wealth liquidity of US households. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Wealth_and_housing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Wea...