5 ms·

Notably, this fundraising round is with Goldman Sachs' private wealth management clients, which sets the stage for Uber to go public in the next few years. (Gol

Notably, this fundraising round is with Goldman Sachs' private wealth management clients, which sets the stage for Uber to go public in the next few years. (Goldman Sachs tried and ultimately withdrew a similar deal in 2011 for their private clients in the United States to invest in Facebook. Of course, this was prior to the enactment of the JOBS act.)

Gyonka 12y ago
So is this a usual trend with companies seeking IPO in the future?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - vecter 12y ago
    Can you expand on this?
- pbreit 12y ago
  There is nothing usual about private companies raising $4b.
  - Gyonka 12y ago
    I meant raising money from Goldman Sachs' private wealth management clients specifically, I think the OP implied there was a pattern.
elberto34 12y ago
That's the way you get rich. Make apps, social networking..stuff like that. Or invest in already-successful, viral app companies like Uber, Snapchat, Tinder, etc. Why anyone would go the brick and mortar route is beyond me. I would rather invest $100k in successful web 2.0 companies (like the ones I listed) and double my money in 6 months than start a crappy regular business which has a 50% chance within five years of totally failing and taking all my money with it. Like the Dire Straits Song Money for Nothing, except it's apps and web 2.0 instead of music.
- cylinder 12y ago
  I know far more people who are making lots of money doing traditional, un-sexy businesses, and I can't think of anyone I know personally making money with apps, web2.0 etc.
  - elberto34 12y ago
    but regular business takes work and risk of total loss of capital. I can double my money buying Snapchat and then do nothing but watch TV and eat Cheetos for the next 6 months as VCs bid it into the stratosphere
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      As many, many, many people have discovered - investing in startups has as great a risk of losing all your capital (actually, a much greater risk) than investing in a bricks and mortar - the major difference is that there is also a much greater chance of huge returns. The reality is only 1 in 100 people are likely capable of building a great startup (in the PG sense of "Startup") that succeeds - but there is a huge part of the population that can build out a brick and mortar traditional company. To put things into perspective, On the App Store, about 3,000 of the 1mm or so apps are capable of supporting a developer in the United states with the Median US Income ($53,800/year).
    - cylinder 12y ago
      you're not a top VC firm - nobody is selling you Snapchat shares, so your argument is moot. if you want to invest in every startup looking for a seed investment, you are going to have to invest in a lot of them before one becomes the next snapchat. most VC funds have poor returns or even losses.
    - rustyconover 12y ago
      I doubt it will be the VC's bidding once it goes public, typically it will be the public and investment funds. VC's on the liquidating side once one of their investments go public so they can get their exit.
    - 12y ago
aetherson 12y ago
How do these kinds of deals affect existing institutional investors? Are they going to see their stakes diluted when the debt converts?

Gyonka 12y ago

So is this a usual trend with companies seeking IPO in the future?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- vecter 12y ago
  Can you expand on this?
pbreit 12y ago
There is nothing usual about private companies raising $4b.
- Gyonka 12y ago
  I meant raising money from Goldman Sachs' private wealth management clients specifically, I think the OP implied there was a pattern.

elberto34 12y ago

That's the way you get rich. Make apps, social networking..stuff like that. Or invest in already-successful, viral app companies like Uber, Snapchat, Tinder, etc. Why anyone would go the brick and mortar route is beyond me. I would rather invest $100k in successful web 2.0 companies (like the ones I listed) and double my money in 6 months than start a crappy regular business which has a 50% chance within five years of totally failing and taking all my money with it. Like the Dire Straits Song Money for Nothing, except it's apps and web 2.0 instead of music.

cylinder 12y ago
I know far more people who are making lots of money doing traditional, un-sexy businesses, and I can't think of anyone I know personally making money with apps, web2.0 etc.
- elberto34 12y ago
  but regular business takes work and risk of total loss of capital. I can double my money buying Snapchat and then do nothing but watch TV and eat Cheetos for the next 6 months as VCs bid it into the stratosphere
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    As many, many, many people have discovered - investing in startups has as great a risk of losing all your capital (actually, a much greater risk) than investing in a bricks and mortar - the major difference is that there is also a much greater chance of huge returns. The reality is only 1 in 100 people are likely capable of building a great startup (in the PG sense of "Startup") that succeeds - but there is a huge part of the population that can build out a brick and mortar traditional company. To put things into perspective, On the App Store, about 3,000 of the 1mm or so apps are capable of supporting a developer in the United states with the Median US Income ($53,800/year).
  - cylinder 12y ago
    you're not a top VC firm - nobody is selling you Snapchat shares, so your argument is moot. if you want to invest in every startup looking for a seed investment, you are going to have to invest in a lot of them before one becomes the next snapchat. most VC funds have poor returns or even losses.
  - rustyconover 12y ago
    I doubt it will be the VC's bidding once it goes public, typically it will be the public and investment funds. VC's on the liquidating side once one of their investments go public so they can get their exit.
  - 12y ago

aetherson 12y ago

How do these kinds of deals affect existing institutional investors? Are they going to see their stakes diluted when the debt converts?