The article states they raised billions to allow employees to sell their (otherwise soon to expire) RSUs to investors to cover their tax bill. Stripe itself isn’t using the money.
Their point is that this isn't a capital raise and Stripe isn't issuing new shares.
Also, if it were to be a capital raise: issuing new shares comprising 5% of a company is not the same as having the price of existing shares reduce by 5% (in many ways).
It is a capital raise. It's right there in the announcement. They are raising new capital, issuing shares, then buying back different shares. The net result will be about the same share count.
But the series I investors are getting a little over 10% of the company for their 6.5B, instead of about 5% for their 6.5B (if the valuation was 120B as suggested). For the company as a whole, it's just not a big deal. And if you happen to be a RSU holder/employee, don't sell at this price if you don't want to (and you were going to lose about a 1/3 of it no matter what, so no the tax withholding doesn't change it materially).
Correct, it isn't the same thing - it's an analogy - the point was that in both cases it's a rounding error. The existing equity holders as a group are in a position which is about 5% different economically than it could have been if they'd snatched the very top and raised at that level. When you buy or sell shares, you are almost always off 5% v if you'd sold at some other slightly better time.
> It is a capital raise. It's right there in the announcement. They are
> raising new capital, issuing shares, then buying back different shares.
If the transaction completes with the company having the same amount of shares as before, and the same amount of money as before, then it's not a capital raise.
> But the series I investors are getting a little over 10% of the company
> for their 6.5B, instead of about 5% for their 6.5B (if the valuation was
> 120B as suggested).
The valuation is independent of the ownership percentage. If 5% of the company is held by employees (with locked-up RSUs) and 5% held by institutions, then allowing employees to sell their shares to institutions does not change how many shares exist.
Even if the employees decide to sell all of their shares (leaving the external investors with 10%), whether this happens at a 50B or 95B or 120B valuation doesn't affect the percentages. It only affects how much money the employees receive for selling their ownership interest.
> The existing equity holders as a group are in a position which is about
> 5% different economically than it could have been
You're still confused about valuation, price, and share count. Issuing new shares directly affects the fair market value of a company, and can be additive (if sold above fair value) or dilutive (if sold below). In contrast, temporary price fluctuations (due to bubbles, panic, etc) do not affect the value of the shares except in very unusual circumstances.
Often plants will take up the toxin through their roots and sequester it in their aerial tissues. In this case the tissue could be harvested (and then perhaps incinerated) and the pollution will be removed from the canal. If aquatic plants were used and they didn't fully degrade the pollutants, then the waterway would be still contaminated.
Simplifydi - Berkeley, CA, Full Time, Remote, H1B: Lead Software Engineer
Simplifydi is building a web app to revolutionize the way medical device regulatory submissions are created and maintained. We are focused on SaaS tools that will lead to faster FDA or CE mark approvals and a shorter time to market. Our product roadmap encompasses all aspects of regulatory submissions including tracking, dashboard and other tools for project management.
This is an opportunity to get in on the initial co-founding team. The founders have over 30 years of experience in the medical device industry, starting four successful companies (one of which exited with an IPO) and launching numerous products.
We are looking to bring on an enthusiastic and motivated lead developer to create these SaaS tools from the ground up. You will be responsible for the technical aspects of the company, working closely with our small, fast moving team. Working remotely is a possibility as long as there are periodic visits to the main office.
If you’re interested to hear more contact Helen [at] decusbiomedical.com
How would anyone be able to buy a bra, which is an elastic device that lifts, shifts and holds the breasts – an incredibly variable bit of anatomy – without trying it on?
This is a bit silly don't you think? Boxers and bras are not close the same thing. Clothing can be washed and I would argue that trying on a bra is more akin to trying on a shirt.
On the contrary, I've never been to a store where you couldn't try on a bra. It's what makes this service and it's appealing algorithm so interesting - most women would never consider buying a bra without having tried it on.
My understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that even after trying them on, most women still buy the wrong sizes (80-85%. Wikipedia has 4 citations to this stat, i haven't bothered to read them all, but here is one study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2275741/).
That makes this even more fascinating to me, because while women apparently want to try them on so they can test "fit", whatever they are trusting to determine that fit is apparently causing them to buy the wrong bras most of the time.
Of course, it's also not clear if this is intentional (IE they uy the wrong bra size thinking it makes them look better or whatever), or accidental.
Interestingly, reading the results of that study, it could be they don't care. The study finds that various forms of pain are not correlated with improper bra size, so it could be women just wear what they think makes them look good, and since it doesn't cause any pain, they don't realize it's not the right size.
It turns out that just because something doesn't hurt, and looks good, doesn't mean it's good for you.
My naive, non-boob-having understanding is that using the wrong size will cause your boobs to sag faster, as well as causing other medical issues, even if it doesn't cause pain.
Wearing a bra will actually make your boobs sag faster, not the other way around. It's a very common misconception among women, though, who apparently can't be bothered to look these things up before shoving "advice" down your throat that "everyone knows" is correct.
Yes, you can. In fact, it's kind of crucial, because each bra fits differently.
And I can't resist but to point out the awesome fact that you can actually wash clothes you bought. (That, and bras don't come in contact with waste products. )
When Gilly Hicks launched (subsidiary of A&F), one of their main selling points for the stores was having all of their bra sizes and styles available in the dressing rooms. Thus, you could go into the dressing room to figure out what fits, then pick out the ones you liked from the store floor.
I'm not sure if this is still the case, since I no longer work at A&F and don't go to Gilly Hicks, but my coworkers at the time were pretty excited, since finding well fitting bras can be very difficult.
Who said that you may not try boxers out? I do it sometimes, but saw many times others doing it. Most of good brand boxers are not paked in plastic, so you can try them out.
