Posted on

Pinterest Falls 19% on Its First Earnings Report, Previewing a Troubling Post-Tech IPO Trend – Fortune

The bullish tech IPO market of early 2019 faced another setback Thursday as Pinterest, which has seen its stock price soar following its listing a month ago, delivered its first-ever earnings report. The numbers were largely below what investors were hoping for, causing the stock to fall as much as 19% in after-hours trading.

Pinterest said revenue in the first quarter rose 54% to $201.9 million, or slightly above the $200.7 million consensus estimate among Wall Street analysts. But the company also posted a GAAP net loss of 33 cents a share. Adjusted for items such as stock-based compensation, Pinterest’s net loss totaled 32 cents a share. Analysts had been expecting an adjusted net loss of 11 cents a share, according to FactSet.

Perhaps more concerning to investors, Pinterest said its revenue for the full year would come in between $1.06 billion and $1.08 billion, below the $1.09 billion analysts had been forecasting. Coupled with the larger-than-expected loss of the first quarter, the prospect of 2019 revenue growth also falling below expectations led some investors to unload Pinterest shares.

Missing on earnings targets and offering cautious guidance in the first earnings report following an IPO can leave shareholders feeling especially uneasy. Last week, Lyft’s stock tumbled after it reported strong revenue growth but a surprisingly large $1.1 billion net loss. Lyft’s stock is down 6.3% since reporting its first-quarter earnings and is trading 23% below its $72 a share offering price.

Lyft and Pinterest are among the highest-profile tech companies that have gone public this spring. That both saw their stocks fall in the wake of their first earnings may leave investors more cautious about other tech companies planning to go public. Uber, the biggest tech IPO in several years, is trading 4.4% below its $45 a share offering price.

Pinterest went public at $19 a share on April 18, closing its first day of trading at $24.40 a share before rising as high as $35.29 a share in late April. Following its earnings Thursday, the stock fell as low as $24.85 a share—still 31% above its offering price but also 30% below its peak price as a public company.

Like many digital platforms that rely on ad revenue, Pinterest has a promising long-term future, but needs to show its investors it has a plan to turn its rapid growth into steady profits. Zoom, a video-conferencing startup that went public on the same day Pinterest did, went public after net profits in two of its last three quarters. Zoom’s stock is trading 132% above its $36 a share offering price.

As both Zoom and Pinterest rallied in their first few weeks of trading, analysts pointed to a “bull market” for tech IPOs. But the disappointing inaugural earnings from Lyft and now Pinterest may put that bullish mood on hold. Investors may be hungry for tech IPOs, but as Pinterest is finding out, that appetite can be far more fragile and fleeting that it at first seems.

More must-read stories from Fortune:

—Exclusive: Scammed porn watchers have paid nearly $1 million in bitcoin blackmail

—Apple iPhones will cost 3% more to produce under new tariffs

—While Twitter-user-reported violations rise, the number of accounts punished drops

—Startups disrupted breast pumps, and infant formula could be next

—Walmart says free one-day shipping will save the company money

Catch up with Data Sheet, Fortune‘s daily digest on the business of tech.

Source:

“ipo” – Google News


Author:

Posted on

A Quick 2019 Tech IPO Check In – Crunchbase News

Morning Markets: There were more IPOs in the world than just Uber and Lyft. How are they doing?

Subscribe to the Crunchbase Daily

The troubled IPOs of Lyft and Uber have taken center stage in the media, their scale obscuring earlier debuts as they settle into life as public companies.

But what about the other companies we’ve seen go public in the tech and venture-backed space this year? Lots of other firms have already made it through the IPO gauntlet that aren’t merely focused on getting you to brunch.

Let’s take a quick peek at the current crop, comparing their IPO price and their current price as of this morning. Ready?

  • IPO price: $45
  • Current price: $40.61
  • IPO price: $25
  • Current price: $89.25
  • IPO price: $11
  • Current price: $10.96
  • IPO price: $19
  • Current price: $28.46
  • IPO price: $36
  • Current price: $75.36
  • IPO price: $24
  • Current price: $53.35
  • IPO price: $72
  • Current price: $53.13
  • IPO price: $11
  • Current price: $8.54

That’s the list so far and the results to date. It isn’t hard to see some patterns emerge.

Quickly-growing SaaS is doing well. Ride-hailing is not. And Beyond Meat has excited the market to the point that it is trading on a valuation/gross profit ratio that would make a bubbly price/earnings ratio blush.

So the market isn’t as bad as some might make it out to be. Yes, Uber and Lyft’s failures to launch well are troubling for many who tied their money up into the massively unprofitable companies. But for investors who stuck to companies who retained a path to profitability through high-margin revenue, things seem nice and healthy.

And that’s good news for Fastly and Slack and other companies looking to go public next. Luckin Coffee, on the other hand, could struggle.

Illustration: Li-Anne Dias.

7 Shares Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Copy Link Today Luckin Coffee and Fastly each priced their IPOs towards the top of their respective ranges…

Retail Zipline, which describes itself as “Slack for Stores,” has raised a $9.6 million Series A .

9 Shares Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Copy Link Morning Markets: Apptio picks up Cloudability, making its 2018 acquisition pace seem less like a…

GetYourGuide is planning to double its headcount this year, and has hired Instagram’s former product head to serve as its first chief product officer.

Source:

“ipo” – Google News


Author:

Posted on

Fastly prices IPO at $16 to raise more than $180 million – MarketWatch

Fastly Inc.

FSLY, +0.00%

priced its initial public offering at $16 a share Thursday evening, raising more than $180 million for the San Francisco software company. The company announced that it will sell 11.25 million shares at that price, the top of its proposed range of $14 to $16, to raise $180.8 million. Underwriters — led by BofA Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, and Credit Suisse — have access to roughly 1.7 million more shares that could push the total higher. At the IPO price, Fastly would have an initial market cap of $1.45 billion. Shares are expected to begin trading Friday morning on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol FSLY.

Have breaking news sent to your inbox. Subscribe to MarketWatch’s free Bulletin emails. Sign up here.

Source:

“ipo” – Google News


Author:

Posted on

Pinterest Shares Fall After Hours, Following Post-IPO Earnings Report – The Wall Street Journal

Shares of Pinterest Inc. plunged in extended trading after the company posted a wider-than-expected loss in its first quarterly report following its public-market debut.

The drop makes Pinterest the latest technology company to encounter difficulty not long after a much-anticipated public offering.

Pinterest shares were off more than 15% late…

Source:

“ipo” – Google News


Author:

Posted on

Starbucks’ China challenger Luckin Coffee will price IPO at $17 a share – CNBC

A barista packs a coffee for online sales at a Luckin Coffee store in Beijing, China July 17, 2018.

Jason Lee | Reuters

Luckin Coffee will price its initial public offering at $17 per share, sources with knowledge of the deal told CNBC on Thursday. The company will also upsize its IPO to 33 million shares, according to a source.

The Chinese coffee company’s expected range was $15 to $17 per share, according to a regulatory filing last week. Luckin plans to list Friday on the Nasdaq under the ticker “LK.”

In its most recent funding round, the Beijing-based chain was valued at $2.9 billion.

“Not since the dotcom bubble of 1999-00 has a company achieved a $3 billion public valuation less than two years after its launch,” said Kathleen Smith, a principal at Renaissance Capital, which tracks and invests in IPOs.

With 2,370 stores open at the end of the first quarter and plans to add 2,500 this year alone, Luckin is trying to overtake Starbucks as the biggest coffee chain in China. Since it was founded less than two years ago, the company has tried to build a customer base with smaller locations formatted for convenience and offering steep discounts.

In 2018, the chain reported net sales of $125.3 million and a net loss of $241.3 million. To cover its losses and pay for its ambitious expansion plans, Luckin has raised $550 million so far, according to Crunchbase.

“As a result, the key controversy is whether Luckin can generate sales in the absence of discounts,” Bernstein analyst Sara Senatore wrote in a research note last week.

China is one of Starbucks’ long-term growth markets, along with the U.S. The global coffee giant, which is celebrating its 20th year in China, wants customers to treat its stores as a third place — the spot aside from home and work where consumers hang out and relax. The Seattle-based company has tried to meet Chinese customers’ eagerness for convenience by partnering with Alibaba to deliver its drinks.

Starbucks saw transactions at stores in China open at least a year fall 1% during its second quarter, meaning that traffic was declining. But customers were spending more, leading to same-store sales growth of 3%.

Starbucks’ stock, which has a market value of $95.8 billion, is up 22% so far this year.

CEO Kevin Johnson has said the company’s rivals in China are focused on short-term gains, while Starbucks is using a long-term strategy.

“Some of those competitors are competing through heavy, heavy discounts that we don’t believe are sustainable,” Johnson said recently on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street. “

Luckin’s debut will not only depend on how investors view its ability to compete with Starbucks, but also current market conditions. Recent escalations in the trade war between China and the U.S. have led to market volatility as investors brace for a new round of tariffs.

So far this year, 54 companies have raised $20 billion in the U.S. IPO market, with Uber’s debut responsible for about 40% of that number, according to Renaissance Capital data. Uber and rival ride-hailing giant Lyft have struggled since their debuts, but the rest of this year’s newly public companies are doing well. Of the year’s IPOs, 63% are trading above their IPO price, Smith said.

Source:

“ipo” – Google News


Author:

Posted on

UPDATE 2-Starbucks’ China challenger Luckin raises $561 mln in U.S. IPO -sources

-sources@ (Adds detail on Luckin, underwriting banks)

NEW YORK/HONG KONG, May 16 (Reuters) – Luckin Coffee Inc , the Chinese challenger to Starbucks Corp, on Thursday priced its U.S. initial public offering at the top end of its targeted price range and sold more shares than planned in the biggest U.S. float by a Chinese firm this year, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Beijing-based coffee chain raised $561 million by selling 33 million American depository shares (ADS), more than the 30 million it originally said it would sell, at $17 each, at the top end of an indicative range of $15 to $17.

Each ADS represents eight Class A shares, the company said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last week.

The pricing values loss-making Luckin, already backed by Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund GIC Pte Ltd and U.S. money manager BlackRock Inc, at about $4.2 billion.

A spokesman for Luckin declined to comment. The people declined to be identified as the information was not yet public.

Luckin is due to begin trading on the Nasdaq stock exchange on Friday under the symbol “LK”.

The IPO comes as Chinese-U.S. trade tensions involving tit-for-tat tariffs rattle global financial markets. In total, Chinese firms have raised $619 million in U.S. IPOs so far this year, down sharply from $3.7 billion in the same period in 2017, Refinitiv data showed.

Luckin is the latest Chinese start-up tapping international capital markets to bolster coffers amid ever-intensifying competition with bigger rivals, notably Starbucks, at the home market.

Luckin currently operates 2,370 stores across China and plans to open 2,500 more this year with the goal of displacing Starbucks as China’s largest coffee chain.

The coffee chain, co-founded in June 2017 by Chief Executive Qian Zhiya, plans to primarily use the IPO proceeds for store network expansion, customer acquisition, marketing, research and development.

The brand is banking on increased coffee consumption in China, expected to rise to 15.5 billion cups by 2023 from 8.7 billion last year, according to a report cited by Luckin in its prospectus.

The company has warned it may continue to incur losses in the foreseeable future. Last year, it recorded a net loss to shareholders of $475.4 million and total revenue of $125.27 million, according to the filing. For the first three months of 2019, it posted a net loss of $85.3 million.

Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, CICC, Haitong International and KeyBanc Capital Markets are among the banks underwriting the IPO. (Reporting by Joshua Franklin and Harry Brumpton in New York, Julie Zhu in Hong Kong; Editing by Peter Cooney and Leslie Adler)

Source: IPOs
Author:

Posted on

UPDATE 1-Starbucks’ China challenger, Luckin, set to raise $561 mln in U.S. IPO -sources

IPO -sources@ (Adds details of offer, background)

NEW YORK/HONG KONG, May 16 (Reuters) – Luckin Coffee Inc , the Chinese challenger to Starbucks Corp, on Thursday priced its U.S. initial public offering (IPO) at the top end of its targeted price range and sold more shares than planned in the biggest U.S. float by a Chinese firm this year, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Beijing-based coffee chain raised $561 million by selling 33 million American depository shares (ADS), more than the 30 million it originally said it would sell, at $17 each, at the end of an indicative range of $15 to $17.

Each ADS represents eight Class A shares, the company said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last week.

The pricing values loss-making Luckin, already backed by Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund GIC Pte Ltd and U.S. money manager BlackRock Inc, at about $4.2 billion.

A spokesman for Luckin declined to comment. The people declined to be identified as the information was not yet public.

Luckin is due to begin trading on the Nasdaq stock exchange on Friday under the symbol “LK.”

The IPO comes as Chinese-U.S. trade tensions involving tit-for-tat tariffs rattle global financial markets. In total, Chinese firms have raised $619 million in U.S. IPOs so far this year, down sharply from $3.7 billion in the same period in 2017, Refinitiv data showed.

The company has warned it may continue to incur losses in the foreseeable future. Last year, it recorded a net loss to shareholders of $475.4 million and total revenue of $125.27 million, according to the filing. For the first three months of 2019, it posted a net loss of $85.3 million. (Reporting by Joshua Franklin and Harry Brumpton in New York and Julie Zhu in Hong Kong; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Source: IPOs
Author:

Posted on

Uber IPO Underwriter Morgan Stanley Was So Certain That It Overpriced The Uber IPO It Shorted Uber Shares Right Before The IPO – Above the Law

It’s a very rare thing over at Dealbreaker when a schadenfreude-fueled disaster that we predictedwitnessed, and delighted in turns out to have yet another mindbogglingly darkly comic layer that we get to unpack days later… so thank you, Uber and Morgan Stanley.

Per CNBC:

Uber’s underwriters, led by Morgan Stanley, were so worried the company’s initial public offering had run into trouble, they deployed a nuclear option ahead of the deal last week, so they could provide extra support for the stock, four people with knowledge of the move said.

This level of support, known as a “naked short,” is a technique that goes above and beyond the traditional help a new offering can get.

This is so inherently satirical that we are almost at a loss for snarky words.

But let’s just throw down a quick primer on what a “Naked Short” means in this case since most of you lawyer types are probably yelling “That’s illegal!” at your screen. At their most basic, naked shorts are basically a mechanism through which a trader can take a short position on shares of a stock that they don’t actually possess, and might have no intention of ever possessing. If the price associated with those shares does drop, then the naked shorter gets to pick up suddenly available shares at a discount, but if the stock appreciates, all hell breaks loose. Without one counterparty actually holding real stock, the actual trade is unlikely to clear because — in the most simplistic terms — suddenly there’s short action on more shares than what actually exist in the market, and somebody might have probably just done a crime. In that sense, naked shorts are illegal, but not if you’re a bank underwriting an IPO.

For serious.

Somehow it’s still totally fine and legal for an underwriter to deploy a naked short on one of its own IPOs, which is weird, but pre-IPO the stock doesn’t actually exist, so the whole crux of the problem is kind of mitigated (and also there is always extra stock issued at an IPO that the underwriter can pick up super cheap and sell back into the market to support the stock price…but that’s a bit wonky). But not even a regulatory change could obfuscate the stark reality that an underwriter naked shorting one of its own IPOs is a tacit admission that it sincerely believes it has overvalued the company it’s selling to investment clients.

So looking back at what happened here, we find ourselves giggling at the balls it takes for Morgan Stanley to have pulled a move like this mere days before an IPO that was aiming for a valuation outside the logical parameters of space and time, but we are physically laughing very hard at the bagholders who gladly accepted their bags from MS with an apparent understanding that their investment bank was actively shorting the stock of an IPO that it was handling at the eleventh hour:

Some of the bankers tried to console market participants prior to the opening of trading by telling them that there would be additional support from the naked short, said one of the people, who asked not to be named discussing private conversations. The exact size of the naked short could not be learned, but it is expected to have been “fairly small,” two of the other people said.

Morgan Stanley does not look great here, but their clients look literally insane.

Sure, we get the premise that the long-term appeal is telling clients that they could buy back some super-hot Uber stock at a discount very quickly, but we would also argue that what kind of thinking is that in this scenario? Uber loses $3 billion a year! Where does the logical discount kick in? Summer 2027?

Uber’s appeal as a public company at this stage of its life has always been a mystery to us, yet even we are a little shocked that the bankers taking it to market were so sure it was priced to drop that they went through the trouble of building a naked short into the IPO and then sold that decision to investors as what we can only define as “Dipshit Insurance.”

It always felt like the post-mortem on the Uber IPO was going to yield some fun revelations, but this is almost too deliciously ridiculous.

Uber underwriters worried about the IPO deployed unusual ‘naked short’ tactic to support the stock [CNBC]

Source:

“ipo” – Google News


Author:

Posted on

The new boogeyman in Silicon Valley politics? The IPO. – Vox.com

If you thought an initial public offering was all bell-ringing, confetti-dropping, and champagne-popping, think again.

Silicon Valley is girding for another political battle with the liberal city at its core, San Francisco, in a contest that could turn that celebrated pinnacle of success in tech — the IPO — into a boogeyman.

In a new fault line that reflects the uncomfortable politics of tech opportunity and wealth inequality, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors is on pace to put before voters a ballot initiative this November that has quickly become known as an “IPO tax.”

But it isn’t really an IPO tax — at least if you’d imagine that an IPO tax would be a source of new revenue levied against an executive or investor enjoying their IPO riches, like a capital gains tax. Instead, it is an increase in the preexisting payroll-like tax that employers will have to pay to 1.5 percent, or $15 on every $1,000, of the value of any compensation that the employer pays in shares.

Yet the initiative speaks to how the new wealth creation by the tech industry has become a useful political weapon. Calling this an “IPO tax” might not be accurate — nor is it actually a levy on the tech sector, per se — but it is good marketing. And how the initiative is being sold in San Francisco tells you a lot about the temperature these days, and how the Big Bad IPO has become a villainous creature.

“What’s disappointing is the blatant misleading of the title,” said Rodney Fong, the CEO of San Francisco’s Chamber of Commerce, which is leading the pushback. “By using the phrase IPO, it’s assumed it is just [a tax on] the ones that are going to go public.”

The IPO has increasingly become a piñata for critics of a freewheeling tech industry, a stock debut that draws attention to the size of billion-dollar companies and to the many millionaires they create.

Ride-hailing service drivers capitalized on the runup to Uber’s much-scrutinized IPO last week by drawing a contrast between the new riches of its executives and their own discontent over low wages and lack of benefits. A small number of residents in Venice, California, protested outside Snap’s headquarters in advance of its IPO, saying the company was “exploiting our neighborhood for their gain.” One of Lyft’s IPO roadshow meetings in San Francisco was picketed.

More broadly, the IPO is a pressure point, a moment of vulnerability as a company transitions from private ownership to public scrutiny. Spotify, for instance, felt heat from investors in advance of its IPO to strike long-term deals with the major record labels.

This all comes to the fore at a sensitive time in a sensitive place. Silicon Valley has been on edge about the amount of wealth to be unleashed into its neighborhoods and startups in the busy 2019 IPO season, which — once lockups expire on stock sales — will turn thousands of early employees and early investors into real-life, not-just-on-paper millionaires.

That uneasiness would already be pervasive even if it weren’t for the reinvigorated conversation in the Democratic Party about Big Tech and more broadly about growing income inequality — especially in places like San Francisco, where billionaires live a few blocks from people experiencing chronic homelessness — which has made the situation even more delicate. Then you can throw in that Democratic presidential candidates are calling out tech companies for being too big and powerful.

So “the IPOs” has become a shorthand for how a region riven by inequality is preparing to stomach even more.

The sole solace might be that this is all taxable. The state of California predicts that it will rake in about $700 million in taxes related to this year’s tech IPOs, not including the new IPO tax. And in that crisis, there is an opportunity for politics.

Gordon Mar, the San Francisco supervisor who drafted the proposal, said the IPO tax was not his marketing and that he wasn’t trying to cater to tech skeptics. He told Recode it was merely a “convenient public name” for the measure that was born out of his desire to “look at how we could mitigate the impact of the IPO earthquake.”

Mar’s mission is admirable: He is trying to raise what he predicts would be an extra $100 million to $200 million from the proposed tax’s first two years to address widespread social ills in San Francisco through a new “shared prosperity” fund to support things like affordable housing and education.

But Mar is already backpedaling.

He revealed in an interview that he was actually in the process of paring back — perhaps significantly — what he described as a first draft of the motion. He acknowledged that, as written, the initiative would assess a tax on all stock compensation from San Francisco-based public companies — say, a worker at Wells Fargo who is paid partially in stock — when he said he was actually intending to focus more modestly on the current pipeline of tech IPO candidates.

So why did Mar take such a big swing? Well, he described this as “the simplest way to draft it” and crucial to “getting on the fast track.” But that rush and lack of detail may have drawn a bunch of other companies into the dragnet and has led to widespread confusion in tech circles, especially because the measure would be enforced retroactively.

“It was my understanding that the impact would be fairly minimal and the most impact would be on the companies that are holding IPOs — because that’s when there’s such a concentrated number of employees with stock options being exercised,” he said. “That’s something I think we’re going to look into: how the measure would impact a broader set of companies here in San Francisco.”

Another possible issue in the drafting: As written, the initiative seems to assess a tax against stock as soon as it vests — even if the actual stock option is not exercised. Asked whether that was his intention, Mar said he at first did not fully appreciate the difference.

“That’s even something that I don’t fully understand — having not been in the position of having stock compensation myself,” he admitted. He’s now planning to revisit that.

If the Chamber of Commerce can convince Mar to change his proposal, then maybe they’ll avoid a political fight. But as of now, Mar seems to have enough support from the Board of Supervisors to pass the initiative measure and put it before voters in November.

The fight over an IPO tax has elements of a powder keg waiting to be lit. In late 2018, technology companies went to war with one another over Proposition C, a ballot measure passed last November that levies a new tax on some San Francisco companies to raise money for programs to combat homelessness, which affected more than 28,000 people in the Bay Area in 2017. That fight uncorked an at times vicious, personal fight between some of the city’s most prominent figures.

But so far, both sides are biting their tongues. A spokesperson for Marc Benioff, the garrulous billionaire who vocally (and, to some, abrasively) advocated for Prop C last fall, said he didn’t have anything to add on the IPO tax proposal.

Benioff’s opponents during that political battle — primarily Stripe and Jack Dorsey at Twitter — have so far held their fire. Both San Francisco-based companies declined for now to take a stand on the proposal. Also declining to weigh in were city IPO pipeline candidates like Airbnb and Postmates, which told Recode in a lengthy statement that the public and private sectors should be “working together” on this but then did not respond to requests for comment about whether they actually supported or opposed the proposal. That reticence should tell you something.

The business world might also explore potential legal challenges. Some experts say that a retroactive tax like this — if passed in November, it would go into effect retroactively on May 7, 2019, the day before Uber’s IPO — could be considered unconstitutional as a so-called ex post facto piece of legislation.

Jared Walczak, a tax policy analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, said “there’s long been a gray area” in federal law about taxes that try to roll back the clock.

“There is some bar that you have to clear to tax retroactively that exceeds the bar that you will need to clear to impose a tax prospectively,” he said. “Certainly, there could be an avenue for a challenge.”

Meanwhile, Silicon Valley has to prepare for what could be a new reality.

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and other critics predict that if the city initiative is approved, more tech companies will alter their compensation practices. They may rely more heavily on cash compensation as opposed to stock, which would cap employees’ financial upside if they happen to be working at the next hot company. Another unintended consequence, in the eyes of skeptics, is that San Francisco companies could start finding ways to change where their employees are officially headquartered to avoid the new bill.

Area wealth advisers told Recode that their clients have been bringing up the city proposal to them in recent weeks, watching and waiting to see whether it earns enough support on the board and then passes in November. But there’s nothing the employees can actually do in practice — they can’t force their employers to leave San Francisco, of course — so there’s limited use in worrying about it.

While few in the business community expect a corporation to pick up their stakes and relocate, they do say it could tip the balance for future startups trying to decide where to pitch their tents.

To some, like Mar, that might be okay. Critics of Big Tech think it has for too long coasted on city services without being a good neighbor, and are now facing increased pressure to assess their civic responsibilities.

Robert Nelsen, a biotech venture capitalist who works with some companies headquartered in San Francisco, said he was supportive of city corporations paying more in taxes to improve things like mental health. But not this way.

“If you wanted to think about the most volatile tax that you could possibly imagine, it would be an IPO tax,” Nelsen said, worrying that San Francisco wouldn’t draw any revenue in a downturn and might draw too much revenue in a bull market. And, he predicted, it would encourage new companies to found startups outside of San Francisco: “We have that choice all the time. It’s easy to put companies five miles away or four miles away.

“Bad tax policy is kind of like a viral disease,” he said. “It’s hard to get rid of.”


Recode and Vox have joined forces to uncover and explain how our digital world is changing — and changing us. Subscribe to Recode podcasts to hear Kara Swisher and Peter Kafka lead the tough conversations the technology industry needs today.

Source:

“ipo” – Google News


Author: