[HN Gopher] Stripe announces new round of funding and plan to pr... ___________________________________________________________________ Stripe announces new round of funding and plan to provide employee liquidity Author : felixbraun Score : 116 points Date : 2023-03-15 21:36 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (stripe.com) (TXT) w3m dump (stripe.com) | margorczynski wrote: | The company is 12 years old, the biggest player in their domain | (online payments) and still needs that much funding? Where is it | time to turn the knobs and start producing income? | kansface wrote: | > The funds raised will be used to provide liquidity to current | and former employees and address employee withholding tax | obligations related to equity awards, resulting in the | retirement of Stripe shares that will offset the issuance of | new shares to Series I investors. Stripe does not need this | capital to run its business. | bootsmann wrote: | > The funds raised will be used to provide liquidity to current | and former employees and address employee withholding tax | obligations related to equity awards, resulting in the | retirement of Stripe shares that will offset the issuance of | new shares to Series I investors. *Stripe does not need this | capital to run its business.* | | It's the second paragraph of the OP | serial_dev wrote: | Well, don't they, though? | | The way I understand it is that if they wouldn't have this | round, lots of very valuable, tenured employees would be f-ed | over, which could cause them to leave on very bad terms and a | PR nightmare that could make attracting workers hard. | zaroth wrote: | No, they don't. | | There's an appreciable difference between a company selling | newly issues shares to fund their corporate expenses, and | arranging a liquidity event for your employees. That's what | they are explaining in that paragraph. | | Obviously it can be very much in their interest to do this, | while it is still also true that "Stripe does not need this | capital to run its business." | thgirhet wrote: | [dead] | tamade wrote: | That last sentence is corporate PR spin. They very much need | this capital to run the business, ie, they didn't have enough | money to pay taxes. | zaroth wrote: | They aren't raising the money to pay corporate taxes. | | They are doing this so their _employees_ can pay taxes on | otherwise illiquid shares (i.e. taxes the employees can't | afford). | camjw wrote: | They could have just let employee options expire and then | they wouldn't have had the tax bill. Though, I imagine | recruitment would become a bit harder then. | jeremyjh wrote: | They didn't have enough to pay their employee's taxes on | unrealized gains. | HDThoreaun wrote: | If paying your employees in stock with no plan to IPO is how | you run your business then you do in fact need capital to pay | taxes on that stock in order to keep your employees. | [deleted] | superfrank wrote: | If I'm understanding this correctly, this is less about raising | money for the company and more about letting current employees | cash out some stock. | | It's a roundabout way for employees to sell stock to investors | with Stripe acting as a middle man. | jonny_eh wrote: | Why not go public instead? Wouldn't that be cheaper? | xoa wrote: | They'd planned to IPO, but the market for that right now is | very, very bad. They only have one chance to get maximum | value for their IPO and it's understandable they'd want to | wait. Not like being private for another few years hurts | them any after the previous decade, this isn't a company | going for an asap exit. However, there is the 10 year hard | limit for options, so this appears to just be a maneuver to | deal with these two conflicting realities. | elAhmo wrote: | This part is confusing to me. Yes, the market is bad and | their IPO would probably be way less than it would've | been if the market was "healthier". | | But if the market recovers and they want to do an IPO | then, wouldn't they be in the same position if they IPOd | now, and then growth of the market would cause their | stock to grow as well? | lozenge wrote: | Firstly, a good or bad IPO can be remembered for years as | part of the reputation of the company. | | Secondly, yes their stock could grow after the IPO, | however the stock would be publicly owned at that point | so the profit would go to the public shareholders instead | of the current holders of the stock (founders, investors, | employees). | waboremo wrote: | Employees cannot wait, their shares expire without sale. | These are being taxed. | | Stripe can wait, that isn't the problem for them and is | what they're doing. The board can also waive these fees, | but that shifts liability from Stripe to each individual | employee in question and that's the last thing they want, | to piss off early employees. | [deleted] | habitue wrote: | If you go public, there are a bunch of requirements on you | as a company. you have to regularly tell everyone your P&L | and a bunch of other things Stripe would rather not tell | anyone. | sb8244 wrote: | I'm a bit cynical when I see stuff like this. Is it a way for the | company to exit employee shareholders and put that equity into | investor hands? Especially at a discount from peak? | | That can be good for employees (money in your bank is a good | thing), but only if they want to sell. | | Edit: there's another thread with more info. This round looks to | address a specific issue that would affect employees very | negatively. So it seems like a good thing and not corp greed. | auntienomen wrote: | It depends whether current employees are getting their next RSU | before or after this down-round. | Zetice wrote: | I thought a frequent reason for this kind of thing was that | they had planned on doing an IPO which would have also let | employees sell (eventually, after a lockup period?) but given | the current market they're waiting. | | Also didn't another company recently do this because of some | expiring stock options? If employee options expire that's | basically a death knell to your ability to recruit and those | employees would all hate you and quit. Maybe there's some of | that going on here. | sb8244 wrote: | I think you're right after reading more. Sounds like RSU are | expiring. Not sure about options but 10 year is the options | limit so that would align with the age of the company. | kevinventullo wrote: | I suspect it will generally be good for employees. In my | relatively recent job search, I was considering Stripe versus | some large publicly traded tech companies. I ruled out Stripe | largely because the equity would not be liquid. | thaumasiotes wrote: | What does the tax treatment look like? I'm aware of the | following: | | 1. Get options, pay nothing. | | 2. Exercise options, pay AMT. | | 3. Sell stock, pay capital gains. | | (Please point out anything missing; it's missing because I | don't know about it.) | | Assume that the timing of step 2 is nondiscretionary and the | stock price is temporarily depressed when it occurs. | | Assume that you have to pay the AMT by selling some of your | stock until you've sold enough to cover the whole AMT. | | If the AMT is a lump sum (seems... unlikely?), then the | depression in the price at the moment you have to pay it is bad | for you. | | If the AMT is a percentage of the value of the stock (my | guess?), then by the assumption that you have to pay for it by | selling stock, you're going to lose a fixed percentage of your | stock no matter what the current stock price is. | | If we relax that assumption and you take out a loan to pay the | AMT, the depression in the stock price is good for you, because | you end up making a profit on holding your shares while they | recover. | | In step 3, you sell your stock at the "natural" price. I guess | that since the stock was temporarily depressed, it's now higher | and you pay a capital gains tax on the difference. Is the tax | rate higher or lower than the rate you paid for the AMT? If | it's equal, what difference did the temporary depression of the | stock price make? | Retric wrote: | It's a little more complicated because options aren't set at | zero value, and you can't subdivide individual shares so | rounding occurs. But essentially yes. | harikb wrote: | Fun fact: You have to pay AMT on exercise even if the stock | cannot be sold in the open market. Usually this means dipping | into ones other savings. It hurts even more than you are | paying AMT on fictitious valuations (if the company is not | public yet) and you really can't be sure if they will ever go | IPO | lechacker wrote: | A 50% drop is a big oof moment for Stripe. But then again I don't | think the company was every really worth +90b dollars. | | If I were an employee I'd take the liquidity now before this goes | the way of WeWork | thaumasiotes wrote: | > Stripe [] has signed agreements for a Series I fundraise of | more than $6.5 billion (EUR6.15 billion) at a $50B (EUR47B) | valuation. Primary investors include ... | | > The funds raised will be used to provide liquidity to current | and former employees and address employee withholding tax | obligations related to equity awards, resulting in the retirement | of Stripe shares that will offset the issuance of new shares to | Series I investors. Stripe does not need this capital to run its | business. | | As I read this, the plan is to issue a number of shares, buy | exactly that many shares from Stripe employees, and retire the | purchased shares. | | Why do it that way instead of allowing the employees to sell | their shares into the Series I offering? | boucher wrote: | I imagine it's as simple as employees own common stock and | investors want preferred stock. | bootsmann wrote: | Probably easier to do legally. Usually your option shares have | a clause that you are not allowed to sell them on the secondary | market (which this would be). | tqi wrote: | For people with expiring RSUs, is the choice then to take this | deal (@ at 50 billion valuation) or get nothing? | HDThoreaun wrote: | I think it's this, or keep the shares and pay taxes yourself. | auntienomen wrote: | No, it's not take it or get nothing. | | People have RSUs. Those RSUs vest at some point. When they | vest, they have to pay taxes on them, at whatever value they | have at that moment. This raise allows Stripe's employees to | pay those taxes, and gives them a chance to sell if they want | to. If they don't sell, they'll have to wait for future | liquidity events, like private raises, buybacks from Stripe, | or IPO. | | The down round is appealing if you're intending to hold the | shares until later, because you pay employee taxes at a low | valuation, and then capital gains on the difference between | that low valuation and your eventual sale price. | c7DJTLrn wrote: | Will any of the funding go towards improving the customer | experience? HN has been a Stripe support hotline the past few | months. | jrdngonen wrote: | Tender offers can be pretty tricky for employees to navigate | | Put together a quick guide all about taxes/financial implications | of participating in a tender offer: | https://manual.withcompound.com/chapters/what-to-do-if-your-... | magneticnorth wrote: | Does this imply that Stripe thinks an IPO in this market would | value them lower than $50B? | blobbers wrote: | No, not at all. Nobody would invest if they thought that were | the case. It does mean they believe they will need to delay | their IPO a year or more. | cperciva wrote: | It might be a matter of executive preference. Lots of people | don't want to deal with the regulatory attention and mandatory | reporting which comes from a company being publicly traded. | auntienomen wrote: | Not really. On general grounds, you expect to take a haircut | when you offer shares privately, because there are fewer | investors competing for the shares you're selling. | bfeynman wrote: | or fact that private investors are looking at making their | own return. | paxys wrote: | Stripe missing the 2018-2021 tech IPO window is going to be seen | as a historic business decision making failure. Everything was in | their favor. They could have sleepwalked into a $120B+ market | cap. All employees and investors could have had as much liquidity | as they desired. But for whatever reason the founders stuck to | their "we will stay private forever" stance, and the entire | company is suffering because of it. | danielmarkbruce wrote: | This isn't right. They needed to raise several billion. Whether | they give up 5% or 10% of the company is a rounding error in | the grand scheme. For context, many stocks went up or down 5% | today because some dude in europe said they won't put more | money into credit suisse. Tomorrow they might go up 5% because | Elon farts in a certain direction. | hesparrow wrote: | 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. | danielmarkbruce wrote: | Yes. But what is your point? | strangattractor wrote: | That direction is West for increases in the Financial sector, | East for decreases and South whenever he has a new Baby | Momma. North is probably a bad lunch in Qatar when seeking | funding for Twitter. | varispeed wrote: | > All employees and investors could have had as much liquidity | as they desired. | | Not necessarily. Investors see employees as a cost, necessary | evil, nuisance. There would be a strong push for layoffs and | maximisation of profit. Some investors could even try for asset | stripping and extract as much value as possible in the short | term to fund their other investments. | | It is very much universal, once company does IPO it basically | turns into cr*p. | gkoberger wrote: | They could have hit $120B market cap at one point, but all | public tech stocks are significantly down since then. For | example, their closest competitor Adyen hit $31, but is now at | $14. So with this logic, Stripe's valuation would be almost | exactly where it currently is. | | Yes, a lot of former employees could have become liquid. But a | lot also would have had money tied up exactly the same way it | is now, except on a much more volatile public market where | their every move would be much more scrutinized. | sangnoir wrote: | > They could have hit $120B market cap at one point, but all | public tech stocks are significantly down since then | | I think that's parent's point: investors and current stock | holders could have transferred $120B from retail investors | before the adjustment. Now _they_ have to hold onto their own | devalued stock like a bunch of rubes. /s | danielmarkbruce wrote: | That isn't how it works. Going public at $120 bill | valuation doesn't mean you raise $120 billion. They'd have | raised something like they have here. | lotsofpulp wrote: | The employees would have had the option to sell the Stripe | stock and invest in something significantly less volatile, | such as an index or bond ETF. | gkoberger wrote: | Sure, some could. But between lock-up periods and vesting, | almost everyone working at the company wouldn't be in the | position to be able to do this. | idopmstuff wrote: | Lockups are usually 90-180 days, and Stripe is old enough | that lots of employees are fully vested. Maybe a | significant number of employees wouldn't be in a position | to because their growth means that most employees | would've been hired relatively recently in that | timeframe, but the people who were then since the early | days and who have the most equity would all have been | able to sell before the market turned down. | neximo64 wrote: | Exactly right. If it was an IPO, the $6.5B would go into | Stripe's bank account to grow the business instead of buying | out shares from employees who have to sell. And sure maybe they | didn't need that money, but it could have helped acquire | companies and grow more. | | This deal is basically the preamble to a direct listing. Which | again would not help Stripe raise funds but instead merry go | round shareholders. | htrp wrote: | probably not as bad as the wework botched ipo.... but your | point remains | lotsofpulp wrote: | Wework had indefensible problems with their business model, | hence sinking even in the frothiest of times. Stripes would | have surely fared much better. | paxys wrote: | Wework's problem wasn't timing. They actually chose to go | public under perfect market conditions, just that their | underlying business was _so_ out of touch with reality that | not even the most optimistic institutional investors or | bankers could digest it. | TheNewsIsHere wrote: | I have been reading Billion Dollar Loser by Reeves | Wiedeman. That out of touch quality that seemed to permeate | WeWork was seemingly there from the beginning, courtesy of | Adam Neumann. To say that he comes off looking delusional | is being kind. | rvz wrote: | This is all down to greediness. Instead of IPO'ing in 2019, not | even $95BN is somehow enough? | | A direct listing is probably a better option since it will be | even more difficult for them to raise again for an IPO this | year, given the current market turbulence. | [deleted] | efields wrote: | > Stripe does not need this capital to run its business. | | Suffering? Raising $6.5b when you don't need to, but because it | helps your longest running employees, is suffering? | paxys wrote: | Their last raise was at a $95B valuation, so this is a | _massive_ down round. It isn 't a case of raising extra | unneeded money just because market conditions are favorable. | Quite the opposite in fact. If they didn't critically need | this money they wouldn't have taken the hit at all. | rubiquity wrote: | An IPO during that time would certainly help stock holders get | liquid but it wouldn't help the business given that Banks/Firms | were making a killing on the IPOs of that era by disastrously | mispricing the businesses. There's a lot of business that still | needs to happen after an IPO and an IPO in and of itself is not | the goal. If you're running a solid business like Stripe during | turbulent times keeping your options open is a good idea. We | haven't seen how the IPO fest of 2020-2021 is going to work out | for some of those companies if they get cash strapped. | newaccount2023 wrote: | well on its way to a $15bln valuation, just a matter of time | rvz wrote: | At this point, they might as well do a direct listing. Raising | more money would just cut their valuation further and as soon as | they list everyone can dump 20% of their holdings to provide | liquidity. | | But either way, they should have at least IPO'd in 2019, just | like the rest of the companies out there who raced to the exit | [0] [1] instead of a 50% valuation cut from $95BN. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20993919 | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31062658 | fbabs wrote: | overrated company with bad foresight to read the trend. Maybe | paystack is a terrible acquisition anyways. | Idiot_in_Vain wrote: | Raising money now means they probably expect the financial | industry to go further down. | jongjong wrote: | If I was an employee of such company, I would just sell all my | equity as soon as I got it. I suspect they have no clue how | insanely lucky they are and how many forces have worked in their | favor behind the scenes to put them in such fortunate position. | After such insane winning streaks, it's the less arrogant ones | who understand their luck who get to keep the spoils. | steponlego wrote: | Plan to provide employee liquidity? Is this just a euphemism for | "paying them?" | jon-wood wrote: | It's too allow employees to cash out share options without the | company having to go public or be sold. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | Series I lol. I think the latest funding round I've seen prior to | this is a Series G, but really anything past D/E seems rare. | tough wrote: | Good thing it looks like a 1 | | Thank romans | DueDilligence wrote: | [dead] | akavi wrote: | 48% discount from peak valuation (95 G$ in Mar 2021). Ouch. | nprateem wrote: | Looks like they tried to time the market and failed. Smells | like greed to me. | enahs-sf wrote: | Steep haircut, but 50% of something still better than 100% of | nothing. | nrmitchi wrote: | That's a fair point, but wasn't that $95B valuation based on an | ~$500M fundraise _primarily_ to the irish government (as well | as, I 'm assuming, any funds that had participation rights)? | | I'm not saying it doesn't look like a bad drop in valuation, | but it's not clear that the $95 valuation would have been | supported by any larger. | cperciva wrote: | To be fair, 30 year treasuries have fallen almost as much. Did | Stripe's valuation drop, or did the long-term value of today's | cash increase? | thaumasiotes wrote: | Doesn't the long-term value of today's cash move in the | opposite direction of the inflation rate? | fnordpiglet wrote: | I think they're referring to net present value of future | cash is determined by the difference between interest rates | and inflation discounted over time. As inflation has gone | up so have interest rates. Cash today is worth more in the | future, especially if inflation is tamed and you locked in | a good interest rate on a long dated bond. | schnebbau wrote: | 95 Gazillion dollars?!?!? | jefftk wrote: | "G" for "Giga", 1e9. | reikonomusha wrote: | "giga-dollars" i.e. 1 billion dollars | lemoncucumber wrote: | I prefer to use gibi-dollars ($1073741824) | djbusby wrote: | I read "Giga Dollars". To remove the ambiguity of Million, | Billion, Millard, Long Million and Short Million perhaps. | airstrike wrote: | Hmm.. but there's no ambiguity in "billion"? There's | certainly less than in "giga dollars" | djbusby wrote: | Billion is different in Short (10^9) vs Long (10^12) | scale. | | See: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales | airstrike wrote: | The short scale isn't a thing in English or when talking | dollars which is implied by the dollar sign in "$95 | billion" and the fact that this is a US company | | "$95 billion" simply means $95,000,000,000.00 and there's | no ambiguity... | djbusby wrote: | A thread on HN yesterday regarding Credit Suisse where | this ambiguity came up. That thread was in English and | was about US Dollars. | fnordpiglet wrote: | Inflations a monster ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-15 23:00 UTC)