Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s

Re:Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s by kaycebasques on Sunday April 14, 2019 @01:41PM (#19660623)

My buddy works for a law firm and was telling me that they often represent technology companies when they IPO. It turns out there’s an intense amount of research that goes into the S-1 process. The law firm makes a huge spreadsheet, with each row representing a sentence from the S-1, along with evidence supporting the truth of that sentence. They do this because, if the price goes down after the IPO, there’s inevitably a lawsuit, and the company needs to justify everything it said in the IPO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s by lazyjones on Sunday April 14, 2019 @06:38PM (#19662109)

If lawsuits are such a huge issue, why don't companies limit their IPO to, say, 1% at very low valuations and then follow with a larger ATM offering when stock prices reach a better level to get more cash? Because the banks don't let them?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s by Someone on Sunday April 14, 2019 @07:57PM (#19662404)

Who would get to buy that 1%? If there’s any chance of that even remotely looking like “friends of the company owners” or “friends of the banks selling the stock”, people will sue.

Even if you make it a lottery, you will have to make sure everybody who would want to buy at the low price gets equal opportunity to do so.

Finally, I would think the tax department could see selling at a price that you know is significantly below market value as a gift that is taxable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s by aeternus on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @05:17PM (#19677409)

I'm not sure why more companies don't choose to go the direct listing route (like Spotify). Set a reference price, but allow the employees and market decide.

Tech companies especially have enough employees that own shares and want to sell that liquidity should not be a big issue. This allows the price to be tested while slowly adding volume (as price stabilizes, more employees willing to sell).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s by toomuchtodo on Sunday April 14, 2019 @01:43PM (#19660638)

Could be a fun startup idea: NLP for securities legal action against IPOs for investors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s by jjeaff on Sunday April 14, 2019 @02:10PM (#19660783)

Good luck getting VCs to fund something that fights against their primary source of return.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s by rongenre on Sunday April 14, 2019 @03:51PM (#19661305)

It'll have to be a lifestyle business /s

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s by toomuchtodo on Sunday April 14, 2019 @02:36PM (#19660900)

Some bootstrapping required.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s by Bombthecat on Sunday April 14, 2019 @02:27PM (#19660858)

End result : block cloud chain, maybe future, or not! Get in now! Or not, maybe...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft vs. Uber: A Tale of Two S-1’s by village-idiot on Monday April 15, 2019 @08:28AM (#19664798)

Uhh, uhh, trustless! Distributed!

[ Parent | on HN ]