While there are probably wrinkles^, the gist is that instead of 100% of waymo shares being owned by Alphabet, there are now 2.25B/current_valuation % shares owned by the external investors. Alphabet shareholders now own (1-x%) of Waymo, but it will continue to be consolidated on Alphabets financial statements.

^ wrinkles might include different share classes of Waymo, rather than Alphabet stock, debt-like provisions that make the investment less like common stock ownership

dammit, does this imply that Alphabet stock grants can "leak" Waymo value while gaining nothing in return? (other than Ruth can have $1 bil less in expenses on next year's 10-Q?)

The "leaked" Waymo value is supposed to be approximately equal to "added" value of the cash they raised.

Theoretically, raising a round should not be a net negative for existing investors.

> Is it a new class of Alphabet stock?

No. If it's stock it's gonna be Waymo stock.

> Was this a corporate bond?

We don't know the details. If bonds are involved, they're probably convertible bonds [e.g. convertible to stock].

Waymo is wholly owned by Alphabet.

So in a normal case, Waymo itself wouldn't have a separate filing for incorporation, or tax status etc... which means it's wouldn't have it's own stock.

Hence the question

Waymo does have it's own stock.

I don't know how it works, but it does. I have friends who worked at Waymo and got Waymo stock (well, options that can be exercised for stock). I suppose that would make it not a wholly owned subsidiary, considering that some of the employees own some of it?

Unless this changed recently (which it may well have), Waymo "stock" is just a special performance scheme that converts to Alphabet stock based on waymo, not alphabet, performance.

Well legally it's one or the other and that's what is confusing to me.