Some encouragement to comment on $SNOW IPO. While it would be easy to do normal post wrt mispricing, it is important to understand what is different here from other IPOs. The most important data is broad (40 years of underpricing, 2020 worst year yet), vs. 1 company. [cont]
First, its important to acknowledge that @SnowflakeDB is an amazing outlier, & proof of the innovation that develops from this great place we call Silicon Valley. Hats off to the employees, Frank Slootman, @laserlikemike, @altcap, @carl_eschenbach, & all those involved. [cont]
Outside of if the company/shareholders "gave up" anything, the hand allocated investors received $4.3B is one day wealth transfer. That's an insane amount of REAL money. That, along with watching the theatre and drama today, it is HARD to say - this is exactly how it should work!
In many ways, $SNOW is the final proof of just how broken process is. Frank Slootman is a HIGHLY experienced IPO CEO. He knows the game, & pushed hard to make sure he wasn't short-changing the company. But it didn't matter, because the process is set up to deliver this silliness.
Two other thoughts. One of the main arguments for hand-allocation is "you want to choose long term shareholders." $SNOW sold 32.2mm shares last night. Today, 35.7mm shares traded; how does that work? And no one checks to see who held, who sold, etc. Never measured/disclosed.
One company I worked with went to do a secondary 4 months after IPO, and only 10% of the IPO shares were still held. It's ludicrous to think you can "control" who owns your stock. IPO allocators aren't locked up, and once your public, your investors choose you. And that's OK.
The last point is about fairness. One well-known individual said to me "I tried so hard, for weeks, to get into the SNOW IPO. They said it was the hottest IPO since FB...I could not get allocation." This $4.3B of 1-day free money is reserved for those "closest" to banks.
In world where we are all decrying inequity/unfairness, is this really how we want our capital markets to work? Is this not the epitome of the rich getting richer as a direct result of being rich? The attached email shows exactly who receives said rewards.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The point @sundeep is making about be combinatorial effect of having many (now 7?) Chinese open AI models is very powerful, and I mis-appreciated by many. Each model can improve each other model. And new models are much easier to launch. 🧵
@mattwridley’s book The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (2010) persuasively argues that human progress and innovation are largely driven by the exchange and combination of ideas—much like genetic recombination in biology. He calls this phenomenon “ideas having sex.”
If normal sharing or technological innovation is “ideas having sex” this plethora of simultaneous open AI models (with published weights and papers about technique) is an “idea orgy.” The collective innovation should easily soar pass anything one company can do alone.
As a 3rd-party, curious observer, I have several naive, unanswered questions about the Stargate project. Obviously understand that they have no obligation to disclose. Here is list with responses wide open. I would love to be able to aggregate the best answers at some point.
1. Corporate Structure
The OpenA press release says that Stargate is "a new company." Is Stargate established as a standard C-corp, LLC, a joint venture, or something else entirely?
2. CEO Leadership
Will Stargate have an independent CEO? Who will lead Stargate on a daily basis, and how is that person chosen? Will they be as operationally intense as the XAI team that launched Memphis?
You can frequently read articles referencing VC "dry powder" and inferring that these large dollar amounts are "burning a hole" in someone's pocket & will imminently find their way to the market. I totally understand the assumption, but things don't really work this way. [cont]
First and foremost, undrawn VC dollars are not on the IRR clock. There is no urgency to draw them down. The money isn't actually at the VC firm, they are still sitting in the coffers at the LPs. No VC firm I have ever been exposed to feels "pressure" to "get dollars to work."
On the back of a market reset, & w/ portfolio valuations being slashed, GPs are mostly sharing bad news w/ LPs. No GP wants to look aggressive/carefree. Imagine being a teenager with two speeding tickets & a fender-bender insisting on taking the new family car out Saturday night.
Some (below) are arguing US capitalism would be better off if SVB had completely failed (also wiping out depositors). History suggests that out gov't treated big banks (2008) & big airlines (2020) FAR BETTER than SVB - in both cases fully protecting EQUITY shareholders. (cont)
In 2008, during the GFC, our gov't bailed out most of the major money center banks. Equity shareholders & bondholders kept whole. GS received help AFTER they received a preferred investment from Warren Buffet. Here is the real kicker (cont). investopedia.com/insights/too-b…
The GFC was the result of a specific flawed financial product that was an "offering" of these same banks. So far, the identified SVB failure was a bad risk management process. In the GFC case, the "bailed-out" players directly benefited from the flawed product.
As people come to terms with the weight of our new environment, they are slowly beginning to realize how radically things have changed. One area in particular that has changed - the required level of "corporate performance" needed to simply survive (let alone thrive). 🧵
2/ Building startups WAS a historically difficult endeavor (see chart). The past 5 years things have been "much, much easier." Cash was easy to come by (round frequency unprecedented), & no one was held to any profit goals, yet many companies still received high valuations.
3/ Cash is now hard to come by; investors are expecting solid unit economics & earlier profitability. Everything is immediately 5-10X harder. As such, survival is now depedent on hard-core, disciplined, top decile business execution, which no one learned in the past 5 years.