I assume investment banks were trying to convince you to do a traditional IPO instead of a direct listing, so they could collect some fat fees. What were their best arguments?
The fees are actually the same between a traditional IPO as well as a direct listing. We ended up paying $15M or so all in between everyone. The reason some banks push you to a traditional IPO is that their real clients- public market investors like hedge funds who to repeat business with them, get a good deal on your stock.
I heard all the expected ones: not having control over your price, wanting a monotonically increasing stock price, having the price trade up on the opening for good press. It's all bullshit, if you read any of the coverage on Amplitude we were able to achieve all the goals we wanted to: https://www.google.com/search?q=amplitude&tbm=nws
My absolute favorite argument was that if you price too high, you price out people who will stick with you, and that will cause your price to be lower in the future than it would have been otherwise. Luckily, I did a year in the finance world in high frequency trading so they couldn't pull this one on me. That logic is the opposite of how pricing in a market works. High prices now are a signal that prices in the future are expected to be higher. If you want your price to be higher in the future, having it be higher in the present will increase the likelihood of that outcome. The thinking reminded me of Yogi Berra's famous quote: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
I know a bunch of other companies planning to go public were watching our direct listing to see if it was a viable path and I hope our results convince them. Please reach out if you're a CEO and trying to figure this out!
They also use restricted supply to keep the price high. Everyone’s locked up, no supply, it’s no wonder the price often jumps.
Curious what you would say about pricing startup raises? There’s a line of logic which says don’t price too high, you never want a down round and that keeps the risk low.
RE startup raises these are all what I call champagne problems (is it possible to win too much?). My philosophy is to aim for a little above (eg 20-30%) "market price" for what similar companies are raising at. If you go too much beyond that (eg 2-3x) then it can start to set the wrong expectations and it can get difficult to beat in the future even if you're doing well. It's not great to have misalignment with your shareholders (eg the investors who are now partial owners of your business). There is another train of thought that says to get the highest valuation you can, investors are professionals and will deal with it. So maybe I'm not bold enough. Either way, funding markets, particularly for startups now, are incredibly rich. They're probably 3x the valuation when we did venture/growth stage funding so you'll be in great shape no matter what.
Oldest landing page I can find is https://web.archive.org/web/20130529150217/https://amplitude...