What's your preferred outcome? Staying private? I'm not sure any of these companies are set up with this intent. The goals seem to be IPO or to be acquired. My understanding is that the barriers to IPO usually means acquisition is preferred.
The primary reason a company usually goes public is to offer a path to liquidity (cash) to its shareholders (mostly employees and investors) via selling shares on an open market. There are other reasons, but this is typically the primary one. As mentioned in another reply, GitLab already has investors and a board.
I've always been skeptical about the claim that Gitlab would prefer going public over a direct purchase. It just sounds like a negotiating tactic intended to raise first offers.
They're going to be a rapid acquisition target by anyone who (a) has lots of cash or valuable shares and (b) isn't Microsoft.
Going through the hassle of an IPO, followed by the hassle of being a public company acquired by another public company, seems wasteful.
7 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 24.2 ms ] threadThey're going to be a rapid acquisition target by anyone who (a) has lots of cash or valuable shares and (b) isn't Microsoft.
Going through the hassle of an IPO, followed by the hassle of being a public company acquired by another public company, seems wasteful.