Notably, the valuation represents an impressive 49% increase from the $106.7 billion Stripe was valued at in September, when it completed . That deal marked the first time that Stripe had surpassed its previous peak that it achieved in March 2021.

Stripe declined to comment on the latest secondary sale beyond , in which it noted that the majority of funds for the tender offer are being provided by investors, including , , and others. Stripe said it will also use a portion of its own capital to repurchase shares, but did not specify how much.

The company, which counts the likes of , , , , and as customers, says that businesses running on Stripe generated $1.9 trillion in total volume, up 34% from 2024. Beyond payments, Stripe says its revenue products, including billing, invoicing and tax, are on track to collectively hit an annual run rate of $1 billion in 2026.

Tender offers have become more common as an increasing number of startups choose to stay private longer. Generative AI company is also believed to be working on its own at a valuation of at least $350 billion.

Total global funding to VC-backed financial technology startups totaled $51.8 billion for 2025, per SA国际传媒 . That鈥檚 a fairly significant 鈥� 27% 鈥� increase from 2024鈥檚 total of $40.8 billion raised.

Related SA国际传媒 Pro query:

Related reading:

• Q&A: Why Deep Tech Investors Are Turning To The Secondary Market For Liquidity
• Secondary Financings Offer Lifeline In A Slow Exit Market
• 鈥榃hy Not?鈥� How Sales Automation Unicorn Clay Uses Tender Offers To Reward Employees Without An Exit In Sight

Illustration:

VCs were hesitant to call capital and were not actively investing at a time when valuations had reset, he recalls. Founders with 鈥渆xcellent products and progress鈥� were struggling to raise funds to finish the job. Further, limited partners were suffering from the 鈥渄enominator effect,鈥� in which their public market accounts and real estate shrank in value, so their venture investments represented a higher percentage of wealth than they intended.

Around that timeframe, venture secondary sales started to require significant discounts, making secondaries a less appealing option for investors who could hold.

So Hurst teamed up with , and to found and build to provide margin line-style lending to LPs and GPs who wanted to continue investing in venture 鈥渨ithout sourcing an endless stream of capital from outside sources.鈥�

The Santa Monica, California-based firm鈥檚 goal is to provide venture capital and private equity firms with early liquidity options for their investors.

Turbine鈥檚 seed round closed in early 2023 and it in April 2025 after receiving a $100 million warehouse credit line from .

To date, Turbine has underwritten approximately 60 funds, with more than 160 firms in the pipeline representing more than $500 billion in assets under management, according to Hurst.

SA国际传媒 News conducted an email interview with Hurst to learn more about Turbine鈥檚 business model and efforts. The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

SA国际传媒 News: Why do you think that LPs are looking for an alternative to secondaries?

Hurst: First, it鈥檚 important to understand that selling an LP stake to a secondary buyer isn鈥檛 as straightforward as listing shares on a secondary market like or . Selling an LP position is much more complex.

As an LP in a venture fund, you don鈥檛 directly own shares in private companies; rather, you have partial ownership in a partnership that owns stock in 15-20 different companies, and the VC firm ultimately decides when to seek liquidity by selling these shares. Most of the time, the firm simply waits for portfolio companies to be acquired or go public to generate liquidity for its LPs.

In the event an LP would like to sell some or all of its position, the firm needs to be heavily involved in the transaction. In some cases, the firm reserves the right to deny the request altogether.

If the firm agrees to the sale, it typically makes the market to find a buyer, which ideally will be another existing LP. In nearly all cases, an early sale of an LP position will result in a heavy discount to today鈥檚 value.

Let鈥檚 say the LP understands all of these factors and requests a sale. While secondaries result in immediate liquidity, they can be extremely expensive, and the trade-offs can be significant:

• The seller gives up any future upside when they sell their stake.
• The position for single-company stock may clear at a 30%-60% discount to the company鈥檚 last valuation (except for elite startups, which command premiums),.
• LP positions are likely to trade lower than single-company stock secondaries due to attached fee structures.
• The seller may be required to pay significant legal fees.
• Any gain on the sale may trigger a taxable event.
• Perhaps most consequentially, the seller is likely to lose their seat at the table for future fund vintages.

The bottom line: if your venture position is marked at 2.0x, you may be lucky to get your principal back in a secondary sale.

This feels a bit risky! How is the company mitigating the potential risk?

Actually, this debt is incredibly attractive relative to other credit products that banks and insurance companies are buying, such as credit card bonds and used-car debt.

A typical Turbine borrower is a family office with tens of millions in wealth spread across multiple asset classes. Our loans are relatively low LTV, but high impact, as they empower the borrower to activate leverage in a previously illiquid arena.

Why has borrowing against a fund position not historically been possible?

LPs have historically been unable to obtain a bank loan against an appreciated LP position in a venture fund for two big reasons.

First, the underlying fund investments in private companies are difficult to underwrite, even if all necessary data is readily available (spoiler alert: it isn鈥檛).

Second, the venture firm would need to facilitate the loan and permit the LP to pledge his or her asset as collateral to the lender, which would typically be a large bank. VCs don鈥檛 have time to work with dozens of commercial banks on individual loan requests, and even if they did, banks aren鈥檛 built to properly value venture-backed private company stock.

Banks are built to lend against profitable, established businesses with cash flow to repay debt. Asking a bank to properly value 15 to 20 pre-profitable companies from a venture portfolio is a tall order.

VCs are not against LPs seeking credit backed by their positions, but they are against gigantic legal bills and heavy diligence from lenders designed to see less value in early-stage companies than they do as investors.

Turbine鈥檚 role is to partner with VC firms to properly value their investments, to originate credit against the value of these positions, and to then place this debt with banks, insurance companies, and asset managers that compete to house it.

How can early liquidity solutions help in the current fundraising environment?

More companies are opting to stay private longer, and exit times are lengthening.

Companies that went public in 2025 were a median age of 13 years old, up from a median age of 10 years in 2018, per . Some are taking even longer to go public; for instance, should reach IPO in 2026, it will be 24 years old. The lack of significant returns from company exits means fewer dollars for LPs to recycle into new funds.

In the absence of earlier company exits, the market needs other solutions to bridge the gap. Credit has a clear role to play in empowering investors to recycle capital, invest in each vintage, retain their seat at the table, and ultimately realize the full upside of their investments without becoming overallocated to the asset class.

When are fund managers most likely to explore liquidity options for LPs?

VCs are working hard to generate liquidity the old-fashioned way, via company sales and IPOs. However, companies have strong options available to stay private longer (if not forever), and the IPO hurdle is higher than ever before. If firms intend to continue raising new funds every three years, they need to provide their LPs with tools to bridge the liquidity gap.

Related reading:

• Q&A: Why Deep Tech Investors Are Turning To The Secondary Market For Liquidity
• Q&A: Why Secondary Funds Still Can鈥檛 Keep Up With Investor Demand
• A Conversation With Lead Edge Capital On Secondary Markets And Why It鈥檚 Holding Out On AI
• Founders, Want Liquidity Without Walking Away? Consider A Secondary Share Sale

Illustration:

Clay鈥檚 back-to-back tender offers underscore a growing shift among high-growth startups: rewarding employees with liquidity long before an IPO is in sight. As companies stay private longer 鈥� and hit major revenue milestones at breakneck speed 鈥� secondary sales are becoming a tool not just for retention, but for signaling strength. In Clay鈥檚 case, the two tenders followed rapid valuation jumps and a sprint to $100 million in ARR, positioning liquidity as a performance-based reward rather than a prelude to exit.

鈥淏uilding a generational business is a marathon, and tenders help equity feel real when top talent has options,鈥� said , a partner at who noted that as companies stay private longer and talent competition intensifies, tender offers can be a powerful tool for recruiting, morale and retention.

Still, he noted, there tend to be limits. 鈥淚n the tender offers we鈥檝e participated in, most employees were limited to selling just 10-25% of their vested holdings, and nearly half of founders didn鈥檛 sell a single share, signaling long-term conviction,鈥� he wrote via email. 鈥淓ven modest liquidity can make a big difference, translating to life milestones like a down payment on a first home, a child鈥檚 education, or helping a loved one transition into care.鈥�

Clay鈥檚 previous tender, led by , happened in May 2025 at . In between the two tender offers, the startup closed at a $3.1 billion valuation. In total, New York-based Clay has raised $206 million in equity since its 2017 inception. It has 300 employees, up from 80 to 90 a year ago, and 14,000 customers.

Tender offers have become more common as an increasing number of startups choose to stay private longer. Other high-profile examples include payments giant , which has already undergone a few tender offers and is reportedly considering that could value it at more than $140 billion. Generative AI company is also believed to be working on its own at a valuation of at least $350 billion.

In Clay鈥檚 case, the motivation was twofold, according to CEO and co-founder . The tender offers have served as a way to allow new investors to come in, and for employees to feel like their equity is 鈥渞eal.鈥�

SA国际传媒 News recently spoke with Amin to dig deeper into the company鈥檚 decision to launch not just one but two tender offers in the past nine months. The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

SA国际传媒 News: Before we dig into the tender offers, tell us more about what Clay does.

Amin: We help businesses find and grow their best customers. You can think of Clay as an AI go-to-market tool which implements any creative idea you have for sales and marketing.

Go-to-market is just a new name for sales, marketing and customer success 鈥� the whole apparatus that helps you find customers and grow them, and implement any idea. Our vision is that in sales and marketing, you need to constantly be doing something different that’s unique for you, different from everybody else. Otherwise, it just becomes noise.

And we let you implement these strategies. It might be something like personalized landing pages to, 鈥淗ey, let’s analyze all the video calls with sales calls that you’ve had, figure out why you lost the customer, and put that into .鈥澛�1 I like to think of it as 鈥渓ike is for designers, Clay is for go-to-market teams.鈥�

So what drove you to do not just one, but two, tender offers over the past year?

It鈥檚 interesting actually to think of it as the inverse: Why not do a tender offer?

Two reasons you don’t do a tender offer is either you don’t have the demand, or you think you’ll demotivate the team. Because we’re growing super quickly, we have the demand, and people want to invest in the company because we’re extremely efficient. Our burn is very, very low.

We don’t actually need more primary capital. We haven’t touched the primary capital. So this is a way to allow new investors to come in. This is also a way to bring in new partners without diluting the whole cap table.

It鈥檚 also a way for employees to feel like their equity is real. And some employees are having some real-life events. People are getting married, people are having kids, and this allows them to be a little bit more comfortable and do things like buy a house or buy a car. There are a bunch of people who’ve told me they’ve worked in startups for 10 years and never gotten any liquidity, and this is their first opportunity.

People might only stay at a company because they want liquidity if they don’t like the culture 鈥斅� and they’re just withstanding it for the money. But we prefer people to stay because they want to do the work and they see that the value that they’re generating is real. I actually think it motivates the team.

Plus, it makes the ecosystem grow.

When you did the earlier tender offer, did you think you would be doing another one in less than a year鈥檚 time?聽聽

No, I don’t think that we were. The way I’m thinking about it is [it makes sense to do a tender offer] every time we hit certain milestones. So we hit $100 million ARR really fast (in December). Tender offers are a way to reward the team each time it performs to a level where we get to the next milestone for the company. I think it makes sense to allow some people to get some of the value that they’ve created.

Do you have an exit plan?

Sometimes even investors ask this question. And we don鈥檛. It is nonproductive to think about that. You’re only building this type of company if you want to see how big it can be. I always say it’ll be as big as it wants to be, and as long as there are problems for us to solve for customers. That’s what we should be focused on, and the valuations and the exits, those are things that are a result of that.

The other way to think about it is we’re basically close to being profitable all the time. Like we can choose to become profitable. (The company touts that it was cash-flow positive for parts of 2025, earning more in interest than it burned.)聽 We want to be in a place where we have options.

Going public is a way to fund things so you can do more for customers. So I think whenever I start going down that line, I refocus back on, 鈥淚s there work to do for customers? Can we make the product better?鈥� And the answer right now is, yes, we’re nowhere near achieving our mission, which is how we help you finally grow your best customers. And as long as there’s work to do around that, we should keep doing it.

Do you think you’re going to be doing any more tender offers in the near future?

I think as long as we hit the next set of growth milestones, we’ll consider it. We鈥檙e still early in this. There are no exits on the horizon.

Related SA国际传媒 query:

Related reading:

• Q&A: Why Deep Tech Investors Are Turning To The Secondary Market For Liquidity
• Secondary Financings Offer Lifeline In A Slow Exit Market

Illustration:

In 2024, slightly less than half of planned, highlighting significant disruptions in the startup ecosystem due to market volatility and economic uncertainty.

Traditionally, IPOs have been pivotal exit strategies for venture-backed companies, enabling them to access liquidity and fuel growth. However, current market conditions have challenged their reliability, forcing many companies to reevaluate their paths to public markets. That鈥檚 why I鈥檇 like to delve into why companies are facing these challenges, but also how to adapt and explore alternative strategies.

Navigating delayed IPOs

Delayed IPOs significantly impact businesses, investors and employees. Market volatility, economic downturns and geopolitical tensions all create uncertainty, prompting companies to reconsider IPO timing and compressing the IPO window.

also deter IPO launches, as market corrections and heightened investor caution lead to diminished startup valuations. Regulatory scrutiny, with its evolving standards and stringent reporting requirements, adds another layer of complexity. Lastly, investor sentiment, whether bullish or pessimistic, directly influences IPO activity.

Stakeholders across the spectrum feel the pinch of delayed IPOs. Late-stage startups face funding shortfalls, while venture capital firms encounter extended timelines for their exits, complicating future fundraising.

Employees face consequences as well, as delayed IPOs affect stock option values, which are often central to their compensation packages.

Emerging risk profiles: valuation and financial risks

Delayed IPOs create a cascade of interconnected risks for startups. One of the primary concerns is valuation risk, where companies unable to meet their target IPO valuations may be forced into accepting down rounds. A down round means new financing occurs at a lower valuation than previous funding rounds, which can severely damage investor confidence.

This problem is compounded by a lack of liquidity; with IPOs delayed, investors face prolonged illiquidity, limiting their ability to capitalize on investment gains. This reduced liquidity strains investor patience and can pressure venture capitalists to seek alternative exit strategies, sometimes leading to hastened decisions.

Unfortunately, illiquidity also leads to significant financial risks. Startups reliant on IPO proceeds often face funding shortfalls and increasingly turn to debt financing. While this approach can temporarily ease cash flow pressures, it heightens financial vulnerability by increasing leverage and interest obligations, which may limit a company’s financial flexibility in the long term.

Moreover, these conditions can expose weaknesses in startups with unsustainable business models. Companies heavily dependent on continuous external funding may find their operational weaknesses starkly exposed when the IPO route is closed, risking insolvency or forced mergers and acquisitions at unfavorable terms without rapid adjustments.

IPO alternatives and risk management solutions

In this challenging environment, despite several companies kicking off roadshows, alternative exit strategies are becoming essential for startups. Mergers and acquisitions have gained prominence, with companies strategically aligning with larger entities to benefit from synergies, immediate financial returns and reduced market uncertainty.

Beyond M&A, other options have also emerged as viable paths to liquidity. For example, a direct listing allows a company to go public without issuing new shares, providing liquidity to existing shareholders without the typical IPO fanfare. Private equity buyouts also offer an by allowing a private equity firm to acquire a controlling stake in the company, providing an immediate exit for founders and investors.

Robust risk management solutions are also critical. Startups can proactively manage cash flow and anticipate funding shortfalls through accurate financial planning and forecasting. Streamlining operations, optimizing resource allocation and controlling costs can strengthen financial resilience, while detailed contingency plans ensure agility.

Additionally, comprehensive insurance solutions, such as directors and officers and errors and omissions coverage, protect startups and their leadership from financial and legal liabilities, maintaining stakeholder confidence amid uncertainty.

Best practices to avoid legal pitfalls

Directors and officers have fiduciary duties, which legally oblige them to prioritize the best interests of the company and its shareholders, ensuring responsible decision-making. Simply put, accuracy and transparency are crucial.

Regulatory compliance must be a priority. Failure to adhere to these regulations can result in significant legal and financial repercussions, undermining investor confidence and potentially jeopardizing the company’s future viability.

Companies should prioritize long-term sustainability and value creation, resisting pressures for short-term gains. By adopting these best practices, businesses foster investor confidence,, and ultimately position themselves for sustained success.

is the COO and co-founder of . Previously, he spent the first years of his career in roles across the venture ecosystem. From venture due diligence at to growth hacking and modeling for portfolio companies at to M&A negotiations at , he鈥檚 seen how companies succeed (and fail) from all angles. Niedbala is energized by the possibility of rethinking the way the insurance industry works through technology, best-in-class customer service, and cutting-edge marketing and branding. In 2021, Founder Shield joined , where Niedbala now leads digital product strategy and innovation.

Related SA国际传媒 query:

Related reading:

• 5 Companies Kick Off IPO Roadshow

Illustration:

On top of that, most of those companies are too large, or simply don鈥檛 want or need to be acquired. However, they are under pressure to provide liquidity to investors, shareholders and employees alike.

As such, many companies are turning to secondary transactions. In 2025 alone, several larger startups conducted secondary share sales. Expense management startup in March nearly doubled its valuation to $13 billion after . A group of investors bought the secondaries from employees and early investors.

In February, fintech-turned-HR company to and an unnamed 鈥渟overeign investor鈥� 鈥� giving early investors a payout.

More recently, is said to be prepping to sell around $6 billion in stock as part of a secondary sale that would value the company at around $500 billion, according to an Aug. 15 .

With IPOs and M&A exits scarce, it鈥檚 no surprise that GPs and LPs are turning to secondary transactions as 鈥渁 creative lifeline to unlock liquidity and reset fund timelines,鈥� notes , partner at law firm .

In an email interview with SA国际传媒 News, Resendiz shares his views on what鈥檚 driving this momentum, how these deals are structured, and more.

Besides the obvious (companies not wanting to yet go public), what exactly is driving the momentum in secondary transactions?

Liquidity needs are driving this demand in the secondary markets. Some investors need cash. Some want to move dollars to other investments or reweigh their portfolios. They are willing to sell certain private investments at discounts for that liquidity that, in many instances, has been otherwise delayed or stalled by the current M&A and IPO climates.

Meanwhile, founders and employees are increasingly searching for de-risking, diversification and liquidity solutions for a portion of holdings in their private company employer holdings, especially as the road to organic liquidity grows longer.

How are these deals structured exactly? Does it vary depending on age, size and valuation of the company?

Sellers of private company interests have to be mindful and structure their sale transactions to comply with the various transfer restrictions applicable to those private shares. Those include right of first refusal, drag and tag rights, and the underlying company confidentiality provisions when obtaining company information in connection with the evaluation of the transaction.

Sellers also have to be cognizant of the company’s final say on transfers. It has the right to approve transfers and may ask many questions around the sale price and the impact on its cap table when considering granting consent to the sale. There are some relationship considerations to juggle in these processes.

Other than that, there’s not a lot of magic to the transfer documentation and typically, transactions take the form of relatively straightforward stock purchase sales.

Pricing comes down to the attractiveness of the underlying company and its perceived risk and reward metrics.

There are instances where buyers are asked to buy derivative securities or other instruments meant to mimic the economics of the underlying private company equity or buy the equity through other holding companies or SPVs (special purpose vehicles). Buyers should clearly understand what drives those requests. Those transactions often generate significant legal, tax and regulatory compliance considerations.

How are they reshaping fund strategy and investor relations?

A developing secondary market for portfolio company interests has given fund managers more options, in certain instances, when exploring liquidity opportunities especially for older vintage funds, away from the traditional M&A and IPO avenues that have not been as robust recently. Fund managers are still under a lot of pressure to produce tangible exits and generate DPI (Distributed to Paid-In Capital).

Investors want liquidity. The pricing for those underlying portfolio company secondary transactions vary greatly, and are largely driven by the company fundamentals and upside trajectory. At the same time, other managers are becoming buyers in these moments, seeking to capitalize on discounted prices opportunities. Secondary funds can鈥檛 keep up with investor demand and investment opportunities these days.

Illustration:

Building a startup is exciting but can also be a long, uncertain and often exhausting ride. It is certainly not for the faint of heart. Founders put years of their lives into these companies 鈥斅� usually at great personal, financial and professional risk, with little financial reward until a big exit happens or, in much more rare cases, on the creation of liquidity following an IPO.

And, those exits are taking longer than ever. IPOs are rare, acquisitions can take 10-plus years, and, in the meantime, the expenses of everyday life do not hit pause 鈥� mortgages, families and other responsibilities keep rolling in, with compensation often below market and benefits delayed until sale or post-IPO, if at all.

Given their risk profile, many, if not most, startups do not succeed at the levels that founders and their investors seek.

With this backdrop, more founders are now looking to 鈥渟econdary transactions鈥� as a way to get some liquidity during the building phase, before a sale or IPO. A secondary deal typically involves a founder selling some of their personal shares, often timed around a new fundraising round.

It doesn鈥檛 鈥� and shouldn鈥檛 鈥� mean that they are checking out. Instead, the deal provides founders with an opportunity to unlock a portion of the value they鈥檝e created without having to wait for a public offering or full-blown acquisition, mitigating risk while remaining highly motivated to pursue continued success.

From where I sit as legal counsel to startups, early-stage and emerging growth companies, as well as the investors who support them, I strongly believe that secondaries, when done right, can be a smart and strategic move.

Considering the risks

But founders need to consider the risks of secondary financings as well: There are complicated legal, tax and governance questions that need to be carefully considered.

To start, most founders typically can鈥檛 sell their shares whenever they want. The company鈥檚 governing documents, stock agreements and/or investor documents often place restrictions on transferring shares, including company and investor rights of first refusal and co-sale rights. Board approval is almost always required, and investor sign-off is usually required as well. These restrictions on selling shares aren鈥檛 just red tape 鈥� they protect the company鈥檚 structure and make sure that everyone鈥檚 interests remain aligned.

Then there鈥檚 the question of who鈥檚 buying the founder shares. Whether it鈥檚 a new investor or someone already on the cap table, buyers will usually want to do their due diligence.

Founders need to be careful about the information they share about the company to potential investors: A founder sharing material nonpublic information might create regulatory issues or enhanced competitive and market risk 鈥� especially if the company is relying on exemptions under securities laws.

Don鈥檛 forget tax considerations

Taxes are another important question. If a founder is selling qualified small business stock or exercising options before a sale, there can be serious tax implications for the seller, buyer and company. Limits under Rule 701 of the Securities Act of 1933, investor thresholds and valuation concerns under IRS Rule 409A can also come into play.

Founders should always, in advance of contemplating a secondary sale, seek advice from both legal and tax advisers. What seems like a straightforward transaction can get complicated quickly.

Beyond the technical requirements/considerations of a secondary sale, it鈥檚 critical that entrepreneurs and the company think about how the sale might affect team dynamics, future fundraising and the cap table. If the reasons for the sale are not communicated clearly, it might spook employees or send unintended or improper signals to investors, both current and future. And investors will generally expect to see founders maintaining sufficient holdings to motivate their continued best efforts.

We generally advise founders to time secondary sales around meaningful milestones, such as a major product launch, a successful funding round, or strong business traction. A founder selling 5%-10% of their holdings is usually seen as reasonable, particularly when in connection with other strong business milestones. Anything much higher can start raising eyebrows.

Investors are increasingly receptive to founder secondary sales so long as they trust that the founder still has enough 鈥渟kin in the game鈥� to remain fully committed for the long haul.

A tool, not a shortcut

In my experience, when structured thoughtfully, secondary sales can strengthen alignment. Founders who can relieve a bit of financial pressure are often in a better place to focus, make smart decisions, and keep building their company. The messaging is that the secondary sale is not about cashing out, but creating some financial breathing room and mitigating risk.

At the end of the day, a secondary sale isn鈥檛 a shortcut. It鈥檚 a tool. Used the right way, it can help founders manage risk without losing sight of the larger goals. As legal advisers, our role is to help navigate the transactional complexity while ensuring that secondary sales comply with applicable law and the company鈥檚 long-term vision stays intact.

Done well, these transactions aren鈥檛 just about taking money off the table 鈥� they鈥檙e about sustainability, a focus on the future. Building something great takes time, sometimes a lot of time, and founders can gain the financial breathing room to stay in the game for the long run.

is co-practice group leader of 鈥檚 Transactions Practice Group and a co-practice group leader of the firm’s Emerging Growth Companies & Venture Capital group. He advises founders and investors in early-stage tech and life sciences companies on corporate and transactional matters, from formation to exit.

Illustration:

Subscribe to the SA国际传媒 Daily

Last week the company its IPO mid-range, selling 13.5 million shares at $14.50 each, the . That’s worth just under $200 million. Tack on the 2,0250,000 more shares available to underwriters and the company’s possible total raise grows to $225 million.

And Jumia may raise the full 225 after its IPO was given a rapturous reception. After listing on the New York Stock Exchange, Jumia’s shares at $25.46, up 75.6 percent. It has risen further since.

There are two ways to read that result. The first is as a success; Jumia raised hundreds of millions of dollars, floated its shares, and managed a huge first-day gain. And you can read it as a failure; Jumia could have theoretically sold fewer shares at a higher price to raise its capital, lessening dilution of extant shareholders.

But in the IPO hierarchy of results, having a big first-day pop is better than over-pricing shares and seeing your equity quickly slip under its IPO price. So, Jumia had at least a pretty good day, even if you want to (fairly, I’d say) reckon that its IPO was underpriced.

We bring all this to you for two reasons:

• Jumia’s IPO shows that there is plenty of appetite on U.S. exchanges for high-risk shares in tech companies still losing lots of money;
• That ecommerce isn’t category non grata among public investors.

The first point is true in Jumia’s case despite being a dramatic example of the trend. As we reported when Jumia filed to go public, it has workable growth but huge losses, measured as a percent of revenue:

The numbers are simple enough. Revenue grew from 94.0 million Euro in 2017 to 130.6 million Euro in 2018. That鈥檚 38.9 percent growth. During the same two periods, however, the firm鈥檚 鈥渓oss for the year鈥� rose from 165.4 million Euro to 170.4 million Euro.

So, what gives? I would bet a dollar that Jumia’s status as the “Amazon of Africa” has something to do with its success in the face of such deep unprofitably. After all, Amazon for years before becoming one of the biggest companies in the world. And as Jumia has a strong presence in Africa, a continent with , it has huge growth potential.

Do its losses matter, then, so long as Jumia is building the continent’s future online shopping, shipping, and last-mile delivery network? Maybe not. At least that appears to be the public investors’ wager.

It’s the same bet that private-market investors made in the company . Supposedly smart money on both sides of the public-private market divide has proven more than willing to power Jumia. Now it’s up to the company to tighten up its losses and show that it can expand without the crutch of external capital.

But don’t think that we’re only judging Jumia along those lines; most unicorns going public this year are shedding cash faster than is healthy. The whole class of companies will need to curtail costs while still driving growth.

Illustration: .

With the IPO window wide open, an apparent record number of venture-backed companies privately valued over $1 billion have launched public offerings this year. SA国际传媒 Data shows globally so far in 2018, well outpacing full-year totals for 2016 and 2017.

Follow SA国际传媒 News on

Collectively, this year鈥檚 newly public unicorns are doing pretty well too. Most priced shares around or above expectations. We鈥檙e also seeing a lot of impressive aftermarket gains. At least six are currently valued at over $10 billion.

Meanwhile, unicorn M&A volumes are chugging along as well, with at least . Big transactions like Walmart鈥檚 $16 billion acquisition of Flipkart and Microsoft鈥檚 $7.5 billion purchase of GitHub have helped boost the totals.

It all adds up to some enormous numbers. We鈥檒l delve into those in more detail below, focusing on year-over-year comparisons, geographic breakdown, biggest exits, and more.

How 2018 Compares To Prior Years

First off, a bit of context. A lot of startup-related metrics are on track to hit multi-year or record highs in 2018. These are lofty times for supergiant funding rounds, venture capital fundraising, and unicorn investment, to name a few. Given that pattern, it鈥檚 not surprising to see a pickup in unicorn exits too, including some really big names like Xiaomi, Spotify, and Dropbox.

That said, if one focuses on anticipated exits, as opposed to the ones that already occurred, even this year鈥檚 phenomenal IPO streak may seem comparatively humdrum. There鈥檚 mounting excitement around the potential for even bigger offerings next year from Uber, Airbnb, Didi Chuxing and others.

If markets don鈥檛 implode in the next few months, and at least some of these household names make it to market, it鈥檚 likely 2019 will be an even bigger year for unicorn IPOs than 2018. Unfortunately, however, we don鈥檛 have hard data on the future, so we鈥檙e left comparing this year to the prior two in the chart below:

As you can see, we鈥檙e already well-ahead of last year鈥檚 totals. On the IPO front, not only are the 2018 unicorn offerings more numerous, they鈥檙e also bigger. In 2017, out of 16 unicorn IPOs, there were two at initial valuations above $10 billion (Snap and online insurer ZhongAn). So far this year, there have been five.

Geography Of Unicorn Exits

The exiting unicorns are also a geographically diverse bunch, with the U.S. and China accounting for the lion鈥檚 share and Europe trailing a distant third.

In the chart below, we look at the geographic breakdown in more detail:

While the U.S. produced the largest number of unicorn exits, they weren鈥檛 the biggest. Notably, this year鈥檚 most valuable IPOs and M&A deal involved companies based in Europe and Asia.

Of the six 2018 debuts currently valued at $10 billion or more, detailed below, only one, Dropbox, is a U.S. company. In the chart below, we look at who topped the rankings:

Adding It Up

The grand tally of 2018 exits provides a clear counterpoint to skeptics (your author included), who questioned whether fast-growing unicorn populations and valuations would hold up with acquirers and public market investors.

It appears prices are keeping up nicely. The vast majority of U.S. unicorn exits this year, for instance, were close to or above private market valuations. Among U.S. IPOs 聽the only big fizzle was Domo. While Dropbox looked like a 鈥渄own round IPO鈥� at first, strong aftermarket performance has the company above its highest reported private valuation.

The year鈥檚 largest unicorn IPO – China鈥檚 Xiaomi – also managed to slightly top its last reported , even after pricing shares for its June IPO far below initial projections.

All these giant exits add up. The unicorns that went public this year currently have a collective market capitalization north of $200 billion. Add in roughly $45 billion from M&A deals, and we鈥檙e talking close to a quarter of a trillion (!) dollars in post-exit value.

These big exits come as investors continue to funnel record sums into high valuation private companies. So far this year, investors have poured more than $200 billion into venture and growth-stage startups, with more than $70 billion going into companies already valued at $1 billion or more.

In sum, we鈥檙e seeing big numbers all around — going in as investments and coming out as exits. Eventually, all parties wind down. But for now, this one rages on.

滨濒濒耻蝉迟谤补迟颈辞苍:听