[xiaosun]

About ~10% of AirBnbs shares were offered in the IPO. So only the shares sold in the IPO "left anything on the table". The other 90% of shareholders still have the option of selling at the higher market price.

Who's the say this wasn't the intended effect - the benefit to the valuation of the 90% of shares still being held is greater than the opportunity cost of the 10% shares sold in the initial IPO?

[mikeryan]

I know it doesn't really work this way anymore but the theoretical point of a public offering is raising capital for business operations. This represent billions in working capital that AirBNB missed out on.

[velominati]

Plus of the 10% of the shares soldo, most were to institutions with an understanding that they are going to hold it "long term" (i.e. which may be just a few months). Part of the IPO road show is for the company to select investors that believe in the company and who will be "good" shareholders.

[brown9-2]

that 90% would have had the same opportunity if the opening was higher

[boublepop]

If they opened higher than the market was willing to pay, the compounded effect would have been brutal, the media would have effectively declared airbnb dead on the sport with article after article contemplating exactly how they would die. And realistically that would have been the case with even a lukewarm launch, so who’s to say the net effect of leaving some money on the table for the 10% investers doesn’t overall pay itself back? The story today definitely isn’t “AirBnB is dying after covid period cuts them to the bone”.