This is a good question, and deserves an answer. The short version of this is that neither party to the transaction wants this to happen. Slightly more detail:https://twitter.com/scottbelsky/status/1087720973309276160 …
-
Show this thread
-
Should companies want to increase their cost of capital? That's a hard sell. Should companies want to trade cheap, permissive capital with more expensive, more meddlesome capital? Should existing investors want to be diluted by new investors who *don't offer clear value*?
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
You might think "Well, long-term perspective is worth something.", which is both squishy and assumes that the new investors have a long-term perspective. This is not obviously a correct assumption. Maturity transformation is a technology available to the finance industry.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
If you dangle a tens-of-percent discount on, without loss of generality Google, to investors willing to endure a 5 year lockup, Goldman will have disaggregated that security into the two components "Discounted Google" and "Lockup" and sold them to willing counterparties. In days.
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
#1 is a share of Google common stock #2 is 5yr Treasury Goldman is selling #1 and selling (I think) #2. This combination plus a locked-up Google cancels it (#2 hedges cost of borrowing), leaving $$$. Lots of people want #1 and #2, separate or together, for their own reasons.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
