DOCSLIB.ORG

Universita' Degli Studi Di Padova

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Universita' Degli Studi Di Padova UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI PADOVA DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE ECONOMICHE ED AZIENDALI “M.FANNO” CORSO DI LAUREA MAGISTRALE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TESI DI LAUREA UNDERPRICING AND DIRECT PUBLIC OFFERINGS: THE SPOTIFY DIRECT LISTING CASE RELATORE: CH.MA PROF.SSA ELENA SAPIENZA LAUREANDA: SILVIA BRUSON MATRICOLA N. 1179585 ANNO ACCADEMICO 2018 – 2019 Il candidato dichiara che il presente lavoro è originale e non è già stato sottoposto, in tutto o in parte, per il conseguimento di un titolo accademico in altre Università italiane o straniere. Il candidato dichiara altresì che tutti i materiali utilizzati durante la preparazione dell’elaborato sono stati indicati nel testo e nella sezione “Riferimenti bibliografici” e che le eventuali citazioni testuali sono individuabili attraverso l’esplicito richiamo alla pubblicazione originale. The candidate declares that the present work is original and has not already been submitted, totally or in part, for the purposes of attaining an academic degree in other Italian or foreign universities. The candidate also declares that all the materials used during the preparation of the thesis have been explicitly indicated in the text and in the section "Bibliographical references" and that any textual citations can be identified through an explicit reference to the original publication. Firma dello studente _________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 1 - THE LISTING PROCESS ......................................................................................... 6 1.1 - THE CHOICE OF GOING PUBLIC .......................................................................................... 6 1.2 - THE TRADITIONAL UNDERWRITTEN IPO PROCESS ...................................................... 8 1.3 - AN UNORTHODOX WAY TO LIST: THE DPO PROCESS ................................................ 23 CHAPTER 2 - IPO UNDERPRICING: A LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................... 33 2.1 - ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION THEORIES ....................................................................... 34 2.2 - OWNERSHIP DISPERSION THEORIES ............................................................................... 44 2.3 - INSTITUTIONAL THEORIES ................................................................................................ 46 2.4 - BEHAVIOURAL THEORIES ................................................................................................. 49 2.5 - FACTORS AFFECTING THE LEVEL OF UNDERPRICING .............................................. 53 CHAPTER 3 - IPO UNDERPRICING: AN EMPIRICAL REVIEW ........................................... 60 3.1 - UNDERPRICING MEASUREMENT ..................................................................................... 61 3.2 - UNDERPRICING AND INTERNET-RELATED FIRMS ...................................................... 64 3.3 - UNDERPRICING ARISING FROM PRINCIPAL-AGENT ASYMMETRIES ..................... 70 3.4 - UNDERPRICING RELATED TO SHARES ALLOCATION ................................................ 73 3.5 - UNDERPRICING RELATED TO PRICE SETTING MECHANISM .................................... 80 CHAPTER 4 - THE SPOTIFY DPO CASE ..................................................................................... 87 4.1 - COMPANY’S HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................ 88 4.2 - SPOTIFY’S DIRECT LISTING PROCESS............................................................................. 99 4.3 - CONTEMPORARY INTERNET-RELATED IPOs .............................................................. 107 4.4 - THE VALUATION OF SPOTIFY ......................................................................................... 115 4.5 - SPOTIFY’S DPO SUGGESTIONS ....................................................................................... 124 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 130 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 134 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 141 2 INTRODUCTION Going public is one of the most important decisions in the life of a company. It provides the possibility to raise new financial resources, immediately available to finance firms’ growth plans and to rebalance their capital structure. It offers the existing shareholders the opportunity to monetize part of their investments in the firm by exploiting the public offering as an exit strategy. It also enhances the reputation of the listing company both in the business and in the financial communities. Nevertheless, the process of going public is not costless. The transition from private to publicly traded entity generally implies several changes in the organizational structure of a firm, as the loss of management control, the increase in the disclosure requirements and the pressure from regulatory oversights. However, the most suffered costs by issuing companies are usually those directly related to the process of listing, paid in the form of fees. On the contrary, the major indirect cost of going public, shares underpricing, is frequently neglected. A broad empirical literature evidences indeed that when firms undertake initial public offerings, the price of the offered shares tend to jump substantially during the first day of trading. This systematic price increase on the stock exchange, with respect to the price at which shares are initially offered to investors, is therefore referred to as “underpricing”. Underpricing represents an opportunity cost for firms going public since, issuers selling shares at an offer price lower than their potential market value, are “leaving money on the table” and are diluting even more pre-issue shareholders’ ownership. In practice, it appears as a wealth transfer from the pocket of issuing firm and pre-issue shareholders to initial investors. The firsts to analyse this robust phenomenon were Reilly (1973) and Ibbotson (1975). Over the subsequent years, numerous researchers have tried to understand and explain its causes, thus developing a wide set of theories around the issue. The most relevant theories are based on asymmetric information, asserting that underpricing is caused by information frictions among the three main parties involved in the listing process: the issuer, the underwriter and the investors. Other groups of theories are then institutional theories, claiming that underpricing is used by issuing firm in order to insure against legal liability and reputation damage, and ownership and control theories, arguing that issuing firm’s managers voluntary underprice offered shares in order to obtain certain advantages in terms of ownership and control. The most recent theories are finally those which identify underpricing causes in the behavioural biases of the agents involved in the listing process, hence called behavioural theories. Additionally, other studies have focused on 3 specific factors affecting the level of underpricing, such as issue’s, firm’s and economy’s variables. In order to mitigate part of the direct and indirect costs associated with the listing process, in the last years, two important technology companies have decided to go public on the major stock exchanges through a very atypical mechanism: the direct public offering, alternatively known as direct listing. Direct public offerings present two fundamental differences with respect to traditional initial public offerings: they only provide for the listing of existing shares and they do not involve investment banks in the role of underwriters. Direct public offerings are indeed widely discussed because they downsize investment banks importance in the overall process of going public, therefore cutting fees paid by listing companies. The first company that chose to go public using a direct listing, in alternative to a traditional initial public offering, was Spotify Technology. The Swedish global leader of the music streaming listed part of its existing shares on the New York Stock Exchange on April 3, 2018, after having received the approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission. One year later, on June 20, 2019, also Slack Technologies, an American software firm, decided to go public on the NYSE via direct listing. The aim of this dissertation is not to merely illustrate the direct public offerings in order to appraise their advisability over the traditional listing procedure. The primary research objective is, instead, to understand if underpricing is a consistent phenomenon also in offerings characterized by no underwriting agreement and by a limited engagement of investment banks in the pricing and allocation phase. For timing reasons, the empirical analysis will be focused on the case of Spotify. In order to answer the question, it will be first necessary to acquire a deep understanding of the company’s business model, financial results and competitive framework; only afterwards it will be possible to detail Spotify’s direct public offering so to carefully evaluate each party’s contribution to the structuring of the process and to assess if a sort of shares underpricing could be observed as well. If this first part of the analysis leads indeed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sec Formalizes Its Position on Pipe Transactions
    June 2007 SEC FORMALIZES ITS POSITION ON PIPE TRANSACTIONS By Jeffrey T. Hartlin, Elizabeth A. Brower and Michael L. Zuppone Private investment in public equity offerings, labeled primary offering made on behalf of the issuer, in which “PIPEs” by market participants, have become a case the PIPE investors would be viewed as effectively permanent alternative for raising equity capital by public acting as statutory underwriters with respect to the companies in need of financing. Pursuant to informal resale of their shares to the public. guidance issued by the Staff of the Securities and BACKGROUND Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in the mid 1990s, PIPEs have been treated as completed private placements not PIPE transactions have two components. The first subject to integration with subsequent registered component involves the original issuance of the secondary offerings by selling securityholders. Under securities – i.e., the private placement of securities by a this guidance, PIPE investors have been able to have the public company to one or more accredited investors in shares issued in (or the shares underlying convertible reliance on the statutory private placement exemption securities issued in) the PIPE transaction registered for provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act and/or public resale into the trading market concurrently with private offering exemption provided by Regulation D or soon after the closing of the PIPE transaction. under the Securities Act. The securities sold in PIPEs Recently, as described below, the treatment of PIPEs may include common stock, straight or convertible investors in registered offerings as just selling preferred stock, convertible debt or a combination of securityholders, as opposed to statutory underwriters, these securities, as well as warrants that are issued to has been called into question in certain circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Vermont Sense
    VERMONT DOLLARS, VERMONT SENSE A Handbook for Investors, Businesses, Finance Professionals, and Everybody Else BY MICHAEL H. SHUMAN & GWENDOLYN HALLSMITH Foreword by STUART COMSTOCK-GAY A PROJECT OF POST CARBON INSTITUTE, VERMONTERS FOR A NEW ECONOMY, GLOBAL COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, THE PUBLIC BANKING INSTITUTE, AND THE FRESH SOUND FOUNDATION ii Copyright © 2015 by Post Carbon Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be transmitted or Image credits: cover, upper left image © Erika Mitchell (via reproduced in any form by any means without permission in Shutterstock), other images as noted below; page 19, courtesy writing from the publisher. of City Market; page 23, courtesy of SunCommon; page 33, courtesy of Vermont Creamery; page 37, courtesy of Gwendolyn Interior design: Girl Friday Productions Hallsmith; page 50, courtesy of Real Pickles; page 53, courtesy Development and partnerships: Ken White of Opportunities Credit Union; page 71, courtesy of UVM Editing and production: Daniel Lerch Special Collections. ISBN-13: 978-0-9895995-3-5 Special thanks to John Burt and the Fresh Sound Foundation for ISBN-10: 0989599531 providing the funding for this handbook. Additional research and writing assistance was provided by Matt Napoli, now a graduate Post Carbon Institute of St. Michael’s College. 613 Fourth St., Suite 208 Santa Rosa, California 95404 Post Carbon Institute’s mission is to lead the transition to a more (707) 823-8700 resilient, equitable, and sustainable world by providing individ- uals and communities with the resources needed to understand www.postcarbon.org and respond to the interrelated economic, energy, and ecological www.resilience.org crises of the 21st century.
    [Show full text]
  • Can European Unicorns Defend the High Valuations?
    Norwegian School of Economics Bergen, Spring 2018 Can European Unicorns Defend the High Valuations? A challenge of the post-money valuation approach Kristian Hansen Lomheim & Ola Thune Øritsland Supervisor: Nataliya Gerasimova Master thesis in Financial Economics NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS This thesis was written as a part of the Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration at NHH. Please note that neither the institution nor the examiners are responsible − through the approval of this thesis − for the theories and methods used, or results and conclusions drawn in this work. 2 Abstract We apply a DCF-based R-model on a sample of 12 European unicorns to show that post- money valuations overstate the fair value of VC-backed companies. At best, the initial result suggests that the majority of the sample is overvalued whereas some firms are slightly undervalued. The median overvaluation of the sample is 25%. When we increase the conservative cost of capital estimates with one percentage point, all firms are overvalued with a median overvaluation of 75% in the sample. Our results indicate that many of the firms will need an abnormal operational improvement toward steady state in addition to significantly outperform the peer group and industry forecasts in order to generate cash flows that are sufficient to defend the post-money valuation. 4 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................8 1.1 PURPOSE & BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Maximizing Shareholder Value? Spotify Direct Public Offering
    Journal of International & Interdisciplinary Business Research Volume 6 Article 6 November 2019 Maximizing Shareholder Value? Spotify Direct Public Offering Hoje Jo Santa Clara University, [email protected] John Throne Santa Clara University Michael Fieber Santa Clara University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jiibr Part of the Business Commons Recommended Citation Jo, Hoje; Throne, John; and Fieber, Michael (2019) "Maximizing Shareholder Value? Spotify Direct Public Offering," Journal of International & Interdisciplinary Business Research: Vol. 6 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jiibr/vol6/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FHSU Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of International & Interdisciplinary Business Research by an authorized editor of FHSU Scholars Repository. Jo et al.: Spotify Direct Public Offering MAXIMIZING SHAREHOLDER VALUE? SPOTIFY DIRECT PUBLIC OFFERING Hoje Jo, Santa Clara University John Throne, Santa Clara University Michael Fieber, Santa Clara University The typical method of going public has traditionally been an initial public offering (IPO), whereby a company works with an underwriter syndication to establish a price at which shares will be offered to the public before listing them. The purpose of this paper, however, is to evaluate whether IPOs are truly the best method for taking a company public. To answer this question, at least partially, we explore the upsides and downsides of a direct listing using the music streaming company Spotify (NYSE: SPOT) as a case study. Having officially registered to go public with the SEC and direct listed on April 3, 2018 with $149.01 closing price and a $26.5 billion market capitalization, Spotify becomes the first major private company to list its shares directly to the public on the NYSE without using an underwriter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet Direct Public Offering: Establishing Trust in a Disintermediated Capital Market
    The Internet Direct Public Offering: Establishing Trust in a Disintermediated Capital Market Jason Trainor² Introduction Whereas the process of financial intermediation was once human capital and relationship intensive, 5 it is now mall- and medium-sized business enterprises (SMEs) 1 heavily influenced by technological innovation and con- S have consistently encountered difficulties in tapping sumer demand, factors which have tended to disrupt the into the public equity markets in Canada. This problem monopoly power of financial intermediaries. has been shaped by a number of economic, regulatory Technological innovation alone, however, is not suf- and functional barriers to full participation by smaller ficient to replace the institutions and actors that previ- issuers in the Canadian capital market. ously dominated the market for public offerings; rather, The fundamental dilemma involves reducing the the concept of disintermediation by definition creates a informational asymmetries between the private business vacuum that must be filled. Law firms and other enterprise and its prospective public investors. For intermediaries can create additional value for their cli- smaller firms, the costs of disclosing firm-specific infor- ents by assuming some or all of the tasks currently mation to potential investors is substantial in relation to apportioned to investment bankers in the public offering the size of the investment. 2 Given the fundamental pre- process. cept of securities regulation that investors must be Theoretical models created
    [Show full text]
  • Ipos Versus Reverse Mergers
    2009s-06 The Value of Capital Market Regulation: IPOs versus Reverse Mergers Cécile Carpentier, Douglas Cumming, Jean-Marc Suret Série Scientifique Scientific Series Montréal Avril 2009 (mis à jour en décembre 2010) © 2009 Cécile Carpentier, Douglas Cumming, Jean-Marc Suret. Tous droits réservés. All rights reserved. Reproduction partielle permise avec citation du document source, incluant la notice ©. Short sections may be quoted without explicit permission, if full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. CIRANO Le CIRANO est un organisme sans but lucratif constitué en vertu de la Loi des compagnies du Québec. Le financement de son infrastructure et de ses activités de recherche provient des cotisations de ses organisations-membres, d’une subvention d’infrastructure du Ministère du Développement économique et régional et de la Recherche, de même que des subventions et mandats obtenus par ses équipes de recherche. CIRANO is a private non-profit organization incorporated under the Québec Companies Act. Its infrastructure and research activities are funded through fees paid by member organizations, an infrastructure grant from the Ministère du Développement économique et régional et de la Recherche, and grants and research mandates obtained by its research teams. Les partenaires du CIRANO Partenaire majeur Ministère du Développement économique, de l’Innovation et de l’Exportation Partenaires corporatifs Banque de développement du Canada Banque du Canada Banque Laurentienne du Canada Banque Nationale du Canada Banque Royale du Canada Banque Scotia Bell Canada BMO Groupe financier Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec DMR Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec Gaz de France Gaz Métro Hydro-Québec Industrie Canada Investissements PSP Ministère des Finances du Québec Power Corporation du Canada Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton Rio Tinto Alcan State Street Global Advisors Transat A.T.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Reverse Mergers
    THE TRUTH ABOUT REVERSE MERGERS * WILLIAM K. SJOSTROM, JR. This article examines the reverse merger method of going public. It describes the principal features of reverse mergers, including deal structure and legal compliance. Although reverse mergers are routinely pitched as cheaper and quicker than traditional IPOs, this article argues that such pitches are misleading and, for many companies, irrelevant. I. INTRODUCTION A reverse merger (“RM”) is a non-traditional method of going public. Instead of hiring an underwriter to market and sell the company’s shares in an initial public offering (“IPO”), a private operating company works with a “shell promoter” to locate a suitable non-operating or shell public company.1 The private operating company then merges with the shell company (or a newly-formed subsidiary of the shell company).2 In the merger, the operating company shareholders are issued a majority stake in the shell company in exchange for their operating company shares.3 Post-merger, the shell company contains the assets and liabilities of the operating company and is controlled by the former operating company shareholders.4 The shell company’s name is changed to the name of the operating company, its directors and officers are replaced by the directors and officers of the operating company,5 and its shares continue to trade on whichever stock market they were trading prior to the merger.6 Hence, the operating company’s business is still controlled by the same group of shareholders and managed by the same directors and officers, but it is now contained within a public company.
    [Show full text]
  • IP Law in Iran: Copyright and Trademark Protection
    Table of Content Arseny Seidov/Russia Legal Update Tobias Schelinksi/Overview on German law Marc Mayer/ How to Beat the Cheats Vanessa Pareja Lerner/Brazil Legal Update Rudoni Alexandre, Dufaure Andrea/IP Knowlage Arata Nomoto/Japan Legal Update Vladislav Arkhipov/Russia Legal Update Nima Abdollahzade/Iran Legal Update Oleksiy Stolyarenko/Ukraine Legal Update Sean Kane/US Legal Update Gregory Boyd/Code Ownership is a Trap Greg Pilarowski/China Legal Update Russia Legal Update Arseny Seidov is a partner in the Tax law practice group of Baker McKenzie’s Moscow office. He has been instrumental Arseny Seidov in developing optimal tax platforms and structures for various industries, and is consistently recommended by Chambers Global, Chambers Europe and International Tax Review. Mr. Seidov co-chairs the tax subgroup of the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission’s Innovation Working Group, leading the work on drafting laws to remove obstacles and create incentives for businesses that promote R&D and innovation in Russia. For many years he has been a frequent Contacts speaker at key tax conferences and seminars organized by the American Chamber of Commerce and the Association of Baker & McKenzie European Businesses. He has authored over 35 professional Moscow, publications and, since 2007, has been a visiting professor Russian Federation of tax law at the Moscow State Institute of International Tel: +7 495 7872700 Relations (MGIMO University). Direct: +7 495 7872737 Fax: +7 495 7872701 Cell: +7 903 1402435 arseny.seidov @bakermckenzie.com Personal data laws - changing interpretations and enforcement As of September 1, 2015 the personal data of Russian citizens must be initially recorded, stored and updated on databases located in the Russian territory.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Public Offering Investopedia
    Initial Public Offering Investopedia AsymmetricDerick never and piecing nittiest any Davoud tropicbirds deafens short-list her remittorsvegetably, instillment is Obadiah disannuls exclusory and and diapers given dishonestly. enough? Is Vincents stained when Tremain invalidate binaurally? When it hopes to abandon the issuer can tax, public offering date against delivery requirements, such activities and demat account The offering and investopedia receives critical information is already established. Companies offer ipos, offers that means that is offered. Fintech Disruption in the Financial Industry. This article are offered only through offer to public offering offers services to see who happened to expansion of potential. Who were financial concepts for public offer stock that all trades in fact in case of scenario. The initial price band exists for profitability each process? This fresh capital. There is mitigated the class action lawsuits in. Have specific question exist your retirement, including where is live? In spirit, some stocks flounder after their IPOs. An initial public. The Airbnb IPO last week created a month of excitement within the investment community. Morgan, or Morgan Stanley for underwriting services. When companies issue IPOs, they notify brokerage firms, who, in request, notify investors. Nothing found guilty, public offerings are offered through this phase or what exactly is not be. These top tier markets and browse the sake of who is consummated, a placement agents in public offering? In the case of a straightforward account relationship with the CSD or ICSD. The cover page modify the prospectus details how many shares are being sold by selling shareholders, if any. There are examples of financial institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secrets of Wall Street
    A Person Who Won’t Read Has No Advantage Over A Person Who Can’t Read. ~Mark Twain Table of Contents FOREWORD ................................................................................................................ - 4 - Chapter 1: An Introduction to Raising Capital in the United States ....................... - 8 - Chapter 2: The Perfect Storm: Are you Ready? ..................................................... - 28 - Chapter 3: Capitalizing On the Winds of Change ................................................... - 41 - Chapter 4: Knowledge is Power: The Power-Play .................................................. - 45 - Chapter 5: Conduct a Series of Related Securities Offerings ................................. - 58 - Chapter 6: Why Entrepreneurs Fail to Raise Capital............................................. - 67 - Chapter 7: The Four Professional Functions of a Securities Offering .................. - 76 - Chapter 8: Organizational Structures & Management Mindsets .......................... - 82 - Chapter 9: Deal Structuring ...................................................................................... - 91 - DEAL STRUCTURES FOR OPERATING COMPANIES ....................................................... - 94 - DEAL STRUCTURES FOR FUNDS .................................................................................. - 98 - Chapter 10: Company Valuation and Securities Pricing ...................................... - 109 - Chapter 11: Attracting Capital: Warping the Risk - Return Continuum ........... - 120
    [Show full text]
  • Shenzhen, China # Hong Kong • by Brad
    July 3. 2017 Bloomberg Businessweek • Shenzhen, China • By Brad Stone and Lulu Chen • Photograph by # Hong Kong Pierf rancesco Celada Bloomberg Businessweek Global Tech July 3, 2017 It's up to the company's The leadership committee of Tencent, Ma founded Tencent 19 years ago in president, Martin Lau (left, the Chinese internet colossus, usually a cramped Shenzhen office with three holds its annual off-site at a comfortable college classmates and a friend. For their in his Hong Kong office), Japanese resort or Silicon Valley hotel. first product, they cloned an Israeli-made to help Tencent do what no Last fall it went for something more epic: instant messaging service and adapted it a two-day hike through the harsh wastes for the Chinese market. Unlike Jack Ma other Chinese business has of the Gobi Desert. (no relation), the billionaire co-founder done: become a worldwide The committee traveled in a manner of Alibaba, Pony Ma had little over• consumer-tech power befitting the 14 most senior executives seas exposure, knew only rudimentary of China's most valuable company. English, and rarely appeared in public. Helpers assembled their tents, and water Colleagues and friends say he's a typical was trucked in at considerable expense Guangdong province businessman, shy for showers. Yet by the end of the first and wary of the spotlight. In a widely dis• day's 26-kilometer (16-mile) hike, some tributed photo, taken at a 2015 meeting of members were petitioning to pack it in Chinese President Xi Jinping and 28 of the and go home early.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Investment in the Local Food System
    Community Investment in the Local Food System How a small local food business in western Massachusetts preserved its social mission through transitioning to a worker-owned cooperative and using an innovative financing strategy Author: Jonathan Ward Special Projects Intern Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) Contributors: Margaret Christie Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) Addie Rose Holland Dan Rosenberg Real Pickles Jeff Rosen Solidago Foundation Sam Stegeman Pioneer Valley Grows (PVGrows) This publication with live links is available online at: www.buylocalfood.org/real-pickles-financing-case-study/ Abstract “We’re re-writing the standard storyline for these decisions, the worker-owners drew from the experience a successful organic food business,” says that one of them had working with Equal Exchange, a successful cooperative with a long history of raising capital Dan Rosenberg, founder of the twelve-year-old by selling non-voting preferred stock. Later, they sought the Greenfield, Massachusetts company Real Pickles, expertise of the PVGrows collaborative network in western which makes naturally fermented and raw pickles Massachusetts. A financing expert in PVGrows also connected Real Pickles to Cutting Edge Capital, a pioneering consulting from regionally grown vegetables in a 100% firm in the Bay Area that helped them navigate many legal solar-powered facility. hurdles. In the end, the worker-owners decided that the best way for them to raise $500,000 was to sell non-voting Instead of selling their growing company to a large preferred stock through a direct public offering. Real Pickles industrial-food corporation, as happens so often with officially launched a community investment campaign in March successful natural products businesses (think: Odwalla, 2013.
    [Show full text]