i also have to put on a conference with bill gurley.y have the two sides of the same coin on this debate. what you heard from frank is exactly right. you cannot look at the last trade by the last retail investor and say that is the price at which the entire multibillion-dollar offering could have been sold that. i think from our perspective, this is an important milestone for the company will ultimately get the valuation it deserves. whether it gets ahead of itself is not that relevant to us. we were thrilled that the company was able to go public at $120 a share which is a dramatic markup from just the price we did on the private round in january of this year. if you will make the case to the public markets are not good at valuing companies, he would have to make the case those private rounds that value the company at $12 billion of january at this year were also mispriced. emily: 100% is a lot. it is quite an uplift. is there any lesson for the companies coming out of the gate later this year? pelletier, airbnb. brad: you see several

caroline: this is something bill gurley has been talking about a lot.oney left on the table for these businesses and the fact many go for the first day pop than perhaps the most money to the company that is going public. why therefore do we get the news today that perhaps bumble might be looking to go public and the more traditional route? we hear reports that airbnb does not want to go -- it wants to go its own route. why take the traditional route? >> spacs are not perfect either. spac is putting in very little money but keeping 20% of the shares. promotes is deluding both the investors in the ipo of the spac and for the operating company that they merge with. the operating company and those investors are putting in everything and only getting on average about 90% of the pie. spacs have a cost just like traditional ipo's have a cost. joe: let me ask you this. ok, obviously there's a lot of retail interest. some of the hottest names came public. the electric truck company that had $36,000 in revenue last year. spacs.came public via they could be good f

the bulk of that offering sold off by prior investors this dynamic caught the attention early of bill gurleyed, in many ways, snow is the fiebl prove of just how broken the process is. some in the past few years have forced several unicorns to try different ways to go public. this week, open door went public and unity used a digital system to find out its ipo price and next week, the third and fourth companies to go public via direct listing which means the stock isn't issued or underwritten and causes investors to sell in the open market if they should choose to do so, brian >> let's go tick by tick on who made some money on snowflake's ipo. i was going to make it my rbi this morning sometimes with he see different data it doesn't matter if the numbers completely matchup you talk about making it rain. some of these insiders, generational wealth creation >> there are many billionaires made even at the ipo price, they had decent proceeds at least on paper. on paper, a lot of people are subject to lock ups and are not able to sell from 180 days from the ipo. a number of holdings are where they

so much change, taking the traditional route but in terms of leaving money on the table and what bill gurleyaid last night, and one of the most value kal critics, he said it was the final proof of how broken the process is. it may be comfortable, but is it broken >> i think if you think about leaving money on the table, it's the last price of a trade. not what you can sell a big chunk of stock for so if they want today sell in big blocks to the investors, that's different i think that is left out of the equation i think there is pros and cons of each approach direct listings you don't raise money, right a lot of companies need money. a traditional ipo raises capital for the company. so i think a lot of the conversation has important points. >> a question for you, todd. one of the issues that you raised in your tweet storm about the big risks. from a company that is trying to innovate and grow and really push the ball forward, the risks seem very meaningful how do you think that has played out. what would you advice be to other start ups trying to maintain that intensity and participation in

successful ipos this year and it is interesting to note the debate of course on one side you have bill gurleyg to sn snowflake's surge, and you have them saying that ipo pops are a side show. where do you stand >> so i believe they're the lowest cost marketing that they can do it is really good for your brand to have your stock go up a lot you get a ton of earned media. cnbc invites you back on a lot in many industries, and i would say this is nowhere more value than in things like enterprise software where it is really hard to build your brand without an event like this. you sit there and you say could you have gotten $72 or $74 for an ipo by pricing at whatever price, you're likely to lure in investor that's will get an incomplete position and it will be their attempt to fill out the position that drives the stock to 72. so i disagree on this completely i think it is very much in the company's interest to have a splashy ipo. this is, in my opinion, absolutely the right way to do it >> i would note we like the companies that fall below their prices as well like an uber, but you're right we d

stuart: bill gurley was the guy who knocked out -- from uber?ing out of california, costly. this is all about the rental cost of a u-haul to take your stuff out of california. fill me in, ashley. what have you got? >> well, it's very simple, stu, leaving california is getting expensive due to high demand and a shortage of those available trucks. moving to california is getting really cheap because there's no demand and a surplus of trucks. back to you. no, i'm kidding. [laughter] stuart: you're killing me. >> here's the proof. september 30th departure, if you're leaving california on september the 30th, u-haul rates if you're going to austin, for instance, from l.a., it would cost you about $700 for a 10-foot truck, about $930 for a 26-footer. now, if you're going the other way from austin, from l.a. to austin -- that was from austin to l.a. to go to l.a. from austin, so you're getting the heck out, it's going to cost you $1800 for a 10-footer and nearly $4,000 for the 56-foot truck. by the way, budget track, that's almost 2-4 times more, budget

i heard stan earlier saying we're in a mania my friend bill gurley, also friends with brad, said thether day, the very best way to protect against the down side is enjoy every last bit of the up side i think the big question for investors is, is this 1997, or is it 1999 i just don't know. i think the trends we were talking about from off-line to online in so many industries are very real. i think the pandemic is really highlighted that, and so this has generated some -- regenerated excitement for how technology bring the future faster >> our viewers are hoping that it's '97, not '99. >> me too. >> rich, great to have you here. see you soon. >> thank you >>> oscar munoz is with us he gets his take on expanding the talent pool. united is making news today as well we'll discuss that next. this is decision tech. find a stock based on your interests or what's trending. get real-time insights in your customized view of the market. it's smarter trading technology for smarter trading decisions. fidelity. (music) anncr: give customers access to precisely what they want, when they need it the

>> clearly a lot of discussion there and a lot of people, including my colleague, bill gurley, have studiednk it's more an art than a science. from a snowflake point of view, we're quite happy to be successful publicly traded company right now. the company achieved its goals i think, you know, the stockholders certainly, you know, have opportunities now in front of them and, you know, whether we look back and say the process should have been done differently is -- you know, it's very hard to say for a bunch of the factors that you got into before this segment. >> so you're going to stick with this enterprise stuff i guess. you can call me next time you think something's going to be big, you know what i'm saying, like plastics or something it's still going to be enterprise stuff, right? you're going to stick with this? more to do >> we're all about the enterprise and this whole development of modern enterprise that's what the firm was founded to help. so that's what we do >> well, we'll have you back interesting. i'd like to know a lot more but i said earlier, i saw a google video on how to

. >> sara, on one side there is benchmark bill gurley, he is the most vocal critics of the traditionalhe debut which, of course, doubled was final proof of how broken the process is another prominent vc firm is taking the other side in a blog post defending the traditional ipo writing, an ipo is far from perfect. but this narrative is almost completely false that narrative, they described, of investment bankers intentionally underpricing traditional ipos to steal from companies and line their pockets of the fat cat wall street clients. we heard the debate before on our air too. but what they say is hate the game, not the player strong stock performance actually helps build support for more liquidity the post concludes that april ipo or direct listing that each make sense in the right context for the right company but that ipo pops are a side show and there are other opportunities for true improvement and certainly this is a debate that is far from settled back to you. >> far from settled. thank you. >>> we're going to continue the tech discussion just a moment. there is breaking news g