Comment by pm90 10 hours ago
Why does Google need outside investors? Is it a play to get a “serious” valuation since it would be vetted by outside parties?
I guess Im questioning why Waymo doesn’t just IPO, or raise 100% private raise by Google.
> There are many reasons why a conglomerate like Alphabet doesn't want to hold all of that directly on the balance sheet
Can you tell us those reasons? I think this is basically _the_ question.
"Tech" was incredible light on CapExp compared with everything else (until AI hit, that is). That is what allowed its explosive growth. On the one hand alphabet is not used to that. On the other hand it is turning into a more normal business with more CapExp, and like other more "normal" business it uses more external investment. As a general rule of thumb: The more capex, the more leverage; for example commodity extraction, infrastructure or power generation are very capex heavy, and heavily leveraged.
I disagree with their reasoning and would say it's more for strategic benefits.
Giving firms that they get along well with (like Sequoia) allocation feels like a mix between a favor and possibly a way to signal that the valuation has some external buy-in too.
> The general consensus was that we would run the technology platform and private equity would own fleets of cars built and operated to our specification.
Private equity, or private capital (debt investors)? Although I guess PC was less of a thing 10 years ago.
What I'm talking about is that is still considered an external capital raise for the purpose of the markets and where those assets sit on the balance sheet.
Also, keep in mind the Alphabet doesn't fully own Waymo. I don't know the percentage ownership of hand, but that also feels like it's probably a prorated investment based on ownership so Alphabet doesn't reduce its voting control.
That's what I'm talking about.
Yes and what matters the most is what Waymo has been signaling for years. They don’t want the capex (owning and running the physical cars). I don’t know the intent of this raise but you have to realize companies may have a good asset but they don’t want to own it 100% for a multitude of reasons. Some of them could be as simple as wanting to get other investors involved and comfortable with the asset to maybe take on larger roles in future rounds. Or in this case potentially running the car part of the business.
By investing $13B of the $16B they're signalling they do want the capex, at least for now.
This is why you are not the finance guy.
My finance people care about the cents, a ROI of 7% is average but at 8.5% and now you are a world class asset of that inventory type. That’s sometimes the difference of a few hundred k out of 20m but they would not take the deal if it is slightly over due to their risk appetite.
The 3b external either matters a ton to fit their risk models OR they are doing a favor to an outside party. Probably a bit of both.
Well, given that it is an equity sale, split still feels like it is the prorated amount so that alphabet continues to own its percentage - not more not less.
Obviously you're entitled to your view, but I don't think it's that kind of finance model right now - it's far too speculative and the upside too unknown to be adjusting for small amounts on risk models.
three billion here, three billion there, pretty soon it begins to add up to real money
> why Waymo doesn’t just IPO, or raise 100% private raise by Google
This lets them validate their valuation and build a base of investors who could play a bigger role in writing chequew in the future. When IPO comes, those factors make the sell simpler.
a deliberate strategy to establish market-validated pricing, prepare for eventual independence, and impose governance discipline on what has been a protected moonshot project. The move signals that Alphabet is transforming Waymo from an “Other Bets” science experiment into a standalone asset with credible external valuation—likely positioning for an IPO within 2-4 years once profitability arrives.
I'm not sure how useful this pricing is for the future, as waymo is currently operating on semi-infinite Google money. If that stops, no doubt the price would change too.
The counterargument would be that the external investors (Sequoia, Andreessen, Fidelity, etc.) presumably priced in this exact risk when they agreed to pay $110B. They're not naive about Alphabet's role as backstop. The question is whether they believe the "semi-infinite money" assumption is durable enough over their investment horizon.
Money from Google internally might be subject to internal power dynamics and come with strings attached. Having reliable outside funding from people who don't get a say in things might be a better alternative for a project that doesn't want to end up as Stadia 2.0 .
>> or raise 100% private by Google?
Isn't that what they are kinda doing? 13bn out of the 16bn is coming from Google itself.
I think the reason they are taking 3bn from outside high-profile investors is to validate the valuation, for legal or accounting reasons.
Yes, it provides external validation for the valuation. Otherwise, Alphabet can simply "self value" Waymo at a funny amount like $1T.
There's also a strategic partnership angle in these rounds. For example, Magna and Autonation were early investors in Waymo. Magna operates Waymo's factory in Arizona to upfit their vehicles with sensors, Autonation (the huge dealership/service network) is the maintenance partner.
In general, the Alphabet playbook is that projects "graduate" out of Google X, and are expected to operate as a standalone company, including being responsible for raising funds.
If you are betting on a winner why split with others?
Why risk your own money, when you can risk others'?
>I guess Im questioning why Waymo doesn’t just IPO, or raise 100% private raise by Google.
Why not 100% internal funding, not sure, but the reason why companies don't always IPO is because taking on debt is more efficient (i.e. it's cheaper in terms of cost of capital) than equity, because of the "tax shield" effect, debt can be raised in a non dilutive manner, and a few other (less important) game-theoretic reasons.
This reply also falls in the category. It’s easier and faster to downvote poor responses and move on.
a little kid is inevitably going to get killed by a waymo.
institutional finance is america's most powerful lobbyist. in the sense of the fund managers, the little RIAs, the grandmas holding SPY. they ARE the voters.
so to me, aside from making money, making money this way, for a lot of people, protects them from the political grandstanding and their fast demise in their absence.
> a little kid is inevitably going to get killed by a waymo.
And it will be 100% the kids fault, but the headlines will look terrible.
Kids can be naive and reckless, and the result makes them look downright suicidal with the things they do. They will dart into traffic, and even if the Waymo has single-digit millisecond reaction times, people will still blame the Waymo.
They need at least one fatality before you can start going down that slope, but probably true comparing how many kids get killed by human drivers, Waymo can’t be so safe as to avoid these incidents if they scale up in numbers.
>institutional finance is america's most powerful lobbyist. in the sense of the fund managers, the little RIAs, the grandmas holding SPY. they ARE the voters.
This. They're letting wall street in on it so wall street goes to bat for it. It's the big boy version of how some widget manufacturer will revise a product to necessitate or cut out a trade lobby depending on whether they want those people to go to bat for it, or make all the people who don't wanna pay rent to those people go to bat for it.
He's talking specifically about Waymo's situation. Alplabet, a company who has $75bn of FCF, owns 80% of Waymo. A $16bn capital injection is meaningless to Alphabet, so he's wondering why they're going through the trouble.
He raises a good point, and the answer is likely that they can run into legal issues by either under or overvaluing the company in a capital raise where they're the controlling shareholder, then the IRS or existing investors have grounds for a lawsuit (or audit). They likely just want to bring the capital raise out in the open to get a fair market value, and then they will be 90% of the capital in the raise.
It's a very capital intensive operation given the amount of vehicles that need to be carried on the balance sheet.
There are many reasons why a conglomerate like Alphabet doesn't want to hold all of that directly on the balance sheet, which is why Waymo is run as a subsidiary with its own sources of capital.
When I was at Uber 10 plus years ago and we were ideating autonomous vehicles. The general consensus was that we would run the technology platform and private equity would own fleets of cars built and operated to our specification.
Waymo has concluded either we are too early in the journey to decouple the tight vertical integration or they want to go very big and own all of the capital expenditure for what will presumably be a global rollout ultimately.
For anyone like me with a finance and technology crossover interest I actually think this is as interesting, maybe more interesting, than the private equity play around data centers at the moment because all of that is constrained against chip delivery and power constraints.