Pre-IPO investors fund the company but it isnt like they give all the money upfront. They do it in pieces and can increase or decrease as targets are reached, failed, or pivoted. This keeps the investors less likely to lose money. As debts and losses are shown the value of the company dropped and how much money is on tap for the future decreases. In this case 72B of funding was “lost”. This is paper money because they only had it on paper they didnt have the gold in hand.
Essentially their potential value to their current investors dropped 72B.
The reported net loss is real as they used more money than they made.
Neither factor is going to bankrupt or close the company considering they still have a bunch on hand and their investors still seem to think theres a possibility of profit (just less than before).
Pre-IPO investors fund the company but it isnt like they give all the money upfront. They do it in pieces and can increase or decrease as targets are reached, failed, or pivoted. This keeps the investors less likely to lose money. As debts and losses are shown the value of the company dropped and how much money is on tap for the future decreases. In this case 72B of funding was “lost”. This is paper money because they only had it on paper they didnt have the gold in hand.
Essentially their potential value to their current investors dropped 72B.
The reported net loss is real as they used more money than they made.
Neither factor is going to bankrupt or close the company considering they still have a bunch on hand and their investors still seem to think theres a possibility of profit (just less than before).
That’s my non-expert understanding anyway.
This is backwards. It’s confusing because the article has two statement related to value.
The value of the company went up in the first half of the year (so the notes held by lenders go up, and company books as loss)
Separately, the article reports on the expected hopeful IPO value from investors, and that went down. That’s more forward looking.