About ~10% of AirBnbs shares were offered in the IPO. So only the shares sold in the IPO "left anything on the table". The other 90% of shareholders still have the option of selling at the higher market price.
Who's the say this wasn't the intended effect - the benefit to the valuation of the 90% of shares still being held is greater than the opportunity cost of the 10% shares sold in the initial IPO?
Who's the say this wasn't the intended effect - the benefit to the valuation of the 90% of shares still being held is greater than the opportunity cost of the 10% shares sold in the initial IPO?