Klarna goes public, aiming to raise $1.25B after rebounding from a $6.7B slump with renewed growth. Meanwhile, BNPL rival Revolut is watching closely.
Klarna, the Swedish buy-now-pay-later giant, went public Wednesday, Sept. 10, after 20 years as a private company.
The stock price closing at $45.82, up 15%, after the fintech firm priced its IPO above expectations.
Once Europe’s most valuable VC-backed firm, Klarna reached a $46 billion valuation in 2021, only to face a steep decline to $6.7 billion the following year due to macroeconomic factors and increased regulatory scrutiny.
Klarna planned to raise up to $1.25 billion on the New York Stock Exchange. Trading under the ticker symbol KLAR, the company wound up raising $1.37 billion.
In 2024, Klarna reported $2.8 billion in revenue, a 24% year-over-year growth, and its first profit since 2019. Despite a $152 million loss in the first half of 2025, the company’s growth in revenue and user numbers, particularly in the U.S., remains strong.
Klarna spokesperson John Craske declined to comment on the IPO process.
Klarna’s IPO Journey Not Without Hurdles
“Klarna is interesting, as they planned to IPO until tariff volatility made them pull it. That’s a rough start,” Colin Symons, CIO of Lloyd Financial, says. While expectations for the offering were strong, with the IPO oversubscribed, Symons points out that the bigger question is whether long-term investors will be willing to buy in post-IPO. He adds, “Some of the concern is whether inflation data could cause chaos, affecting liquidity.”
Symons also shares his cautious view on Klarna’s growth, noting that a 15-25% growth rate is “not lights-out great” and that the company’s results remain volatile. “I wouldn’t be in a hurry to buy it, post-IPO,” he admits. “We’ve seen some recent IPOs suffer after an initial pop, and I’d worry about that here.”
Bullish, the crypto platform operator, saw its stock price plummet over 20% from when it went public on August 13.
Symons also compares Klarna’s stock to competitors like San Francisco-based Affirm, calling it “lower quality and more volatile,” which he believes justifies its discounted valuation compared to peers.
Despite these concerns, Klarna’s focus on profitability, solid customer growth, and strategic partnerships—like its deal with Walmart—could make the $14 billion valuation achievable or even surpassed, signaling a potential shift for other European startups vying to public listings.
As for the broader state of IPOs, Symons says IPOs remain interesting “as long as liquidity remains plentiful.”
“But we’ve already seen over $40 billion in deals,” he warns. “The risk is that the market loses its appetite as we run out of buyers.”
Who’s Next?
Klarna isn’t the only company going public this week. Figure Technology Solutions is making its trading debut on September 11 while Legence Corp., Black Rock Coffee, Gemini Space Station (GEMI) and Via Transportation have all set aside September 12. See chart below.
But as for European fintechs, Symons considers London-based Revolut to be the standout company to watch.
“Revolut seems like a better company to me, so that could be interesting,” he added.
Revolut recently unveiled a secondary share sale that has boosted the UK fintech’s valuation to $75 billion. While the share sale provides liquidity for employees, the timing has led to speculation that Revolut’s long-awaited IPO may be delayed.
Some believe it signals growing impatience among staff or a potential move to list in New York instead of the UK, given regulatory frustrations with the UK’s slow banking license process (Revolut CEO Nik Storonsky stated in December that a UK listing is “not rational”).
“Our long-term objective is to expand internationally and become one of the top three financial apps in all markets we enter,” David Tirado, Revolut’s VP of Profitability and Global Business, recently told Global Finance.
Whether Revolut is encouraged by Klarna’s IPO efforts to speed up the process remains to be seen. Other fintechs have been hesitant. Dublin-based payment processor Stripe, like Klarna, was among the most talked-about pending IPOs—in 2023. Today, Stripe remains private, with no official date set for its IPO.
Although a public debut is eagerly awaited, the company’s leadership has not committed to a specific timeline and appears to be in no hurry. However, the fact that several other outfits are prepping to go public after Klarna this week, Accelerate Fintech’s Julian Klymochko says “now would be the time to do it.”
“There’s an old Wall Street adage that goes, ‘When the ducks are quacking, feed them,’” Klymochko adds. “The ducks are most certainly quacking right now.”
Klarna stock opened at $52 (€45) a share on Wednesday, a 30% premium on the company’s $40 pricing. It took roughly three-and-a-half hours for the specialists on the floor of the NYSE to manually price the first batch of trades of the company. The shares rose as high as $57 before losing some momentum and ending at $45.82, up 14.6%.
More than 34 million shares worth approximately $1.37 billion (€1.17bn) were sold to investors, making it the largest IPO this year, according to Renaissance Capital. That’s notable because 2025 has been one of the busier years for companies going public.
Founded in 2005 as a payments company, Klarna entered the US buy-now-pay-later market in 2015 in partnership with department store operator Macy’s. Since then, Klarna has expanded to hundreds of thousands of merchants and embedded itself in internet browsers and digital wallets as an alternative to credit cards. The company recently announced a partnership with Walmart.
The company is trading under the symbol “KLAR”. While Klarna was founded in Sweden and is a popular payment service in Europe, company executives said they made the decision to go public in the US as a signal that Klarna’s future growth opportunities lay with the American shopper.
“It’s the largest consumer market in the world, and it’s the biggest credit card market in the world. It’s a tremendous opportunity, from our perspective,” said CEO and co-founder Sebastian Siemiatkowski in an interview with The Associated Press ahead of the IPO.
Over the years and in multiple interviews, Siemiatkowski has made it clear that Klarna wants to steal away customers from the big credit card companies and sees credit cards as a high-interest, exploitative product that consumers rarely use correctly.
Klarna’s most popular product is what’s known as a “pay-in-4” plan, where a customer can split a purchase into four payments spread over six weeks. The company also offers a longer-term payment plan where it charges interest. The business model has caught on globally, particularly among consumers who are reluctant to use credit cards. The company said 111 million consumers worldwide have used Klarna.
The buy-now-pay-later market is booming
Klarna and other buy-now-pay-later companies have attracted increased public interest in recent years as the business model has caught on. State and federal regulators, as well as consumer groups, have expressed some degree of worry that consumers may overextend themselves financially on buy-now-pay-later loans just as much as they do with credit cards.
Siemiatkowski says the company is actively monitoring how consumers use their products, and the average balance of a Klarna user is less than $100 (€85.50). Because the company issues loans that are six weeks or less, Klarna argues it can more easily adjust its underwriting standards depending on economic conditions.
With Klarna going public, its co-founders are now billionaires. At Klarna’s IPO price of $40, Siemiatkowski’s 7% stake in the company is worth around $1bn (€850 million), while Victor Jacobsson, who left the company in 2012, owns an 8.4% stake in the company now worth $1.3bn (€1.11bn). Siemiatkowski said he did not sell shares as part of the IPO.
But with Klarna’s 20-year-long incubation period before going public, and several fundraising rounds, major parts of Silicon Valley are walking away with a handsome return for their patience. Sequoia Capital, the storied venture capital firm that was an early backer in the company, has accumulated a 21% ownership in Klarna worth roughly $3.15bn (€2.69bn). Silver Lake, another major VC firm, owns roughly 4.5% of the company.
Klarna reported second-quarter revenue of $823 million (€703.64mn) in August before going public and had an adjusted profit of $29m (€24.8mn). The delinquency rate on Klarna’s “pay-in-4” loans is 0.89% and on its longer-term loans for bigger purchases, the delinquency rate is 2.23%. Those figures are below the average 30-day delinquency rates on a credit card.
Klarna will now be the second-largest buy-now-pay-later company by market capitalisation behind Affirm. Shares of Affirm have surged more than 40% so far this year, putting the value of the company around $28bn (€23.94bn), helped by a belief among investors that buy-now-pay-later companies may take away market share from traditional banks and credit cards. Affirm fell slightly on Wednesday.
Klarna’s primary underwriters for the IPO were JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.
The fintech company made its debut on the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday.
Klarna, the Swedish buy-now-pay-later company, has made its highly anticipated public debut on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the latest in a run of high-profile initial public offerings this year.
Klarna sold 34.3 million shares to investors at $40 a share late on Tuesday and was listed on the exchange on Wednesday. That is above the forecasted range of $35 to $37 a share and values the company at more than $15bn. The stock is expected to start trading once the NYSE is able to initiate the first batch of trades.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The amount of money raised in Klarna’s initial public offering, approximately $1.37bn, is the largest IPO this year, according to Renaissance Capital. That’s notable because 2025 has been one of the busier years for companies going public.
Other IPOs this year include the design software company Figma and Circle Internet Group, which issues the USDC stablecoin. Investors are also looking forward to the expected market debuts of the ticket exchange StubHub and the cryptocurrency exchange Gemini, which is majority-owned by twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss.
Founded in 2005 as a payments company, Klarna entered the United States buy-now-pay-later market in 2015 in partnership with department store operator Macy’s. Since then, Klarna has expanded to hundreds of thousands of merchants and embedded itself in internet browsers and digital wallets as an alternative to credit cards. The company recently announced a partnership with Walmart.
Klarna will trade under the symbol “KLAR.” While the company was founded in Sweden and is a popular payment service in Europe, company executives said they made the decision to go public in the US as a signal that Klarna’s future growth opportunities lay with the US shopper.
“It’s the largest consumer market in the world, and it’s the biggest credit card market in the world. It’s a tremendous opportunity, from our perspective,” said CEO and co-founder Sebastian Siemiatkowski in an interview with The Associated Press ahead of the IPO.
Over the years and in multiple interviews, Siemiatkowski has made it clear that Klarna wants to steal away customers from the big credit card companies and sees credit cards as a high-interest, exploitative product that consumers rarely use correctly.
Split purchases
Klarna’s most popular product is what’s known as a “pay-in-4” plan, where a customer can split a purchase into four payments spread over six weeks. The company also offers a longer-term payment plan where it charges interest. The business model has caught on globally, particularly among consumers who are reluctant to use credit cards. The company said 111 million consumers worldwide have used Klarna.
Klarna and other buy-now-pay-later companies have attracted increased public interest in recent years as the business model has caught on. State and federal regulators, as well as consumer groups, have expressed some degree of worry that consumers may overextend themselves financially on buy-now-pay-later loans just as much as they do with credit cards.
Siemiatkowski says the company is actively monitoring how consumers use their products, and the average balance of Klarna users is less than $100. Because the company issues loans that are six weeks or less, Klarna argues it can more easily adjust its underwriting standard depending on economic conditions.
Klarna reported second-quarter revenue of $823m in August before going public and said that it had an adjusted profit of $29m. The delinquency rate on Klarna’s “pay-in-4” loans is 0.89 percent, and on its longer-term loans for bigger purchases, the delinquency rate is 2.23 percent. Those figures are below the average 30-day delinquency rates on a credit card.
Klarna will now be the second-largest buy-now-pay-later company by market capitalisation behind Affirm. Shares of Affirm have surged more than 40 percent so far this year, putting the value of the US-based company around $28bn, helped by a belief among investors that buy-now-pay-later companies may take away market share from traditional banks and credit cards. Affirm fell slightly on Wednesday.
Klarna’s primary underwriters for the IPO were JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.
WASHINGTON — Alana Voechting, a 27-year-old nursing student, had never heard of Klarna when she noticed its bright pink logo while checking out at Sephora.com with $165 in skin care products.
Mounting medical debts from chronic health conditions left Voechting with money problems, so she was thrilled to learn the app would allow her to break the purchase price into four installments over six weeks — with no interest, fees or credit inquiries to ding her already subpar credit score.
“It’s like your brain thinks, ‘Oh, I’m getting this product for cheap,’ because you really only look at that first payment, and after that you kind of forget about it,” she said. “So psychologically, it feels like you’re spending so much less when you’re not.”
Soon Voechting began regularly using not just Klarna but also similar services, including Quadpay and Affirm, to buy makeup, clothing, airline tickets and expensive lounge wear she acknowledged she “would not have purchased otherwise.”
Voechting is one of millions of young Americans with scant or subprime credit histories who are using so-called buy-now-pay-later apps every month.
The smartphone-based services are an updated version of the old layaway plan, except users can do it all on their phones and — most appealingly — get their purchase immediately rather than having to wait until they’ve paid for it.
The companies act as intermediaries between retailers and consumers, making most of their profit by charging merchants 2% to 8% of the purchase price, similar to the retailer fees levied by credit card companies.
The apps are taking off among millennials and Generation Z consumers attracted by the ability to bypass traditional credit cards and still delay payments with no interest.
Retailers such as Macy’s and H&M have jumped to partner with the services, which soared in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Roughly 42% of Americans report using the apps at least once, according to a Credit Karma survey from February.
U.S. regulators are taking a wait-and-see approach, saying they don’t want to stifle a new financial product that could help consumers who might otherwise fall into predatory lending schemes.
But regulators in Europe and Australia, where many of the companies first launched, are increasingly concerned the apps are extending credit irresponsibly.
Using celebrities such as A$AP Rocky and Keke Palmer to portray the services as a hip alternative to the “gotcha” fine print of credit cards, the apps could promote overborrowing in a generation already struggling with high debt and poor credit, consumer advocates warn.
And despite claims that users’ credit ratings won’t be affected and that there are no hidden fees, experts say consumers can still face late charges, overdraft fees and debt collection. Some apps, such as Quadpay, charge a $1 transaction fee on every payment made, regardless of the amount.
“It sounds too good to be true, and it is, in many ways, because there are perils for people who use this,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog.
The apps offer different repayment options, but the most common links to a user’s debit card and makes automatic withdrawals every two weeks. Problems quickly arise when there is not enough money in the account, potentially resulting in charges by both the user’s bank and the app.
Voechting said that for the most part she has been able to control her spending and keep track of when her payments will be withdrawn, a challenge when dealing with multiple purchases and multiple apps.
But this year, she missed a payment with Quadpay on a $120 order from Beautycounter because she failed to change her payment information in the app after receiving a new debit card.
Sixty days later, she was informed the installment would go to collections unless she paid off the full remaining balance of $54, plus a $10 late fee. Voechting promptly gathered the money, fearing more damage to her credit.
Services boast that users’ activity and debt are not regularly reported to major credit bureaus. That’s appealing to consumers under pressure or already cut off from traditional lenders.
But not reporting on-time payments also means that users don’t see their credit scores increase as they demonstrate a track record of responsible borrowing, a crucial hurdle for younger consumers.
And the apps may report missed or late payments for some payment plans, which can hurt users’ credit scores, according to a clause buried deep in terms and conditions agreements for Quadpay, Affirm and Klarna.
The Credit Karma survey found about 38% of buy-now-pay-later customers had missed at least one payment, and 72% of those users reported seeing their credit score drop afterward, though many factors can cause fluctuations.
Buy-now-pay-later users also don’t benefit from many protections applied to credit cards.
For instance, if a credit card company refuses to offer credit to a potential customer, it must disclose why the application was declined. No such rules apply to the apps, which authorize every purchase on a case-by-case basis. That means users have no assurance a transaction will be approved.
“They don’t know what the issue is,” said Angela Hunt, 31, of Hampton, Va., part of a Facebook group devoted to Klarna, in which members frequently complain they are denied approval for purchases in a seemingly random manner.
App users also don’t enjoy the same billing-dispute protections they would with other payment methods, so returning merchandise, resolving fraudulent charges and requesting refunds can be difficult.
In January, Brittany Conn, 30, was moving into a new apartment in Melbourne, Fla., and used Klarna on Wayfair to buy a bed frame, headboard and bookcase for $450.
The bookcase never arrived, so she reached out to Klarna to get a partial refund. Multiple agents promised a supervisor would contact her, but the call never came. When she tried to publicly request help on Klarna’s Facebook page, she said, her comments were deleted.
If Conn had made her purchase with a credit card, the lender would have been forced to respond immediately, launch an investigation and explain its final determination within two billing cycles. During the process, she would be entitled to withhold payment on the disputed amount.
It took Conn, who works in customer service, nearly two months and many emails and online chats to get her money back. She filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.
“It was just an uphill battle, just email after email and chat after chat, and it got to a point where my chats weren’t being answered anymore,” she said.
According to the Better Business Bureau, Klarna — the largest buy-now-pay-later app in the U.S. with 15 million customers in 2020 — received 676 complaints in the last 12 months.
Quadpay received 979. Affirm had 227, and Afterpay and Sezzle saw more than 100 complaints each.
By comparison, Discover, a well-established credit card brand with more than 55 million customers, saw 532 complaints with the Better Business Bureau in the same period.
The rise in users — and complaints — has brought more scrutiny to the apps.
Credit card giant Capital One barred its customers worldwide last year from linking its cards to fund buy-now-pay-later purchases, citing the lack of consumer protections.
Class-action lawsuits in California, Connecticut and New York allege plaintiffs suffered from large bank overdraft fees due to automatic withdrawals, undisclosed late fees and deceptive marketing.
Consumer complaints prompted regulators in other countries to crack down. Sweden enacted a law last year that bans online checkout portals from making the apps the default payment option.
Australian financial experts wrote a report in November that found 20% of app users surveyed “cut back on or went without essentials” to make their payments on time. The United Kingdom released a nearly 70-page report in February concluding that “urgent and timely” regulatory changes were needed.
U.S. regulators say they are aware of the services but are exercising caution.
“We’re really interested in use cases of buy-now-pay-later where perhaps a consumer that would otherwise go to a payday lender and pay a very high cost for a loan might be able to use it,” said John McNamara, principal assistant director of markets at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In July, the CFPB released a blog post titled “Should you buy now and pay later?” warning consumers that the apps can charge late fees, report to credit bureaus and do not offer the same protections as other credit products.
Laura Udis, who manages installment loan programs at the CFPB, said the apps are subject to the Dodd-Frank act, passed in 2010 after the subprime mortgage crisis to prevent unfair, deceptive and abusive practices by lenders. She said the law “should be flexible enough to apply to any particular credit situation, including new innovations like buy-now-pay-later.”
But the services have found loopholes in regulation.
For instance, the Truth in Lending Act, which requires lenders disclose the terms and costs of services, states that payment plans of fewer than five installments are not subject to ad disclosure requirements as long as they avoid certain terms.
Consumer advocates say that explains why many apps are structured as four installments. And the companies help merchants avoid terminology that would trigger greater disclosures.
Affirm offers its merchant partners a guide. Quadpay has a variety of promotions for merchants to download that won’t trigger disclosures.
An advertisement for Afterpay and United Kingdom-based retailer Boohoo at a company-sponsored party.
(Caroline McCredie / Getty Images )
An Affirm spokesperson said the company provides information to users at checkout, including disclosures that would be required by the Truth in Lending Act, to ensure customers are informed. A Quadpay spokesperson said the company makes “every effort to help consumers by providing fair, flexible and transparent payment terms.”
Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Assn. of Consumer Advocates, said it may take time for regulators to sort out how lending laws apply to the services, and whether new ones are needed.
“I think there are different ways that regulators can deal with them,” he said. “And I think that there’s some places where they’ll be far behind and some places where they won’t be.”
Lawmakers show no signs of getting involved. Spokespeople for multiple congressional committees said they were not considering regulating the apps.
California’s regulators are among the few U.S. watchdogs that have taken substantive actions against the services. In 2019, the state’s Department of Business Oversight, now the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, sued Sezzle,Afterpay,Quadpay and Klarna for making illegal loans.
Each of the companies ultimately settled and had to get licensed, refund fees collected from Californians and pay fines.
“Today, the buy-now-pay-later companies we license in California are required to take into consideration a borrower’s ability to repay the loan and are subject to strict rate and fee caps,” department spokesperson Maria Luisa Cesar said.
As regulators and lawmakers determine how best to keep up with the growth of the apps, their popularity endures. Voechting, Hunt and Conn all said they will continue to use them.
“It’s kind of nice to be able to say, ‘Oh, you know, I can’t afford to buy this right upfront, but I can split it up into four payments and afford it that way,’” Conn said.
Before the apps, Conn would spend weeks saving money for special purchases. The apps allow her to get products immediately.
