Defense and space tech firm Voyager reveals annual revenue rise in US IPO filing
Defense technology and space solutions company Voyager Technologies has revealed a rise in its 2024 revenue in filings for its initial public offering in the United States on Friday.
The company confidentially filed for the IPO in January. It did not disclose the number of shares it plans to sell or the estimated price range for its listing.
The Denver, Colorado–based company's revenue rose to about $144.2 million in 2024, compared with $136.1 million in 2023.
Founded in 2019, Voyager has completed more than 2,000 missions for commercial, civil, national security and non-profit customers from about 35 nations, according to its website.
The IPO market has reopened as financial markets recover sharply amid progress in trade talks, providing companies with the opportunity to list their shares after several months of tariff-driven turbulence.
In a related development, the space industry is experiencing policy changes under the Trump administration.
The administration has proposed cutting 24 per cent of NASA's current $24.8 billion budget — a proposal that threatens to cancel major science programs but is expected to boost the Mars-focused agenda advocated by billionaire SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.
Voyager plans to list its shares on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "VOYG", with Morgan Stanley and J.P.Morgan serving as lead underwriters for the offering.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
I started using corporate lingo ironically – and now I can't stop
I nodded as a coworker listed out a few suggestions on ways her team and mine could collaborate in the next few months. 'Yeah, that sounds like a good way to synergise,' I said. And then we both made a face. Almost a decade ago, when I started my first official 'office job', I made a silent vow to myself that I would never become One of Those. A corporate drone on autopilot, mindlessly regurgitating buzzwords and key phrases day in and day out to no real end until I would one day reach my final form: a glorified LinkedIn bot. I didn't really 'use' corporate lingo so much as make fun of it – in a good-natured, tongue-in-cheek sort of way. It was a quick fix for lightening the mood for everybody, myself included: 'Well, since that project fell through, guess that's one less loop to close, huh?' But these days, I find myself starting to slip into corporate lingo unironically, the same way I started doing years ago with skinny jeans, emojis, and the acronym 'LOL'. LINGO LIMBO More people are expressing annoyance or frustration with it these days, especially on social media, but make no mistake – corporate lingo is nothing new. From the 'value chains' of the 1980s and 1990s to the 'key performance indicators' you hear your own manager wax on about today, such jargon has long been a mainstay of working life. Like with most things that eventually trigger widespread discussions and accusations online of being 'annoying' or 'cringe', there's a legitimately useful element to corporate lingo's villain origin story. Business and work have grown more complex over the last few decades. Thanks to globalisation, the systems we operate in have become more interconnected and as a result, more expansive and intricate. So have the individual roles we play in those systems. We started needing quicker, simpler ways to sum up big or complicated ideas – or ideas that weren't that big or complicated, but were just a mouthful to say. After all, it's definitely easier to say 'outsourcing' than 'farming this out to a peripheral individual, group or organisation so I have more time and energy to focus on more important things'. But over time, something happened to corporate lingo: People started creating buzzwords and phrases for things and situations that didn't seem to require it at all. We stopped postponing or revisiting discussions of an issue and started 'circling back' instead. We eschewed talking to each other and started 'touching base' instead. And then people started 'checking in', but not just any checks, mind you. Temperature checks. Sense checks. Vibe checks. Instead of coining new terms to neatly condense big, complicated ideas, we now seem to be finding overly complex ways to phrase very simple things. WHEN YOU SAY NOTHING AT ALL Again, it's not a bad thing to develop lingo over the course of engaging with other fellow humans in labour. Well before we became office dwellers, plenty of colloquialisms from agricultural work had been leaving the farm to become part of everyday English. For example, "No reason to have a cow about that" or "beat a dead horse". Such jargon of yore does the work it's meant to do, which is to replace a wordy sentiment or thought process with a bite-sized turn of phrase. In comparison, what exactly does the phrase 'moving the needle' accomplish, particularly when in most cases, you immediately have to go on to explain exactly what needle you're hoping to move and in which direction? (Yes, we've done it, we've made shop-talk more efficient – all we had to do was transform our seven-word statement into a 15-word run-on behemoth.) The danger is when we're more concerned about communication for communication's sake, rather than the purposes and objectives for which we're communicating. Are we trying to be in the know, or simply appear so to others? Are we really achieving or improving productivity, or just performing it? MAKE WORK JARGON WORK AGAIN Either way, corporate lingo is here to stay. The exact words and phrases in rotation may come and go, but humans will always want to find a way to jazz up interpersonal communication simply because we're creative, social beings. So is there a way to salvage this? (Or, for the corporate jargon-heads out there: What are the actionable insights and key takeaways to be derived from this?) For my part, I still find myself resisting what I feel are inorganic attempts to shoehorn unnecessary lingo into conversations about work, but I'm trying not to be pedantic about it. If someone says 'Can we align or bridge the gap on this?', I respond, 'Sure, what's unclear right now?' If someone says 'Can I get a sense check on when this might be completed?', I give them a date. (But maybe I'll also have a little rant to a fellow coworker later on about why the question can't simply be 'When will this be done?') Instead of the snark I used to deploy perhaps a little too freely in response to cringey corporate jargon, I try to reach for the same attitude I employ whenever I'm speaking with someone who may not be entirely fluent in English – if I understand what they're saying, maybe how they're saying it doesn't have to matter as much. Still, at the end of the day, there's never any harm in asking, plain and simple: 'What do you mean?'
CNA
10 hours ago
- CNA
South Korea's trade chief heads to US from Jun 22 as Trump tariffs cast long shadow
SEOUL: South Korea's Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo will visit the United States from Jun 22 to Jun 27, the trade ministry said on Saturday (Jun 21), amid intensifying concerns over the impact of US tariffs. The visit will include discussions with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and the third round of bilateral technical discussions, a ministry official told Reuters. Further details about the meetings were not disclosed. The two countries began trade talks in April, with Seoul seeking a path to slash the stiff tariffs US President Donald Trump is angling to impose. South Korea is currently facing a 10 per cent blanket tariff and a 25 per cent country-specific duty temporarily paused for 90 days. It agreed with the US during initial trade negotiations in April to craft a trade deal reducing tariffs by Jul 8. However, political uncertainty triggered by leadership upheavals had stalled progress. "Since a South Korea-US summit has yet to take place and key ministers have not been appointed under the new administration, negotiations are likely to focus on areas that the trade ministry can manage - excluding major issues such as defence cost-sharing and exchange rates," Heo Yoon, an economics professor at Sogang University, said. "Given these circumstances, reaching a comprehensive agreement on key negotiation frameworks and agendas is expected to be challenging." The announcement of Yeo's trip to Washington comes days after South Korea launched a task force on negotiations with the US. It comprises industry ministry officials overseeing trade, manufacturing, energy and investment. According to the Industry Ministry, it will deal with tariff and non-tariff matters across industry and the energy sector, while also coordinating with the private sector. Yeo, who heads the task force, said the team has a major responsibility as "businesses and the public have experienced great difficulties due to US tariff measures".
Business Times
13 hours ago
- Business Times
Musk's xAI extends deadline and ups yield on bonds following lukewarm demand: source
[NEW YORK] Elon Musk's xAi extended the deadline and increased the yield it is paying on a US$5 billion debt sale following lukewarm reception from investors, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said on Friday (Jun 20). The deadline for investors to commit to buying into the deal, which includes bonds and loans, was extended from Tuesday to Friday, this source said, asking not to be named because the details of the deal were private. xAI also upped the yield on the US$3 billion in bonds and a US$1 billion term loan from 12 per cent to 12.5 per cent yield, they said. xAi sweetened the pot on a second term loan from 700 basis points to 725 basis points over the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, known as SOFR. The term loan B is set to be priced at a discount of 96 US cents on the US dollar, the source said. xAI and Morgan Stanley, which is leading the deal, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. High-yield bonds paid an average yield to maturity of 7.6 per cent as at Thursday, according to ICE BofA High Yield Index. Investors are demanding more for xAI's debt because the company and its bonds are not yet rated, giving investors little visibility into the company's finances and increasing the risk. An increase in the yield offer could mean that investors had probably agreed to buy the debt only for a higher yield. The borrower also has lesser flexibility on pricing when investor demand is modest. If the deal closes on Friday, Morgan Stanley will distribute the securities to investors on Monday, this source said. The xAI offering, which was reported on Jun 2 as Musk and US President Donald Trump traded barbs over social media, did not receive overwhelming interest from high-yield and leveraged loan investors, Reuters reported earlier this week. One portfolio manager, who said he passed on the bonds, said a 'good deal' will typically be oversubscribed by three to four times. xAI would up the yields if it didn't attract enough investors, he added. Unlike Musk's debt deal when he acquired Twitter, Morgan Stanley did not guarantee how much it would sell or commit its own capital to the deal, in what is called a 'best efforts' transaction, according to one source familiar with the terms. xAi did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Morgan Stanley declined to comment. REUTERS
