Connect with us

International

Making sense of Klarna

Sebastian Siemiatkowski, the co-founder and CEO of Klarna — the Swedish fintech “buy now, pay later” sensation that is currently Europe’s most valuable private tech company — is dismissive of the suggestion that non U.S. companies should relocate…

Published

on

Sebastian Siemiatkowski, the co-founder and CEO of Klarna — the Swedish fintech “buy now, pay later” sensation that is currently Europe’s most valuable private tech company — is dismissive of the suggestion that non U.S. companies should relocate to Silicon Valley if they really want to grow.

“We did hear that and I think it’s very poor advice,” he says. An overheated market for tech talent and the fickle nature of employees that are constantly job-hopping, he argues, make it harder to build a company for the long term.

Then he goes further.

“When I went to San Francisco for the first time about 10 years ago, [it] was a magical place. It was the early days of Facebook, there was an amazing vibe. When I go to San Francisco today, it’s changed to become, in my opinion, fairly cold.”

Siemiatkowski, a Swedish national and the son of two immigrants from Poland, is also sceptical of the “American dream.” In contrast to America, he points out how Sweden is among the most successful societies in the world from a social mobility perspective — referencing its free education and free health care, which sets up as many people as possible for success. But there is one caveat: he doesn’t think first-generation immigrants in Sweden do nearly as well as their children.

“We didn’t have a lot of money,” he tells me. “My father was driving a cab, he was unemployed for many years, even though he had basically a doctorate in agronomy. That’s kind of the unfortunate part of this, but that has obviously created a massive amount of hunger with me.”

As second generation success stories go, the rise of Klarna is up there with the best, even if it has already been 15 years in the making.

Backed by the likes of Sequoia, Silverlake, and Atomico, a new $650 million funding round in September gave the company a whopping $10.65 billion valuation — almost double the price achieved a year earlier, cementing its status as a poster child for Europe’s ability to build tech companies valued far above $1 billion. Siemiatkowski still owns an 8.1 percent stake.

Klarna is also, perhaps, even more mythical than a unicorn: a fintech that has been profitable nearly from the get-go. That only changed in 2019, when it decided to incur losses in favor of investing millions trying to conquer the U.S. market, choosing New York and L.A. over San Francisco for its American offices.

The company has been built on the concept of giving consumers a way to buy things online without having to pay for them upfront, and without resorting to a credit card. It does this both by offering online retailer integrations where Klarna appears as an option at check out, and through its own “shopping mall” app, where users can browse all the stores that let you pay with Klarna. On the back of this, the company hopes to foster a bigger financial relationship with its users as a fully-fledged bank.

If a bank is partly about corralling enough users on to your platform to pay money in and out, Klarna is well on its way. Today, the company boasts a registered customer base of 90 million, 11 million of which are in the U.S. In the last year alone, 21 million users were added globally. Klarna’s direct to consumer app, which sits alongside its 200,000 strong merchant point of sale integrations, has 14 million active users globally. Combined, Klarna is processing over 1 million transactions per day through its platform.

Image Credits: Klarna

This growth has continued apace as Klarna rides one macro trend and bucks another: Prompted by the pandemic, e-commerce has gone gangbusters, while, conversely, consumer credit as a whole has been in decline as people are paying down longer-term debt in record numbers. Even before COVID-19, Klarna and other buy now, pay later providers had been successfully picking up the slack created by a credit card market that, in some countries, has been steadily contracting.

Yet with a business model that generates the majority of its revenue by offering consumers short-term credit — and against a backdrop where the idea of easy credit and infinite consumption is increasingly criticised — the fintech giant is not without detractors.

When I mention Klarna to people who work in the European tech industry, the reaction tends to fall into one of three camps: those who reference the company’s “weird” above the line advertising and social media campaigns; those who use the service regularly and talk in terms of guilty pleasures; and those who are outright scornful of the impact on society they perceive Klarna to be making. And it’s true: You can’t help but be suspicious of something that gives consumers the feeling that they can spend money they might not have. And those “Smoooth” ads (below) certainly don’t offer much reassurance.

Delve a little deeper, however, and it becomes clear that the company’s business model can be misunderstood and that the arguments playing out in the media for and against buy now, pay later is only one part of the Klarna story.

In a wide-ranging interview, Siemiatkowski confronts criticisms head on, including that Klarna makes it too easy to get into debt, and that buy now, pay later needs to be regulated. We also discuss Klarna’s business model and the balancing act required to win over consumers and keep merchants onside.

We also learn how, under his watch and as the company began to scale, Klarna missed the next big opportunity in fintech, instead being usurped by Adyen and Stripe. Siemiatkowski also shares what’s next for the company as it ventures further into the world of retail banking after gaining a bank license in 2017.

And, told publicly for the first time, Siemiatkowski reveals how he once sought out PayPal co-founder Max Levchin as an advisor, only to learn a little later that he had started Affirm, one of Klarna’s most direct U.S. competitors and sometimes described by Europeans as a Klarna clone.

But first, let’s go back to the beginning.

Klarna’s first ever transaction took place at 11:06:40 am on April 10, 2005 at a Swedish bookshop called Pocketklubben, according to the abbreviated history published on the company’s website. However, what is made less explicit is that there was likely very little technology involved. The real innovation was a business one, with Klarna’s young and non-technical founders, Sebastian Siemiatkowski, Niklas Adalberth and Victor Jacobsso, taking an old idea and reconfiguring it for the burgeoning e-commerce industry.

By enabling customers that shopped online to be mailed an invoice with 30 days to pay, online shopping could be made easier and safer for consumers, which in turn helped increase sales for retailers.

“The invoicing company”

“When they started, they didn’t position themselves so much as a startup or as a tech company,” recalls Skype founder Niklas Zennström, whose venture capital firm Atomico would eventually become a Klarna investor in 2012. “People referred to them as the invoicing company.”

Today, Klarna is most certainly a tech company, employing 1,300 software engineers out of a staff of over 3,500. The company is now entirely cloud based and with various fully automated processes, from credit risk processing to algorithms in the Klarna shopping app to personalize content for individual consumers to AI/machine learning for 24 hour customer service.

Crucially, however, even this early and rudimentary version of what would become ‘buy now, pay later’ ticked two important boxes. Consumers, especially those who were distrusting of e-commerce, could be sure they’d receive goods before being charged, and if for any reason a product needed to be returned, customers wouldn’t have to wait weeks to be reimbursed as they hadn’t outlaid cash in the first place. Arguably both problems were already solved by credit cards, but in countries like Sweden, credit card take up was low, while the humble debit card doesn’t carry the same consumer protections as a credit card.

“The reason that we were able to launch it and be successful was because we were in a market where debit cards were much more prevalent than credit cards,” says Siemiatkowski. “And most people who have credit cards don’t reflect on the fact that if you have a debit card and you shop online, you face a number of struggles that a credit card holder does not.”

Those “struggles” include tying up your own money for the time it takes to return an item and process a refund. In contrast, when you spend on a credit card, the merchant is effectively holding your credit card company’s money.

“If I am buying some items and feel a bit unsafe about the merchant I’m using, if there’s a credit card, I don’t feel like I’m risking my money. If it’s my salary money you’re actually holding as a merchant for three weeks while you’re processing the return, that’s a problem,” Siemiatkowski argues.

Instead, Klarna would step in and offer to pay the merchant up front while providing customers 30 days to settle their invoice. Later this would be extended to include installments as an option. In return for taking on all of the risk and promising to increase conversions, merchants would give the Swedish upstart a percentage cut of the transactions.

“They wanted to make it really simple by just putting in your name, your Social Security number, and then you can instantaneously get an option to get an invoice sent to you later on. So what it did was remove a lot of friction from buying,” says Zennström.

Meanwhile, the more retailers sold, the more revenue Klarna would generate, all without consumers having to be charged interest on what might otherwise be described as a short-term loan. Pitch perfect, you might think. However, in early 2005 and before the company was incorporated, the concept was stress-tested at a “Shark Tank”-style event held at the Stockholm School of Economics and attended by the King of Sweden. The judging panel, made up of prominent Swedish financiers, were not convinced and Klarna’s invoicing idea came last in the competition. Despite the loss, Siemiatkowski held on to feedback from an unknown member of the audience, who surmised that banks would never launch something similar. Siemiatkowski left undeterred.

Angel investment from a former Erlang Systems sales manager, Jane Walerud, followed and she put Klarna’s founders in contact with a team of developers who helped build the first version of the platform. However, it soon surfaced that there was a misunderstanding in relation to the equity promised and how it should be linked to a longer commitment to the project.

Reflects Siemiatkowski: “One of the drawbacks that we had at the company was that none of the three co-founders had any engineering background; we couldn’t code. We were connected to five engineers that by themselves were amazing engineers, but we had a slight misunderstanding. Their idea was that they were going to come in, build a prototype, ship it, and then leave for 37% of the equity. Our understanding was that they were going to come in, ship it, and if it started scaling they would stay with us and work for a longer period of time. This is the classic mistake that you do as a startup.”

Eventually, the original five engineers quit, leaving Siemiatkowski to manage something he didn’t understand. “We obviously hired a CTO, but I also needed to be able to evaluate his decision making and all of these things in order to be able to assess whether we had the right setup to achieve what we want to achieve,” he says.

Between 2006 and 2008, Klarna continued to grow as more people started shopping online. The company expanded beyond Sweden to neighboring Nordic countries Norway, Finland and Denmark, with a headcount that had reached 120 employees. Even though there were signs of growth, Siemiatkowski says it still took a long time to realise that if Klarna was ever going to be really successful, it needed to fully transform into a tech company.

“We were really good at sales, we were okay at marketing, [and] we were service oriented: we really delivered to our customers. But it wasn’t really that technology driven,” he concedes.

To attract the kind of tech talent required, Siemiatkowski decided he needed to woo a renowned tech investor. Further backing had come in 2007 from Swedish investment firm Investment AB Öresund, but by 2010 the Klarna CEO had two new targets in his sights: Niklas Zennström, the Swedish entrepreneur who had already achieved legend status back home after building and selling Skype, and Sequoia Capital, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm that had invested in Apple, Google and PayPal.

“Part of our thinking about how we make Klarna attractive for people with engineering backgrounds was to get an investor that really had the brand and could kind of put their mark on us and say, ‘this is a tech company,’” says Siemiatkowski.

There is every likelihood that Zennström’s Atomico would have joined Klarna’s cap table in 2010 if it weren’t for a single line of text published on the VC firm’s website, which read something like, “don’t contact us, we’ll contact you.” Europe’s startup ecosystem was still immature and what now seems like aloofness was probably nothing more than a crude way to deter cold pitches from non-venture type businesses. But whatever the intent, it would be another two years before the firm eventually had the opportunity to invest in Klarna at what was almost certainly a much higher valuation.

“That was our loss for being too arrogant,” says Zennström. “Clearly we didn’t pursue them, we didn’t discover them because we didn’t have them on our radar. When we got to know them [two years later], what we liked a lot as a firm was the pain point that they were addressing.

“E-commerce was a relatively low single digit penetration of all retail, but of course growing, and we have always believed that e-commerce is going to continue to grow and become bigger than physical retailers. We thought that if you can remove that friction of the payment, and offer people different payment methods, that’s a really big proposition.”

“I always tease Niklas about it,” admits Siemiatkowski. “They wanted to, you know, keep it exclusive and I get it. So we were like, ‘okay, we can’t get hold of them, so let’s talk to Sequoia instead.’”

However, cold calling Sequoia wasn’t going to cut it either, not only because the firm didn’t generally invest in Europe, but also by Siemiatkowski’s own admission, Klarna didn’t look much like a tech company at the time. Luckily, a mutual contact got wind that Sequoia was on the lookout for interesting companies in the region and Klarna’s name was promptly thrown into the mix.

“Chris [Olsen], who was working at Sequoia at the time, called me, [but] I had this idea that I needed to be hard to catch. So I decided to not call back for three days, which was a very nervous time where I was just sitting on my hands not doing anything,” he said. “It was like, I don’t want to look like I’m too interested in this. Eventually, after three days, I call back and we did an exclusive deal with them, which I don’t recommend companies do.”

In hindsight, the Klarna CEO advises that it’s always smarter to foster competition in a round. As the only show in town, Sequoia invested at a $100 million valuation. “They bought 25 percent of the company and that was kind of it,” he says.


Siemiatkowski believes a company is made up of three things.

The first he calls internal momentum: “How fast are we moving as an organisation? How good are the decisions we are taking? How much are we avoiding [company] politics? How much of a true meritocracy are we?”

The second is profit and loss.

And the third is valuation. In a small company these three things are closely correlated in time, he says, “so if you have great internal momentum, you will instantly see it in your P&L, and then you will instantly see that hopefully in your company valuation as well.”

But in a large company, because of its size, the challenge is that they start to become disconnected. “They’re obviously in the long term always 100% correlated, but in the short term, they can vary a lot,” cautions Siemiatkowski.

Unsurprisingly, fueled by Sequoia’s cash, Klarna continued to grow in 2010, ending the year with $54 million in annual revenue, an increase of 80%. In December 2011, General Atlantic and DST would invest $155 million in a round that gave Klarna the coveted status of a unicorn.

Siemiatkowski says, compared to the company’s subsequent $5.5 billion and $10.65 billion valuations, this is the one that put him under the most self-scrutiny.

“In just one and a half years, we went from $100 million to a $1 billion. And then I felt the pressure,” he tells me. “I felt like we made it such a competitive round because we wanted to compensate for what we saw partially as a mistake with Sequoia that we kind of went too far the other way.”

Klarna finally took Atomico’s money in 2012, and within two years had grown to over 1,000 employees. Along with multiple offices around the globe, the company moved to bigger headquarters in Stockholm and expanded to the U.K. with an office in central London. Yet, somewhere along the way, Siemiatkowski says Klarna had lost internal momentum.

“As the company scaled and we started adding more markets and growing fast, for me as CEO and co-founder, I found that very difficult,” he admits. “As long as we were up to 100 people, I found it easier, I understood how to talk to people, how to get things done, how to develop new products or features and so forth. It was all much less complex, and then we started approaching a couple of hundred people and I felt more and more lost in all of that.

“It was difficult, and at the same point of time, we still had a lot of success because we had built this product that worked really well and there was a lot of momentum coming solely from the product itself.”

Siemiatkowski says that most startups don’t recognize that “once you get the snowball rolling, you can actually do quite a lot of stupid things, and the snowball will continue rolling.”

The Klarna CEO doesn’t say it, but one of those “stupid things” came in 2012 when the startup faced a backlash in its home country. Instead of sending payment instructions in the post, the company had switched to email without considering that messages might go to spam or simply remain unread. This saw customers unintentionally defaulting and then being chased for payment, leading to accusations in the media that Klarna was tricking people so it could generate more revenue through late fees.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded…

Published

on

'Excess Mortality Skyrocketed': Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack 'Criminal' COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded experimental vaccines were hastily developed for a virus which primarily killed the old and fat (and those with other obvious comorbidities), and an aggressive, global campaign to coerce billions into injecting them ensued.

Then there were the lockdowns - with some countries (New Zealand, for example) building internment camps for those who tested positive for Covid-19, and others such as China welding entire apartment buildings shut to trap people inside.

It was an egregious and unnecessary response to a virus that, while highly virulent, was survivable by the vast majority of the general population.

Oh, and the vaccines, which governments are still pushing, didn't work as advertised to the point where health officials changed the definition of "vaccine" multiple times.

Tucker Carlson recently sat down with Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and vocal critic of vaccines. The two had a wide-ranging discussion, which included vaccine safety and efficacy, excess mortality, demographic impacts of the virus, big pharma, and the professional price Kory has paid for speaking out.

Keep reading below, or if you have roughly 50 minutes, watch it in its entirety for free on X:

"Do we have any real sense of what the cost, the physical cost to the country and world has been of those vaccines?" Carlson asked, kicking off the interview.

"I do think we have some understanding of the cost. I mean, I think, you know, you're aware of the work of of Ed Dowd, who's put together a team and looked, analytically at a lot of the epidemiologic data," Kory replied. "I mean, time with that vaccination rollout is when all of the numbers started going sideways, the excess mortality started to skyrocket."

When asked "what kind of death toll are we looking at?", Kory responded "...in 2023 alone, in the first nine months, we had what's called an excess mortality of 158,000 Americans," adding "But this is in 2023. I mean, we've  had Omicron now for two years, which is a mild variant. Not that many go to the hospital."

'Safe and Effective'

Tucker also asked Kory why the people who claimed the vaccine were "safe and effective" aren't being held criminally liable for abetting the "killing of all these Americans," to which Kory replied: "It’s my kind of belief, looking back, that [safe and effective] was a predetermined conclusion. There was no data to support that, but it was agreed upon that it would be presented as safe and effective."

Carlson and Kory then discussed the different segments of the population that experienced vaccine side effects, with Kory noting an "explosion in dying in the youngest and healthiest sectors of society," adding "And why did the employed fare far worse than those that weren't? And this particularly white collar, white collar, more than gray collar, more than blue collar."

Kory also said that Big Pharma is 'terrified' of Vitamin D because it "threatens the disease model." As journalist The Vigilant Fox notes on X, "Vitamin D showed about a 60% effectiveness against the incidence of COVID-19 in randomized control trials," and "showed about 40-50% effectiveness in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in observational studies."

Professional costs

Kory - while risking professional suicide by speaking out, has undoubtedly helped save countless lives by advocating for alternate treatments such as Ivermectin.

Kory shared his own experiences of job loss and censorship, highlighting the challenges of advocating for a more nuanced understanding of vaccine safety in an environment often resistant to dissenting voices.

"I wrote a book called The War on Ivermectin and the the genesis of that book," he said, adding "Not only is my expertise on Ivermectin and my vast clinical experience, but and I tell the story before, but I got an email, during this journey from a guy named William B Grant, who's a professor out in California, and he wrote to me this email just one day, my life was going totally sideways because our protocols focused on Ivermectin. I was using a lot in my practice, as were tens of thousands of doctors around the world, to really good benefits. And I was getting attacked, hit jobs in the media, and he wrote me this email on and he said, Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to Ivermectin, they've been doing to vitamin D for decades..."

"And it's got five tactics. And these are the five tactics that all industries employ when science emerges, that's inconvenient to their interests. And so I'm just going to give you an example. Ivermectin science was extremely inconvenient to the interests of the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I mean, it threatened the vaccine campaign. It threatened vaccine hesitancy, which was public enemy number one. We know that, that everything, all the propaganda censorship was literally going after something called vaccine hesitancy."

Money makes the world go 'round

Carlson then hit on perhaps the most devious aspect of the relationship between drug companies and the medical establishment, and how special interests completely taint science to the point where public distrust of institutions has spiked in recent years.

"I think all of it starts at the level the medical journals," said Kory. "Because once you have something established in the medical journals as a, let's say, a proven fact or a generally accepted consensus, consensus comes out of the journals."

"I have dozens of rejection letters from investigators around the world who did good trials on ivermectin, tried to publish it. No thank you, no thank you, no thank you. And then the ones that do get in all purportedly prove that ivermectin didn't work," Kory continued.

"So and then when you look at the ones that actually got in and this is where like probably my biggest estrangement and why I don't recognize science and don't trust it anymore, is the trials that flew to publication in the top journals in the world were so brazenly manipulated and corrupted in the design and conduct in, many of us wrote about it. But they flew to publication, and then every time they were published, you saw these huge PR campaigns in the media. New York Times, Boston Globe, L.A. times, ivermectin doesn't work. Latest high quality, rigorous study says. I'm sitting here in my office watching these lies just ripple throughout the media sphere based on fraudulent studies published in the top journals. And that's that's that has changed. Now that's why I say I'm estranged and I don't know what to trust anymore."

Vaccine Injuries

Carlson asked Kory about his clinical experience with vaccine injuries.

"So how this is how I divide, this is just kind of my perception of vaccine injury is that when I use the term vaccine injury, I'm usually referring to what I call a single organ problem, like pericarditis, myocarditis, stroke, something like that. An autoimmune disease," he replied.

"What I specialize in my practice, is I treat patients with what we call a long Covid long vaxx. It's the same disease, just different triggers, right? One is triggered by Covid, the other one is triggered by the spike protein from the vaccine. Much more common is long vax. The only real differences between the two conditions is that the vaccinated are, on average, sicker and more disabled than the long Covids, with some pretty prominent exceptions to that."

Watch the entire interview above, and you can support Tucker Carlson's endeavors by joining the Tucker Carlson Network here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/14/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Shakira’s net worth

After 12 albums, a tax evasion case, and now a towering bronze idol sculpted in her image, how much is Shakira worth more than 4 decades into her care…

Published

on

Shakira’s considerable net worth is no surprise, given her massive popularity in Latin America, the U.S., and elsewhere. 

In fact, the belly-dancing contralto queen is the second-wealthiest Latin-America-born pop singer of all time after Gloria Estefan. (Interestingly, Estefan actually helped a young Shakira translate her breakout album “Laundry Service” into English, hugely propelling her stateside success.)

Since releasing her first record at age 13, Shakira has spent decades recording albums in both Spanish and English and performing all over the world. Over the course of her 40+ year career, she helped thrust Latin pop music into the American mainstream, paving the way for the subsequent success of massively popular modern acts like Karol G and Bad Bunny.

In late 2023, a 21-foot-tall bronze sculpture of Shakira, the barefoot belly dancer of Barranquilla, was unveiled at the city's waterfront. The statue was commissioned by the city's former mayor and other leadership.

Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images

In December 2023, a 21-foot-tall beachside bronze statue of the “Hips Don’t Lie” singer was unveiled in her Colombian hometown of Barranquilla, making her a permanent fixture in the city’s skyline and cementing her legacy as one of Latin America’s most influential entertainers.

After 12 albums, a plethora of film and television appearances, a highly publicized tax evasion case, and now a towering bronze idol sculpted in her image, how much is Shakira worth? What does her income look like? And how does she spend her money?

Related: Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's net worth: How the new TKO Board Member built his wealth from $7

How much is Shakira worth?

In late 2023, Spanish sports and lifestyle publication Marca reported Shakira’s net worth at $400 million, citing Forbes as the figure’s source (although Forbes’ profile page for Shakira does not list a net worth — and didn’t when that article was published).

Most other sources list the singer’s wealth at an estimated $300 million, and almost all of these point to Celebrity Net Worth — a popular but dubious celebrity wealth estimation site — as the source for the figure.

A $300 million net worth would make Shakira the third-richest Latina pop star after Gloria Estefan ($500 million) and Jennifer Lopez ($400 million), and the second-richest Latin-America-born pop singer after Estefan (JLo is Puerto Rican but was born in New York).

Shakira’s income: How much does she make annually?

Entertainers like Shakira don’t have predictable paychecks like ordinary salaried professionals. Instead, annual take-home earnings vary quite a bit depending on each year’s album sales, royalties, film and television appearances, streaming revenue, and other sources of income. As one might expect, Shakira’s earnings have fluctuated quite a bit over the years.

From June 2018 to June 2019, for instance, Shakira was the 10th highest-earning female musician, grossing $35 million, according to Forbes. This wasn’t her first time gracing the top 10, though — back in 2012, she also landed the #10 spot, bringing in $20 million, according to Billboard.

In 2023, Billboard listed Shakira as the 16th-highest-grossing Latin artist of all time.

Shakira performed alongside producer Bizarrap during the 2023 Latin Grammy Awards Gala in Seville.

Photo By Maria Jose Lopez/Europa Press via Getty Images

How much does Shakira make from her concerts and tours?

A large part of Shakira’s wealth comes from her world tours, during which she sometimes sells out massive stadiums and arenas full of passionate fans eager to see her dance and sing live.

According to a 2020 report by Pollstar, she sold over 2.7 million tickets across 190 shows that grossed over $189 million between 2000 and 2020. This landed her the 19th spot on a list of female musicians ranked by touring revenue during that period. In 2023, Billboard reported a more modest touring revenue figure of $108.1 million across 120 shows.

In 2003, Shakira reportedly generated over $4 million from a single show on Valentine’s Day at Foro Sol in Mexico City. 15 years later, in 2018, Shakira grossed around $76.5 million from her El Dorado World Tour, according to Touring Data.

Related: RuPaul's net worth: Everything to know about the cultural icon and force behind 'Drag Race'

How much has Shakira made from her album sales?

According to a 2023 profile in Variety, Shakira has sold over 100 million records throughout her career. “Laundry Service,” the pop icon’s fifth studio album, was her most successful, selling over 13 million copies worldwide, according to TheRichest.

Exactly how much money Shakira has taken home from her album sales is unclear, but in 2008, it was widely reported that she signed a 10-year contract with LiveNation to the tune of between $70 and $100 million to release her subsequent albums and manage her tours.

Shakira and JLo co-headlined the 2020 Super Bowl Halftime Show in Florida.

Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

How much did Shakira make from her Super Bowl and World Cup performances?

Shakira co-wrote one of her biggest hits, “Waka Waka (This Time for Africa),” after FIFA selected her to create the official anthem for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. She performed the song, along with several of her existing fan-favorite tracks, during the event’s opening ceremonies. TheThings reported in 2023 that the song generated $1.4 million in revenue, citing Popnable for the figure.

A decade later, 2020’s Superbowl halftime show featured Shakira and Jennifer Lopez as co-headliners with guest performances by Bad Bunny and J Balvin. The 14-minute performance was widely praised as a high-energy celebration of Latin music and dance, but as is typical for Super Bowl shows, neither Shakira nor JLo was compensated beyond expenses and production costs.

The exposure value that comes with performing in the Super Bowl Halftime Show, though, is significant. It is typically the most-watched television event in the U.S. each year, and in 2020, a 30-second Super Bowl ad spot cost between $5 and $6 million.

How much did Shakira make as a coach on “The Voice?”

Shakira served as a team coach on the popular singing competition program “The Voice” during the show’s fourth and sixth seasons. On the show, celebrity musicians coach up-and-coming amateurs in a team-based competition that eventually results in a single winner. In 2012, The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Shakira’s salary as a coach on “The Voice” was $12 million.

Related: John Cena's net worth: The wrestler-turned-actor's investments, businesses, and more

How does Shakira spend her money?

Shakira doesn’t just make a lot of money — she spends it, too. Like many wealthy entertainers, she’s purchased her share of luxuries, but Barranquilla’s barefoot belly dancer is also a prolific philanthropist, having donated tens of millions to charitable causes throughout her career.

Private island

Back in 2006, she teamed up with Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame and Spanish singer Alejandro Sanz to purchase Bonds Cay, a 550-acre island in the Bahamas, which was listed for $16 million at the time.

Along with her two partners in the purchase, Shakira planned to develop the island to feature housing, hotels, and an artists’ retreat designed to host a revolving cast of artists-in-residence. This plan didn’t come to fruition, though, and as of this article’s last update, the island was once again for sale on Vladi Private Islands.

Real estate and vehicles

Like most wealthy celebs, Shakira’s portfolio of high-end playthings also features an array of luxury properties and vehicles, including a home in Barcelona, a villa in Cyprus, a Miami mansion, and a rotating cast of Mercedes-Benz vehicles.

Philanthropy and charity

Shakira doesn’t just spend her massive wealth on herself; the “Queen of Latin Music” is also a dedicated philanthropist and regularly donates portions of her earnings to the Fundación Pies Descalzos, or “Barefoot Foundation,” a charity she founded in 1997 to “improve the education and social development of children in Colombia, which has suffered decades of conflict.” The foundation focuses on providing meals for children and building and improving educational infrastructure in Shakira’s hometown of Barranquilla as well as four other Colombian communities.

In addition to her efforts with the Fundación Pies Descalzos, Shakira has made a number of other notable donations over the years. In 2007, she diverted a whopping $40 million of her wealth to help rebuild community infrastructure in Peru and Nicaragua in the wake of a devastating 8.0 magnitude earthquake. Later, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Shakira donated a large supply of N95 masks for healthcare workers and ventilators for hospital patients to her hometown of Barranquilla.

Back in 2010, the UN honored Shakira with a medal to recognize her dedication to social justice, at which time the Director General of the International Labour Organization described her as a “true ambassador for children and young people.”

On November 20, 2023 (which was supposed to be her first day of trial), Shakira reached a deal with the prosecution that resulted in a three-year suspended sentence and around $8 million in fines.

Photo by Adria Puig/Anadolu via Getty Images

Shakira’s tax fraud scandal: How much did she pay?

In 2018, prosecutors in Spain initiated a tax evasion case against Shakira, alleging she lived primarily in Spain from 2012 to 2014 and therefore failed to pay around $14.4 million in taxes to the Spanish government. Spanish law requires anyone who is “domiciled” (i.e., living primarily) in Spain for more than half of the year to pay income taxes.

During the period in question, Shakira listed the Bahamas as her primary residence but did spend some time in Spain, as she was dating Gerard Piqué, a professional footballer and Spanish citizen. The couple’s first son, Milan, was also born in Barcelona during this period. 

Shakira maintained that she spent far fewer than 183 days per year in Spain during each of the years in question. In an interview with Elle Magazine, the pop star opined that “Spanish tax authorities saw that I was dating a Spanish citizen and started to salivate. It's clear they wanted to go after that money no matter what."

Prosecutors in the case sought a fine of almost $26 million and a possible eight-year prison stint, but in November of 2023, Shakira took a deal to close the case, accepting a fine of around $8 million and a three-year suspended sentence to avoid going to trial. In reference to her decision to take the deal, Shakira stated, "While I was determined to defend my innocence in a trial that my lawyers were confident would have ruled in my favour [had the trial proceeded], I have made the decision to finally resolve this matter with the best interest of my kids at heart who do not want to see their mom sacrifice her personal well-being in this fight."

How much did the Shakira statue in Barranquilla cost?

In late 2023, a 21-foot-tall bronze likeness of Shakira was unveiled on a waterfront promenade in Barranquilla. The city’s then-mayor, Jaime Pumarejo, commissioned Colombian sculptor Yino Márquez to create the statue of the city’s treasured pop icon, along with a sculpture of the city’s coat of arms.

According to the New York Times, the two sculptures cost the city the equivalent of around $180,000. A plaque at the statue’s base reads, “A heart that composes, hips that don’t lie, an unmatched talent, a voice that moves the masses and bare feet that march for the good of children and humanity.” 

Related: Taylor Swift net worth: The most successful entertainer joins the billionaire's club

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Delta Air Lines adds a new route travelers have been asking for

The new Delta seasonal flight to the popular destination will run daily on a Boeing 767-300.

Published

on

Those who have tried to book a flight from North America to Europe in the summer of 2023 know just how high travel demand to the continent has spiked.

At 2.93 billion, visitors to the countries making up the European Union had finally reached pre-pandemic levels last year while North Americans in particular were booking trips to both large metropolises such as Paris and Milan as well as smaller cities growing increasingly popular among tourists.

Related: A popular European city is introducing the highest 'tourist tax' yet

As a result, U.S.-based airlines have been re-evaluating their networks to add more direct routes to smaller European destinations that most travelers would have previously needed to reach by train or transfer flight with a local airline.

The new flight will take place on a Boeing 767-300.

Shutterstock

Delta Air Lines: ‘Glad to offer customers increased choice…’

By the end of March, Delta Air Lines  (DAL)  will be restarting its route between New York’s JFK and Marco Polo International Airport in Venice as well as launching two new flights to Venice from Atlanta. One will start running this month while the other will be added during peak demand in the summer.

More Travel:

“As one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Venice is hugely popular with U.S. travelers, and our flights bring valuable tourism and trade opportunities to the city and the region as well as unrivalled opportunities for Venetians looking to explore destinations across the Americas,” Delta’s SVP for Europe Matteo Curcio said in a statement. “We’re glad to offer customers increased choice this summer with flights from New York and additional service from Atlanta.”

The JFK-Venice flight will run on a Boeing 767-300  (BA)  and have 216 seats including higher classes such as Delta One, Delta Premium Select and Delta Comfort Plus.

Delta offers these features on the new flight

Both the New York and Atlanta flights are seasonal routes that will be pulled out of service in October. Both will run daily while the first route will depart New York at 8:55 p.m. and arrive in Venice at 10:15 a.m. local time on the way there, while leaving Venice at 12:15 p.m. to arrive at JFK at 5:05 p.m. on the way back.

According to Delta, this will bring its service to 17 flights from different U.S. cities to Venice during the peak summer period. As with most Delta flights at this point, passengers in all fare classes will have access to free Wi-Fi during the flight.

Those flying in Delta’s highest class or with access through airline status or a credit card will also be able to use the new Delta lounge that is part of the airline’s $12 billion terminal renovation and is slated to open to travelers in the coming months. The space will take up more than 40,000 square feet and have an outdoor terrace.

“Delta One customers can stretch out in a lie-flat seat and enjoy premium amenities like plush bedding made from recycled plastic bottles, more beverage options, and a seasonal chef-curated four-course meal,” Delta said of the new route. “[…] All customers can enjoy a wide selection of in-flight entertainment options and stay connected with Wi-Fi and enjoy free mobile messaging.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending