Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twilio S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 229 posts

Re: Twilio S-1

#41

Post by allworknoplay »

polmuz wrote: post #13
joshhart wrote: post #2

Not even cash flow positive. Stay away.

Yes, but the deficit/revenue is falling fast 2013: 53% 2014: 30% 2015: 21% 2016Q1: 11%

Yes, because they've cut sales/marketing/g&a hugely as % of sales. Their opex profile now looks more like a normal, mature software company. Pity they still (and prolly always will) spend nearly half their revenues on connection/network fees.

Sucks to be a phone company / utility. Difficult business to rock even when you're an amazing, innovative, unique company like twilio.

Re: Twilio S-1

#42

Post by pbreit »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #30
runako wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not being managed for profitability; they are being managed for scale. They are growing at near 100% y/o/y, so management has decided to keep the pedal down until they win the market. Profitability comes in the out years, way down the line. Amazon is the most famous (successful) example of this. I don't work there, but I can assure you that nothing at Twilio is structured to be a profitable small company.

But what moat? There are numerous competitors to Twilio who are either cheaper or provide more niche services. You can be Amazon when you're the 800lb gorilla. Twilio is not that gorilla.

Telecom/communication services like Twilio's are =extremely= sticky.

Re: Twilio S-1

#45

Post by hamana » 

  >  Jeff Lawson(1) --- 8,623,617 --- 11.9%
How pathetic is this? Around 90% of the company is taken by the vulture capitalists and you, as a founder, only get to keep 12%. Bill Gates at the time of Microsoft's IPO had around 50% of the company.

Re: Twilio S-1

#47

Post by pavs »

stanmancan wrote: post #8

This is the first time I've ever looked through an S-1 before, but in the Risks section they say: We have a history of losses and we are uncertain about our future profitability Is it normal to go public when being uncertain if you'll ever be profitable?

I don't have much knowledge here, but I always thought one of the main reasons to go public because you want to raise money to either expand or you are strapped for money. If anything I would be suspect of companies who are extremely profitable and doesn't need to raise money at all but going public.

Re: Twilio S-1

#50

Post by mikekij »

hamana wrote: post #45

> Jeff Lawson(1) --- 8,623,617 --- 11.9% How pathetic is this? Around 90% of the company is taken by the vulture capitalists and you, as a founder, only get to keep 12%. Bill Gates at the time of Microsoft's IPO had around 50% of the company.

I see this a bit differently. Imagine getting to build $119M in value for yourself without needing to worry about profitability, by leveraging other people's money. Expressed that way, it sounds like a pretty good opportunity.
Post reply on HN