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

CrowdStrike S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 50 posts

Re: CrowdStrike S-1

#21

Post by tptacek »

monocasa wrote: post #17
tptacek wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Kurtz is not a Democrat. Crowdstrike is also a giant in this field. I assume the connection is, the DNC wanted to go with a safe, big name.

Political connectedness exists on many spectrums other than the usual Red vs Blue. An interesting one you can see from the outside (that might not have anything to do here, it's just an example) is CIA vs NSA. You can see Nancy Pelosi's statements back that look like "we've always been at war with East Asia" and "we've never been at war with East Asia" wrt to the intelligence apparatus depending on which agency screw…

All available evidence from credible sources seems to back up Crowdstrike's attribution. I'm sure you can find a countervailing argument or two from some credible source, but, to say the least, it does not look like Crowdstrike took a flyer on this.

I don't think the Russia investigation has thing #1 to do with Crowdstrike's IPO or what their business is like, though. That's much simpler: EDR is the new antivirus, antivirus has historically been one of the most lucrative enterprise technology products (to say nothing of security products), and Crowdstrike has a commanding share of the EDR market.

Re: CrowdStrike S-1

#22

Post by [deleted] »

cwkoss wrote: post #9

Crowdstrike seems very well-connected politically. The DNC chose to have them forensically examine their hacked servers to the exclusion of the FBI .

[deleted]

Re: CrowdStrike S-1

#23

Post by tptacek »

WestCoastJustin wrote: post #2

Anyone know why this is so popular and getting upvoted?

The only thing most HN'ers know about Crowdstrike is that they were involved in the Russia hacking attribution in 2016-2017. But this is a major tech company S-1 --- Crowdstrike is one of the more important security product companies of the last few years --- and tech company S-1's generally get warm coverage on HN.

Re: CrowdStrike S-1

#24

Post by tptacek »

tmcw wrote: post #18

Is it unusual that on $313M ARR, the CEO’s yearly compensation, including options, is… $44.9M? CEO pay is 15% of total revenue?

Fun additional detail:

As part of our sales and marketing activities, we sponsor a CrowdStrike-branded professional racing car, which our President and Chief Executive Officer drives in some races at no incremental cost to us and in lieu of us hiring a professional driver. As we do not pay any amounts to our President and Chief Executive Officer under these arrangements, it is not reflected in the above table.

Re: CrowdStrike S-1

#25

Post by austenallred »

tmcw wrote: post #18

Is it unusual that on $313M ARR, the CEO’s yearly compensation, including options, is… $44.9M? CEO pay is 15% of total revenue?

Are you sure that's his annual compensation, or is that just a one-time options amount?

Re: CrowdStrike S-1

#26

Post by _8j50 »

cwkoss wrote: post #9

Crowdstrike seems very well-connected politically. The DNC chose to have them forensically examine their hacked servers to the exclusion of the FBI .

So is FireEye (and FireEye is inqtel/cia funded). Crowdstrike are the best in the game.

Re: CrowdStrike S-1

#27

Post by chii »

tptacek wrote: post #24
tmcw wrote: post #18

Is it unusual that on $313M ARR, the CEO’s yearly compensation, including options, is… $44.9M? CEO pay is 15% of total revenue?

Fun additional detail: As part of our sales and marketing activities, we sponsor a CrowdStrike-branded professional racing car, which our President and Chief Executive Officer drives in some races at no incremental cost to us and in lieu of us hiring a professional driver. As we do not pay any amounts to our President and Chief Executive Officer under these arrangements, it is not reflected in the above table.

If I was an investor, I would say this is reckless.

Re: CrowdStrike S-1

#28

Post by rossdavidh »

tptacek wrote: post #10
gadnuk wrote: post #3

"We have incurred net losses in all periods since our inception, and we may not achieve or maintain profitability in the future. We experienced net losses of $91.3 million, $135.5 million, $140.1 million for fiscal 2017, fiscal 2018, and fiscal 2019, respectively. As of January 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $519.1 million." Wow, I knew that they had great revenues and growth but this nugget is now becomi…

Yes, and usually for a pretty straightforward reason: these companies are investing substantial sums of money into buying market share, and, when they (a) win themselves a defensible position in the market and (b) generate enough revenue to prove the market to investors, they can cut back on those expenses and take profits. Meanwhile, investors are looking for growth and, more generally, future profits; nobody's all…

It's always possible to make a semi-plausible argument that money will be made someday. Perhaps that's enough for an angel investor, maybe a VC, but by the time you IPO, you really ought to have demonstrated it. But, not lately.

Re: CrowdStrike S-1

#29

Post by rossdavidh »

So, is someone who invested in a lot of may-never-be-profitable companies, suddenly needing their money back, whether it's the right time for an IPO or not?
Post reply on HN