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

The We Company S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 346 posts

Re: The We Company S-1

#281

Post by rossdavidh »

beager wrote: post #50

I’m really disgusted by how much recent tech IPOs inject pitch deck-style garbage into the S-1 filing, especially this one. I’ve always had a great amount of respect for the mediating nature of the S-1’s dry, candid, and ruthlessly honest assessment of business risks, and even though those things are still there, they’re blown out by marketing photos, full-page charts, and branding. This is basically like putting per…

While I would agree, I am a programmer, as are many other HN commenters, and even those who aren't are the sort of people who are ok with being on a forum filled with a bunch of programmers. That "garbage" might actually be more readable to a different slice of the public, that finds the "dry" parts so boring as to be unreadable. Just a hypothesis, I have no data to back that up, but maybe some people find the term paper more digestible with a little perfume?

Re: The We Company S-1

#282

Post by microtherion »

not2b wrote: post #190
xiphias2 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually they don't have free lunch, which is quite strange for Silicon Valley companies

Old Silicon Valley (companies primarily engaged in the design and production of silicon) doesn't do free lunch.

Neither does Apple.

Re: The We Company S-1

#283

Post by skinnymuch »

nindalf wrote: post #23
webninja wrote: post #12

> We have 3 classes of stock: Class A shares which have 1 vote, class B shares, which have 20 votes, and class C shares which have 20 votes. All classes vote alongside each other. I wouldn’t consider being an investor in this company unless class B or C shares are publicly traded. Just look at the underperformance of GOOGL, SNAP, and SQ for reasons why not to be an investor here.

> underperformance of GOOGL This stock went from $54 in Aug 2004 to $1196 today. Just for me to understand, is that "underperformance"? Is your claim that other stocks that have a traditional voting structure have outperformed GOOGL over the same time period or that GOOGL itself could have achieved much higher highs, say 30x instead of a mere 22x? Either way, those are tall claims and it's on you to prove it.

Your point is completely correct. A tiny bit for the full possible return being greater. Google IPOed at $85. And closed at $100. Either way, the initial price is between $42.50 and $50, accounting for the stock split. It’s between 24-28x based on yesterday’s price (before 2.5% drop today).

Re: The We Company S-1

#285

Post by skinnymuch »

michaelt wrote: post #116
fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how that compares to what they tell new hires who are likely taking a haircut for equity in the company

They probably tell the new hires the same thing they tell themselves: * It's always a gamble, but if you'd received $x0,000 of options 3 years ago, they'd be worth $x00,000 now. * You'll own 0.00x% of the company, and if you owned that much of Facebook you'd be a multimillionaire. * Companies like Amazon don't make a profit, and the stock market is fine with it. They know Bezos could turn a profit if he wanted to, bu…

Doesn’t deter from your point at all. But Google’s stock has increased over 27x since IPO 15 years ago.

Re: The We Company S-1

#286

Post by situational87 »

mmillin wrote: post #2

My favorite part of new tech company filings is looking at the risk section and finding something to the effect of: "We are not profitable, and may never be." > We have a history of losses and, especially if we continue to grow at an accelerated rate, we may be unable to achieve profitability at a company level (as determined in accordance with GAAP) for the foreseeable future. I understand the reasoning behind havin…

It's almost as if the IPO market has become a ponzi scheme.

Re: The We Company S-1

#287

Post by martin_bech »

vikramkr wrote: post #279
martin_bech wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But stille completely crazy, that you can buy up, most of the company, and Zuckerberg still controls it.

You know what you're buying. You're buying a share of the earnings/monetary value of the company, and are valuing it based on your belief in zuck as a leader. You are not buying any control in the company, and that's pruiced in. I'm sure shares would be worth more if zuck didn't control the company and you could gain control by buying shares.

So in the best interrest of shareholders, if you believe that shares would be worth more, if they they didnt have this class segregation, then they shouldn't..

Thats what would be best for shareholders..

Re: The We Company S-1

#288

Post by coolspot »

navigatesol wrote: post #177
hackerbabz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what seems to not be understood by a lot of investors and people commenting on investments. Amazon could have turned a profit years earlier if they wanted to. Instead it made more sense to continue spending all of their money on expansion and R&D. It's the same with Tesla. They are selling a shit ton of cars at good markup. If they wanted a profit, they could have one. They just don't want one right now.

> It's the same with Tesla. Can you show you get this from? I see it repeated on these boards, ad nauseum, that Tesla is spending their "profits" on R&D and building infrastructure. But in reality, you can see from their financial statements that Tesla's CAPEX spending is embarrassingly small for an auto company, and shrinking. They spent $2BB in 2018 and are on pace to spend half that in 2019. As a sibling comments…

It’s B not BB.
Post reply on HN