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

Cloudflare S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 366 posts

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#61

Post by dsl »

greatjack613 wrote: post #6

Another unicorn strikes. Is it just me, or have all of these companies decided to do IPOs around the same time? I mean uber, lyft, we work, and now cloudflare. I wonder who's on the menu tommorow

If you started your filings in December of last year, right about now is when your public disclosures hit.

Why December? Because if you made less than a billion dollars in calendar year 2018 and filed in that year, you can carry over your "small business" (I don't remember the exact name) status to 2019. Under the JOBS act, qualifying businesses aren't required to disclose executive compensation and a bunch of other stuff.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#62

Post by koolba »

Here's the meat and potatoes:

> We have experienced significant growth, with our revenue increasing from $84.8 million in 2016 to $134.9 million in 2017 and to $192.7 million in 2018, increases of 59% and 43%, respectively. As we continue to invest in our business, we have incurred net losses of $17.3 million, $10.7 million, and $87.2 million for 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2019, our revenue increased from $87.1 million to $129.2 million, an increase of 48%, and we incurred net losses of $32.5 million and $36.8 million, respectively.

Compared to the numbers we've seen for recent tech IPOs, being on track to lose about $72M for 2019 seems reasonable.

Also, haven't read through it all but I'm curious how strong this clause will be for future control:

> The dual-class structure of our common stock will have the effect of concentrating voting control with those stockholders who held our capital stock prior to the completion of this offering, and it may depress the trading price of our Class A common stock.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#63

Post by tyingq »

cremp wrote: post #13

> We have a history of net losses and may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability in the future. I never got this... Why go public if you literally say you won't make money? Who would buy stock in something that will not return a positive? Are they starving for money and hope some public trading gets them a boost? Edit: It seems to be following the same pattern as the other tech IPOs recently, just to cash ou…

Well, revenue of ~$130M, net loss of ~$37M. They aren't bleeding money like Uber or WeWork. You can imagine many ways they could close that gap, and in fact, the ratio has improved over the last few years.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#64

Post by antcas »

buildzr wrote: post #39
groundlogic wrote: post #9

Finally an IPO I want to buy into. Technical fundamentals matter. Edit: I mean that in the software/service way, not the economical way, in case there was any confusion.

I'm sure it's just in my head, but it feels like the first tech IPO in several years where there actually seems to be a viable business model.

Zoom and Twilio as well.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#65

Post by dsl »

groundlogic wrote: post #9

Finally an IPO I want to buy into. Technical fundamentals matter. Edit: I mean that in the software/service way, not the economical way, in case there was any confusion.

> Technical fundamentals matter.

Centralization of the entire internet behind a single entity is a _bad_ thing for people who care about technical fundamentals.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#66

Post by dsl »

cm2187 wrote: post #32

It’s odd to have these IPOs in the middle of August, in the middle of a super volatile market. I can’t help thinking that there must be a sense of urgency, based on the perception that this is the last opportunity before a bear market and much more modest (realistic?) valuations.

> It’s odd to have these IPOs in the middle of August

Read my other comment further down. It is from doing your private SEC filings in December to use a loophole to avoid disclosing a bunch of information.

These companies didn't just wake up in the morning and plan to IPO, it a good 18 months of planning that end with a public filing.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#68

Post by SanchoPanda »

cremp wrote: post #13

> We have a history of net losses and may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability in the future. I never got this... Why go public if you literally say you won't make money? Who would buy stock in something that will not return a positive? Are they starving for money and hope some public trading gets them a boost? Edit: It seems to be following the same pattern as the other tech IPOs recently, just to cash ou…

This is a risk report, and such statements represent a dire case outcome. It is the goal of everyone involved to make sure this doesn't happen, though its there because it could.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#69

Post by SanchoPanda »

throw03172019 wrote: post #26
cremp wrote: post #13

> We have a history of net losses and may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability in the future. I never got this... Why go public if you literally say you won't make money? Who would buy stock in something that will not return a positive? Are they starving for money and hope some public trading gets them a boost? Edit: It seems to be following the same pattern as the other tech IPOs recently, just to cash ou…

Is this just a risk factor that the SEC applauds or forces?

They selectively enforce scenarios where a material risk was not covered adequately. Harshly.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#70

Post by mxuribe »

billpg wrote: post #44

> We have applied to list the Class A common stock on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “NET.” Pardon?

Yeah, i would have tried CFLR, or something like that...unless, they have other ambitions...?
Post reply on HN