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

Airbnb S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 471 posts

Re: Airbnb S-1

#231

Post by jariel »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #214
jariel wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly regulatory arbitrage, same as Uber. If cities and townships were to have looser regulations on hotels - which evidently they should, given the vast demand and 'mostly' it's not excessively problematic for communities - then AirBnB wouldn't exist because hotel prices and types would have much more variety and competitiveness, and so would listings. If anyone could just get in their car and tell the local d…

Absolutely this. These companies have a weird human shield - that prosecuting individual house owners or drivers has little tin no impact on the supply (whereas it would have a huge impact on a normal commercial supply) - so the usual weapon regulatory bodies have is simply useless.

If regulators wanted to actually go after AirBnB they could do it directly, it's a matter of political will.

It really demonstrated the absurdity and borderline incompetence of a lot of regulatory entities: both Uber and AirBnB operate out in the open even where it's essentially illegal. The Hotel industry lobbies to keep the rules in their favour - and none of us are winners really.

Accommodation rules should probably be opened up somewhat, AirBnB has provided overwhelming evidence of a supply/demand mismatch. The taxi industry is considerably more difficult to redress because the cities have already sold medallions.

Re: Airbnb S-1

#232

Post by [deleted] »

tenpies wrote: post #219
finolex1 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple. Tesla too, if you're willing to stretch definitions a bit.

Did they? Not only is national demand nowhere near enough to use up the Shanghai production, but they're having to export MIC vehicles and adding Model Y production. All of this with strong government backing of Tesla (as Musk said "the same as any Chinese company") and Chinese banks being told to accept any loan for a Tesla vehicle. Despite that they've had more price cuts than quarters and demand does not show any…

[deleted]

Re: Airbnb S-1

#233

Post by MichaelApproved »

imroot wrote: post #225

"We have incurred net losses in each year since inception, and we may not be able to achieve profitability." At least they're honest about it!

That’s practically boilerplate for IPO filings and pointing it out is boilerplate for IPO comments.

Re: Airbnb S-1

#234

Post by triceratops »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #168
SilasX wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had that exact experience in the famously non-corrupt Netherlands (2017). It’s not a China thing.

Does the Netherlands have a rule that you register with the local public security bureau for wherever you are staying? I really don't see AirBnB working in China because of that.

> Does the Netherlands have a rule that you register with the local public security bureau for wherever you are staying?

Yes, I believe they do (Vreemdelingendienst).

Re: Airbnb S-1

#235

Post by sudosysgen »

tenpies wrote: post #219
finolex1 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple. Tesla too, if you're willing to stretch definitions a bit.

Did they? Not only is national demand nowhere near enough to use up the Shanghai production, but they're having to export MIC vehicles and adding Model Y production. All of this with strong government backing of Tesla (as Musk said "the same as any Chinese company") and Chinese banks being told to accept any loan for a Tesla vehicle. Despite that they've had more price cuts than quarters and demand does not show any…

Well, it seems that they just can't compete, then. If what you are saying is true, then Tesla is in imminent trouble everywhere and needs to step their game up.

Re: Airbnb S-1

#236

Post by hehetrthrthrjn »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #168
SilasX wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had that exact experience in the famously non-corrupt Netherlands (2017). It’s not a China thing.

Does the Netherlands have a rule that you register with the local public security bureau for wherever you are staying? I really don't see AirBnB working in China because of that.

No, only if you're planning on living in the Netherlands for 3 months or more.

Re: Airbnb S-1

#237

Post by calmworm »

newguy1234 wrote: post #182
pathseeker wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe make them pay 10-25k lump-sum in cash. After a certain amount of guests have visited the offering then the money can be returned. This is so detached from reality. It would wipe out probably 99% of listings from people not doing it professionally.

The lump-sum fee is just an example number. It could be less for smaller rentals but the point is still there. You need to force new hosts to "prove" they're going to be honest and have a penalty for those who aren't honest. This same concept is used in the cryptocurrency world where you need people to have trust. One example I can point to is Storj where they withhold earnings from people who don't perform per the a…

I understand what you’re saying but your $10-25k example cripples your point. Many people are hosting for extra cash, so any surety bond would keep away a lot of hosts that are actually honest and good hosts.

Re: Airbnb S-1

#238

Post by [deleted] »

user5994461 wrote: post #99
aliston wrote: post #84

The seesaw in revenue over the last 3 quarters is insane: 841M, 334M, 1.3B in Q1, Q2, Q3. They even posted a profit last quarter. I've gotta say, the S1 looks appealing considering how few profitable silicon valley companies there are these days. On the other hand, I have a hard time interpreting whether this is truly a profitable company since the numbers are all over the place. It also looks like Q3 tends to be the…

Q2 saw all travels being cancelled due to lockdown across the world. It's surprising the activity bounced back this quick, back to normal in Q3.

[deleted]

Re: Airbnb S-1

#239

Post by busterarm »

elamje wrote: post #136
carlineng wrote: post #112

A few random observations I found interesting: - Looks like they are significantly leaner now as a result of COVID. Cost of revenue is at an all-time low in Q3 (17% of revenue on p164). There's a lot of focus the drastic cuts to Sales and Marketing, but it looks like there's a fair amount of increased discipline across the board. - It's interesting that Operations and support looks to be very similar in both the firs…

A fun anecdote about AirBnB in China: 2 years ago I travelled to Beijing and Shanghai and intended to stay in an AirBnB. AirBnB had tons and tons of listings in both places, all of which had specific instructions to tell the neighbors you were “a friend” and not staying there with AirBnB. At the time, and possibly still so, AirBnB was not operating legally in those particular places, and I presume most of the country…

This seems incredibly dangerous as visitors on a tourist visa are required to register themselves with the local police within 24 hours of arriving at their destination.

Trying to stay under the radar seems like it courts risk of deportation, as I've known _lots_ of folks who got a visit from police at their place of stay who were not aware of this. Virtually all of them settled things fine but it was more headache than had they just done what they're supposed to.

I believe in a hotel stay, your hotel registers you online so that you don't have to deal with this.

Re: Airbnb S-1

#240

Post by robbiemitchell »

alexpotato wrote: post #229

> Mr. Stephenson’s offer letter provides for an initial base salary of $600,000, an initial target bonus of 75% of his base salary, and a one-time hiring bonus in the aggregate amount of $2,400,000 While I've received signing bonuses in the past, I was not aware that you could get a signing bonus that was 4x of your base salary.

It could be buying out whatever package is being left behind at a previous gig.
Post reply on HN