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

21–30 of 229 posts

Re: Twilio S-1

#21

Post by vasilipupkin »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #17
stanleydrew wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would an IPO be bad for the company and employees? It's just another fundraising round, with new shares issued. I guess you're suggesting that an IPO exposes a company to more of a herd mentality regarding immediate profitability which it wouldn't be exposed to in a private round of financing, and that it might be punished for it?

> I guess you're suggesting that an IPO exposes a company to more of a herd mentality regarding immediate profitability An IPO exposes a company to ruthless financial scrutiny, which doesn't exist when they're private. Going public and having your share price drop below expectations is the most epic of down rounds.

That statement assumes that private late stage investors aren't ruthless and don't scrutinize the companies they invest in ?

Re: Twilio S-1

#22

Post by mpeg »

breaker05 wrote: post #3

Good for them! I love their service and use it on GoatAttack.com

You need to make this stuff international, I was about to throw money at you to goat my enemies.

Re: Twilio S-1

#23

Post by toomuchtodo »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #21
toomuchtodo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess you're suggesting that an IPO exposes a company to more of a herd mentality regarding immediate profitability An IPO exposes a company to ruthless financial scrutiny, which doesn't exist when they're private. Going public and having your share price drop below expectations is the most epic of down rounds.

That statement assumes that private late stage investors aren't ruthless and don't scrutinize the companies they invest in ?

My assumption (based on the last few tech IPOs) is that late stage investors are putting lipstick on a pig and trying to get out the door before the music stops.

https://mattermark.com/2015s-tech-ipos-performing-even-worse...

And Steve Blank:

> Steve Blank on the Tech Bubble: 'VCs Won't Admit They're in a Ponzi Scheme'

http://www.inc.com/zoe-henry/steve-blank-tech-bubble-burst-p...

Re: Twilio S-1

#24

Post by realitycheckxxx » 

  >  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

#26

Post by runako »

karangoeluw wrote: post #5

I love Twilio, but I'm a little surprised they lost $35M on $166M rev in 2015. I thought they were very close to profitability.

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.

Re: Twilio S-1

#27

Post by [deleted] »

markolschesky wrote: post #12

Had no idea that WhatsApp was even a Twilio customer let alone one of its largest. >We currently generate significant revenue from WhatsApp and the loss of WhatsApp could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. >In 2013, 2014 and 2015 and the three months ended March 31, 2016, WhatsApp accounted for 11%, 13%, 17% and 15% of our revenue, respectively. WhatsApp uses our Programmable Voice prod…

[deleted]

Re: Twilio S-1

#28

Post by [deleted] »

rory096 wrote: post #10
liquidise wrote: post #6

I continue to be surprised by the trend of companies who have fallen short of profitability filing for IPO's. So often i find myself asking "is this the best for the company and its employees or is it best for the investors who want a faster return, at the expense of the company and its employees?"

We can't complain about individual (non-accredited) investors getting locked out of fast-growing tech companies and simultaneously complain when companies IPO when they've reached significant revenue but not yet hit profitability. IPOs are a capital-raising event; if companies only did them when they were profitable they'd be no more than VCs cashing in after they've milked out all the good upside potential.

[deleted]

Re: Twilio S-1

#29

Post by BinaryIdiot »

markolschesky wrote: post #12

Had no idea that WhatsApp was even a Twilio customer let alone one of its largest. >We currently generate significant revenue from WhatsApp and the loss of WhatsApp could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. >In 2013, 2014 and 2015 and the three months ended March 31, 2016, WhatsApp accounted for 11%, 13%, 17% and 15% of our revenue, respectively. WhatsApp uses our Programmable Voice prod…

That's pretty interesting. Surely WhatsApp has used their leverage to get lower rates with Twilio that others do not get...right? I'm assuming WhatsApp knew to some degree but I wonder if they knew just how high that percentage was.

Re: Twilio S-1

#30

Post by toomuchtodo »

runako wrote: post #26
karangoeluw wrote: post #5

I love Twilio, but I'm a little surprised they lost $35M on $166M rev in 2015. I thought they were very close to profitability.

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.

Post reply on HN