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

Bill.com Files for $100M IPO

news.crunchbase.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Bill.com Files for $100M IPO

#21

Post by uptown »

barry-cotter wrote: post #19
uptown wrote: post #15

"We were incorporated in 2006 and have experienced net losses and negative cash flows from operations since inception." 13 years of unprofitability?

If you have positive return on cash invested people will be happy to keep giving you more money for decades even if you plough all your profits back into expansion. Amazon has had the option of returning profits for decades and has always aimed to just barely make a profit. > Amazon was founded in 1994, first traded publicly in 1997, and didn’t turn a profit until 2001. https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/031…

Amazon is clearly an outlier. Let’s not equate every unprofitable company with them.

Re: Bill.com Files for $100M IPO

#23

Post by masonic »

fmpwizard wrote: post #8

Somewhat off topic but, when I simply typed the site bill.com on Firefox's private browsing, scrolled down a bit, they show me a popup to chat and they have my first and last name there. The same thing happened when I went on my cell using Firefox Focus, which doesn't keep any cookies. 1. Anyone else seeing this? 2. I hate it 3. Where do they get this info from?

I got right into their site, but boy, what a godawful chat popup (which doesn't actually let you chat).

Re: Bill.com Files for $100M IPO

#24

Post by t34543 »

I used bill.com and ran quite a bit of money through there but I find the UX to be terrible. Second only to WorkDay.

I never asked but maybe the accounting team loves it. As an approver and receiver (separate companies) it never made sense to me. I used it only because I had to.

Re: Bill.com Files for $100M IPO

#25

Post by barry-cotter »

uptown wrote: post #21
barry-cotter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have positive return on cash invested people will be happy to keep giving you more money for decades even if you plough all your profits back into expansion. Amazon has had the option of returning profits for decades and has always aimed to just barely make a profit. > Amazon was founded in 1994, first traded publicly in 1997, and didn’t turn a profit until 2001. https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/031…

Amazon is clearly an outlier. Let’s not equate every unprofitable company with them.

Not every company is Amazon but Bill.com is showing 57% year on year growth this year after 71% last year, with over $35m in quarterly revenue for the last quarter. With those kinds of numbers they can invest less in customer acquisition and turn on the money tap any time they want.

> Bill.com reported about $35.2 million in total revenue for the third quarter of 2019, representing nearly 57 percent year-over-year growth compared to $22.4 million in total revenue for the third quarter of 2018. For context, Bill.com’s total revenue grew 71 percent between the third quarter of 2017 and the third quarter of 2018. The company’s growth is slowing down, which isn’t unusual as companies mature.

Re: Bill.com Files for $100M IPO

#26

Post by pbreit »

usmannk wrote: post #3

Important that they're aiming to _raise_ $100MM, not going public at a $100MM valuation as I first thought. Funny how IPOing to raise capital has become secondary to IPOing to provide liquidity in this late stage of the tech credit cycle.

IPOs have always historically been fundraising events.

Re: Bill.com Files for $100M IPO

#27

Post by pbreit »

uptown wrote: post #15

"We were incorporated in 2006 and have experienced net losses and negative cash flows from operations since inception." 13 years of unprofitability?

Tired comment. Software companies have huge margins and can easily become profitable by scaling back investment.

Re: Bill.com Files for $100M IPO

#29

Post by edoceo »

t34543 wrote: post #24

I used bill.com and ran quite a bit of money through there but I find the UX to be terrible. Second only to WorkDay. I never asked but maybe the accounting team loves it. As an approver and receiver (separate companies) it never made sense to me. I used it only because I had to.

Checkout transferwise. Similar function, less jank
Post reply on HN