311–320 of 469 posts
"Our revenue was $105.2 million, $220.5 million, and $400.6 million in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively, representing annual growth of 110% and 82%, respectively. Our growth is global with international revenue representing 34%, 34%, and 36% of total revenue in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. We continue to invest in growing our business to capitalize on our market opportunity. As a re…
Lyft, Uber, Zoom, Beyond Meat and now, Slack Is there any benefit of Public at this point of time? or Just a trend to grab as much as Wallet share from the average investor?
- 5 processes
- over 850M in swap
- over 310M PSS (Proportional set size which is the only indicator showing true memory usage)
This is over 1 Gb total. Despite high memory usage, they don't provide 32-bit version for Linux. It is surprising how such product can become profitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, these guys do have a good way to make money. Enterprise contracts are worth their weight in gold. As you could see from the quote, their revenue has increased more than their losses - which mean that they are on their way to become profitable. Arguably they could be now, if they didn't invest in growth as much.
> their revenue has increased more than their losses But "net loss" already takes revenue into account! "Loss" is not the same thing as "expenses". The revenue increased substantially, but so did expenses , resulting in a slight decrease in loss over the past 3 years. At the current rate, the company would reach break-even profitability around the year 2070.
With just modest revenue growth they'll be able to optimize towards profit whenever they choose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guess what? You can actually see in an S-1 what it costs. S&M = $233,191 for 2019 More than half their revenue is spent acquiring new customers...which, with a high likelihood, will net revenue over a N+1 year timeframe. This is an investors wet dream... I pay $1 now and I only need $.15 to operate that $1 every year for the next 7 years...that's a helluva return. In other words...you can turn off the S&M tap and the…
I think your point still stands but some of that S&M can never be cut because of churn and is highly susceptible to interference from competitors. Slack doesn't have that much lock-in and a lot of people have their sights on that market -- "Cheaper than Slack and bundled with Office365/G Suite" is an extremely tempting offer.
Their API is also quite good IMO, which provides a sort of lock-in, though not a huge one.
Lyft, Uber, Zoom, Beyond Meat and now, Slack Is there any benefit of Public at this point of time? or Just a trend to grab as much as Wallet share from the average investor?
I wouldn't really club Zoom in with the rest of the tech IPO's, they've shown a profit and seem to be able to stay that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thats still only half as much as Lyfts $100M/year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19282624
Lyft is arguably solving a much harder problem than essentially IRC
Both are solving really tough problems involving a lot of users and a lot of data.
I think historical accounting practices and standards are not great at evaluating SaaS businesses. We came up with the concept of depreciation/amortization as a way to better match up expenses with revenues in a given time frame. I think we need a similar mechanism for allocating sales & marketing costs. My company spends about $1,000/year on Slack. We likely will in perpetuity, as long as we/Slack exists. Slack spen…
This is starting to sound very similar to mark-to-market accounting, and the one word associated with "mark-to-market" is "Enron".
From http://www.creditpulse.com/accountingfinance/lessons-enron/e...
> Basically, mark-to-market is a type of accounting that enables a company to book the value of an asset or a liability, not based on the cost of that asset, but based on current market valuations or perceived changes in market valuations.
What got Enron started down the path to ruin is the SEC granted them a waiver where they could start pricing their projects by their perceived value. Problem was, the perceived value was anything that Enron said it was. So that let Enron inflate their holdings, which gave them access to more capital, which let them keep on inflating their holdings until the whole thing came crashing down.
Of course, the asset values weren't just what Enron said they were. They had auditors backing up their claims. One of the Big 5 financial auditors. And as a result, Arthur Anderson also went down in flames along with Enron.
So, in your case, who decides what the LTV of customer cash flows is? The Enron lesson is let speculators use their hunches to guess the future, but keep that speculation out of the official accounting documents.
"Our revenue was $105.2 million, $220.5 million, and $400.6 million in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively, representing annual growth of 110% and 82%, respectively. Our growth is global with international revenue representing 34%, 34%, and 36% of total revenue in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. We continue to invest in growing our business to capitalize on our market opportunity. As a re…
Is there any other industry where a company can go public having lost $500,000,000 over the last 3 years? I get it their “market share” is increasing every year and the loses are staying the same...and even that is not the full picture of a path to profit. But if the company could turn a profit, then why not do it privately, show that and then go public? My guess like Uber and Lyft...they can’t turn a profit, and for…
Think of companies more like hydrofoils on lava than like barges.
"Our revenue was $105.2 million, $220.5 million, and $400.6 million in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively, representing annual growth of 110% and 82%, respectively. Our growth is global with international revenue representing 34%, 34%, and 36% of total revenue in fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. We continue to invest in growing our business to capitalize on our market opportunity. As a re…
Is there any other industry where a company can go public having lost $500,000,000 over the last 3 years? I get it their “market share” is increasing every year and the loses are staying the same...and even that is not the full picture of a path to profit. But if the company could turn a profit, then why not do it privately, show that and then go public? My guess like Uber and Lyft...they can’t turn a profit, and for…
However, in biotech these days, an IPO is a funding event, not just an exit. On average biotech companies that IPO do so ~3 years after Series A. Average post-money of recent biotech IPOs is $754M, and 20% see their share price double in the year after IPO. Many of these companies raise additional cash in the public markets before they are acquired. So in biotech, public offerings are analogous to late stage VC / growth rounds in tech, and IPOs in tech are more akin to M&A exits in biotech (although big M&A exits in biotech are actually happening faster than big IPO exits in tech)
Source is analysis I did of SEC filings: https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/ipo_2018_q12019.html