Live data from Hacker News

Slack S-1

sec.gov

351–360 of 469 posts

Re: Slack S-1

#351
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Slack has a huge opportunity in front of them (become the messaging platform for every business that exists). How about: being bought by Microsoft.

I don't think Microsoft would buy Slack given the money they've dumped into developing and promoting Teams. Seems they're too far gone at this point. Disclosure: Work at MSFT, not on Teams.

Not because of the software, but because of the customers and the dev team?

Re: Slack S-1

#352
post #11

"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…

I think the bigger question is why they're losing so much money - from an operating perspective I'd expect costs to be really low.

Re: Slack S-1

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules are about what information is disclosed. The difference is that with public companies, there are rules about what actually gets disclosed and how often. That's why the general public is allowed to invest. It's about how much information is available, not what that information actually is. Investors need to determine whether or not they invest. In no world is the SEC's role to determine whether or not a comp…

>In no world is the SEC's role to determine whether or not a company's business strategy qualifies them to go public or not. Profitability is objective...let’s not pretend what I’m suggesting is the SEC subjectively making a decision on a business judgement or business plan. Simply you want to register a security for public offering show a GAAP profit...I understand that’s not “how it works” or I wouldn’t have sugges…

So if you want to fundraise, you must be profitable? If that’s the case, what’s the point of fundraising? A lemonade stand is more profitable than Slack, but the upside potential for Slack is vastly greater. So showing a GAAP profit suggests that a lemonade stand is more valuable and worthy of an investment than Slack?

Should Tesla be delisted? How about Amazon? They didn’t make a profit for the majority of their existence. GAAP profits as a condition of listing is just ridiculous. Almost all green energy companies lose money, so what you seem to be implying is that the public shouldn’t be allowed to invest in the Teslas of the world because they aren’t profitable?

An IPO is a fundraising event. That’s all. If we are to say that no company should be able to fundraise if they have loses, then very, very few companies would ever have access to capital. An IPO isn’t an endorsement by the SEC, not should it be.

Re: Slack S-1

#354
> None of our stockholders are party to any contractual lock-up agreement or other contractual restrictions on transfer. Following our listing, sales of substantial amounts of our Class A common stock in the public markets or the perception that sales might occur, could cause the market price of our Class A common stock to decline.

Direct listing!

Re: Slack S-1

#355
post #11

"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…

I suspect there aren't many other industries where a company can go from zero to a $1.6Bn exit in a year and a half (YouTube) -- while losing money, no less. Or from zero to a $19Bn exit in 5 years (WhatsApp).

Re: Slack S-1

#356
post #33
post #11

"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…

It’s still mind boggling that all these unicorns haven’t found a way to make money even after being in business for years and having a mature product. It’s a strange world.

They haven't found a way to be profitable because they are not seeking a way to be profitable.

Re: Slack S-1

#357
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SEC fundamentally believes it's ok to lose money investing. It's up to you to assess the investments and decide where to put your money.

That’s not the point/issue though. The markets are regulated to protect consumers/investors...private companies can’t just have unregistered public offerings to non accredited investors...so it’s not just “up to you to assess the investments” there are rules and nothing is stopping additional rules to not permit registration of a public offering when the company is operating at a $150,000,000.00 annual loss or more t…

The investors see the big number in the first table of the S-1. What more do you want?

Re: Slack S-1

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICO’s and Ponzi scheme involve misrepresentations to the investor and/or theft

But you agree people still want to invest in them right? I think ICO proved that there is a market for known fraud/pump and dumps, you may think you can get in and out and make a buck because a bunch of morons don’t see the fraud.

>But you agree people still want to invest in them right

No... people may want to invest in them because they are being actively mislead. You can't just ignore the fraud aspect, it literally makes all the difference.

Re: Slack S-1

#359

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.

I guarantee you that Microsoft has not lost money on Teams at the same growth rate. Why does Slack get a pass for that?

How are you able to guarantee that?

Re: Slack S-1

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (we'd lose our message history). You can't export your data from Slack?

It's rough. We thought about switching to Microsoft Teams and we realized that so many decisions about our relatively young company were tucked in DMs and private channels in Slack that we couldn't leave. Email is non-sticky (just take your emails/save them on client and leave) Files storage is non-sticky (just move your files from OneDrive to GDrive) Chat/Collaboration is sticky as mud.

Chat only is if you’ve chosen slack or some other proprietary format.
Post reply on HN