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

51–60 of 229 posts

Re: Twilio S-1

#51

Post by fraserharris »

hamana wrote: post #45

> 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.

Thats 12% of > $1B. Those "vulture capitalists" have invested >$230M into Twilio at various valuations to help it grow.

Re: Twilio S-1

#54

Post by mikekij »

breaker05 wrote: post #3

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

Holy crap. This is the best $0.89 I've ever spent. I'd like to nominate GoatAttack.com as an IPO candidate. Are you listening, Goldman?

Re: Twilio S-1

#55

Post by alex_sf »

karangoeluw wrote: post #39
runako wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just absurd that a company can't be profitable with 28M paying users some of which include Uber and WhatsApp.

You're looking at it wrong. Twilio _could_ be profitable with 28M users, easily, but they'd rather not be profitable and spend more money on expansion.

Re: Twilio S-1

#56

Post by wodenokoto »

karangoeluw wrote: post #39
runako wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just absurd that a company can't be profitable with 28M paying users some of which include Uber and WhatsApp.

They can but choose not to, seems to be what the parent is saying.

You can look at it like they are borrowing 35 million a year on top of their profits in order to fuel their expansion

Re: Twilio S-1

#58

Post by krschultz »

anandjoseph wrote: post #53

Twilio is ranked #224 [1] in the Paysa [2] CompanyRank that ranks companies based on the quality of talent the company is hiring/retaining. [1] https://www.paysa.com/company-rank#!companies=Twilio%2C+Inc.... [2] https://www.paysa.com/

Stop spamming for Paysa. 100% of your comments are blatant advertisements.

Re: Twilio S-1

#59

Post by bdcs »

karangoeluw wrote: post #39
runako wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just absurd that a company can't be profitable with 28M paying users some of which include Uber and WhatsApp.

All nonprofitability means is they expect ROI on dollars spent today. In other words a dollar spent today will, in their model, increase their future (discounted) free cash flow. In even more words, profit is when a company runs out of investible ideas (within the assumptions of their hopefully convincing model). The size of the company has nothing to do with it (canonical example is Amazon where you can change the 28M users to at least 280M and rev in the billions).
Post reply on HN