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

Compass S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Compass S-1

#91

Post by username2021 »

nknealk wrote: post #11
twostorytower wrote: post #3

$270M loss on $3.7B in revenue. If they can get opex down, there's some serious money to be made and a lot of growth left here. In my neighborhood I'm seeing more and more houses go up for sale with Compass signs.

Their single biggest expense is “commission and other transaction related expenses” which clocks in at just over 3B. I don’t know how much control they really have over commissions.

The broker controls commission splits so they have all the control. The problem is that if they don’t offer fantastic commission splits to agents then the agents will go work for another brokerage. At some point, it’s advantageous to work for a different broker because they’ll offer a better commission split and enable them to standout apart from the crowd.

Re: Compass S-1

#92

Post by vineyardmike »

bostonsre wrote: post #40
vineyardmike wrote: post #4

> On the date of this prospectus, Robert Reffkin, our founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, will hold all of the shares of our Class C common stock > Each share of Class A common stock is entitled to one vote per share. Each share of Class C common stock is entitled to 20 votes per share I'm surprised no one has proposed laws trying too crack down on founders have super-control of their company through stock…

It seems like behavior that the SEC should be pushing back on. They're charged with protecting investors and it seems like investors having no say in company management would be in conflict with that charge.

Well said! This is the reasoning that I had when posturing the question.

Re: Compass S-1

#93

Post by bostonsre »

boh wrote: post #85
bostonsre wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no case to be made that "super control" inherently leads to unethical behavior. You are saying it like it's been proven. What are companies where is gone well? I can't think of many examples whether inside or outside of the market where absolute control has gone well.

Voting rights don't give you "absolute control".

Seems like you are splitting hairs and arguing about semantics. If you don't want to call it absolute control then it's whatever is currently in place at Facebook where Zuckerberg has majority voting rights and has stacked the board with yes men. He controls policy, he controls the direction of the company. If that's not controlling something absolutely, then what is it?

Re: Compass S-1

#94

Post by meestaahjoshee »

anonu wrote: post #26
boh wrote: post #16

Its a little silly how easily a company can categorize itself as a technology company. Many of the IPOs from the past two years suggests having a website and/or having an app doesn't just make you into a tech company (WeWork is a good example of this). Compass is no doubt eager to foster unreasonable expectations for growth that surpasses the business they're actually in (as real estate brokers) and prefer to imbued…

Agreed. This point from the S1 stood out: > on average, 88% of our agent teams used our proprietary technology platform at least once per week, This doesnt sound like they built some insane tech that everyone needs to use all the time. So how exactly is the a differentiator?

"...of which approximately two-thirds used it daily"

it's not insane tech but it's not like it's not being touched either.

Re: Compass S-1

#95

Post by twostorytower »

onethought wrote: post #48
nknealk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their single biggest expense is “commission and other transaction related expenses” which clocks in at just over 3B. I don’t know how much control they really have over commissions.

Running realestate commissions through your books to pump your "revenue" seems a bit crappy... So really they have 700mil revenue.

I think it's actually correct in accounting terms, but their COGS will be high.

Re: Compass S-1

#96

Post by boh »

bostonsre wrote: post #93
boh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting rights don't give you "absolute control".

Seems like you are splitting hairs and arguing about semantics. If you don't want to call it absolute control then it's whatever is currently in place at Facebook where Zuckerberg has majority voting rights and has stacked the board with yes men. He controls policy, he controls the direction of the company. If that's not controlling something absolutely, then what is it?

Semantics denote meaning, so splitting hairs on the meaning of a statement is an adequate subject for argument. You're making broad assumptions about the nature of voting rights in general by referencing an individual narrative regarding one company. You're also oversimplifying the narrative. The aggregate activities of a company cannot be denoted through some parable about an evil man with "absolute power". Rest assured, whatever has happened with Facebook was a team effort involving many different stakeholders.

Re: Compass S-1

#97

Post by bostonsre »

boh wrote: post #96
bostonsre wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you are splitting hairs and arguing about semantics. If you don't want to call it absolute control then it's whatever is currently in place at Facebook where Zuckerberg has majority voting rights and has stacked the board with yes men. He controls policy, he controls the direction of the company. If that's not controlling something absolutely, then what is it?

Semantics denote meaning, so splitting hairs on the meaning of a statement is an adequate subject for argument. You're making broad assumptions about the nature of voting rights in general by referencing an individual narrative regarding one company. You're also oversimplifying the narrative. The aggregate activities of a company cannot be denoted through some parable about an evil man with "absolute power". Rest ass…

> The aggregate activities of a company cannot be denoted through some parable about an evil man with "absolute power".

Where was evil mentioned at all? Why is comparing countries with dictatorships to companies where majority ownership is held by one person not allowed? Are you really saying there are no commonalities between the two at all and any similarities are to be outright ignored because they're not the same? Of course they are not the same, but they are both massive bureaucratic organizations where a few individuals have an iron grip on control.

> Rest assured, whatever has happened with Facebook was a team effort involving many different stakeholders.

I'm not sure the past of facebook matters, what is its state right now? To me, it looks like zuckerberg has stacked the board with yes men and there is not a single thing that anyone can do from within the organization to go against him. Call it whatever you want, but he seems to be controlling it pretty absolutely at the moment. He _literally_ idolizes and models himself after Agustus Caesar. He sees the use in studying historical tyrannical governments, so it seems possible to me that there could be something useful in the comparison and that it shouldn't be dismissed outright because it's not exactly the same.

Post reply on HN