CrowdStrike S-1
sec.gov
CrowdStrike S-1
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: CrowdStrike S-1
#2Anyone know why this is so popular and getting upvoted?
Re: CrowdStrike S-1
#3"We have incurred net losses in all periods since our inception, and we may not achieve or maintain profitability in the future. We experienced net losses of $91.3 million, $135.5 million, $140.1 million for fiscal 2017, fiscal 2018, and fiscal 2019, respectively. As of January 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $519.1 million."
Wow, I knew that they had great revenues and growth but this nugget is now becoming a common theme for all tech companies going IPO these days.
Re: CrowdStrike S-1
#4Anyone know why this is so popular and getting upvoted?
It's a filing for CrowdStrike to go public. They open their books for the public to view.
HN is a very entrepreneurial board and we applaud any Silicon Valley company going public.
Re: CrowdStrike S-1
#5Anyone know why this is so popular and getting upvoted?
Because it's yet another very unprofitable company's IPO... with a potential "profit window" in 10 centuries, when flying cars are a reality, robots take over the earth etc.
And all of this doesn't matter because the US has injected so much money with QE and so on the economy that even an American kid's 10 year old lemonade shop is worth a few billions.
Re: CrowdStrike S-1
#6Anyone know why this is so popular and getting upvoted?
Just to add, the relative lack of comments here is related to the density of information presented here relative to the age of the submission (so people haven't gotten through it yet).
Re: CrowdStrike S-1
#7Anyone know why this is so popular and getting upvoted?
Because it's yet another very unprofitable company's IPO... with a potential "profit window" in 10 centuries, when flying cars are a reality, robots take over the earth etc. And all of this doesn't matter because the US has injected so much money with QE and so on the economy that even an American kid's 10 year old lemonade shop is worth a few billions.
Are such IPOs any indicator of economic downturn to come?
Re: CrowdStrike S-1
#8Anyone know why this is so popular and getting upvoted?
HN has quite a few infosec professionals who have obtained a fair bit of swag and gotten reasonably drunk on CrowdStrike investors' dime at various security conference booths/events/parties.
The SG&A line item in their financials is relevant to their interests. Specifically, their sales/swag/booze operation cost over twice as much as their R&D operations ( $172MM vs $84MM in 2018 ). Or, to put it another way, getting CISOs sauced outside the Moscone is twice as important to them as actually producing the software for their blinky boxes.
If they can pull another $300MM from retail in an IPO, our blood alcohol content will be secured at cons for another two years, assuming they continue to burn $140MM annually.
Re: CrowdStrike S-1
#9Crowdstrike seems very well-connected politically. The DNC chose to have them forensically examine their hacked servers to the exclusion of the FBI.
Re: CrowdStrike S-1
#10"We have incurred net losses in all periods since our inception, and we may not achieve or maintain profitability in the future. We experienced net losses of $91.3 million, $135.5 million, $140.1 million for fiscal 2017, fiscal 2018, and fiscal 2019, respectively. As of January 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $519.1 million." Wow, I knew that they had great revenues and growth but this nugget is now becomi…
Yes, and usually for a pretty straightforward reason: these companies are investing substantial sums of money into buying market share, and, when they (a) win themselves a defensible position in the market and (b) generate enough revenue to prove the market to investors, they can cut back on those expenses and take profits. Meanwhile, investors are looking for growth and, more generally, future profits; nobody's all that interested in taking a Crowdstrike dividend this year.
If a dollar in profits taken today is multiple dollars in future profits left on the table, you can see why a business would engineer its finances to plow every cent back into the business.
Obviously, this plan can always go spectacularly wrong, but you can't just point to the strategy itself as evidence that will happen. You need an actual argument to back it up.