3 ms·

>you're suggesting that "public investors shouldn't have access to loss making companies, regardless of growth". No that’s not what I’m saying...there is a dif

>you're suggesting that "public investors shouldn't have access to loss making companies, regardless of growth". No that’s not what I’m saying...there is a difference between a company that is registering for an IPO and an existing publicly traded company. And let’s not pretend Tech companies IPOing at losses is somehow protection to small investors...I don’t see anyone clamoring to allow these small investor be allowed to get in on unicorns pre IPO.

nugget 7y ago
>I don’t see anyone clamoring to allow these small investor be allowed to get in on unicorns pre IPO Really? This sentiment is blanketed all over HN and other investment forums. One of the major macro changes to the investment landscape is rapidly growing companies staying private longer such that the gains benefit a much smaller pool of investors.
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  Doesn't everyone want the option to get in on these deals before they've been pumped and dumped? WE know the truth. The ipo buyers don't.
  - tomc1985 7y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted. Most of the major IPOs of the last few years seem to follow that hump-into-oblivion pattern after public markets get in on it
    - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
      I get down voted a lot. It's fine. People here don't like what I have to say. Little debate. Just down votes. I speak the true tho.
      - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
        See!
evrydayhustling 7y ago
Ok, then why is loss-making more acceptable (safer for small investors) in a formerly profitable company than it is for a not-yet-profitable company? And as others have pointed out you are exactly wrong about efforts to make public investment available earlier. Besides founders who would love to have more fundraising options, there is plenty of evidence and outcry that small investors are not getting access to economic growth: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/private-inequity/570808/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/private...
- chc 7y ago
  > Ok, then why is loss-making more acceptable (safer for small investors) in a formerly profitable company than it is for a not-yet-profitable company? One has demonstrated the ability to turn a profit and the other has not. This seems a bit like asking "Why is radiation considered a valid cancer treatment and rhino horn isn't when both have failed to help people before?"
  - evrydayhustling 7y ago
    People have a lot better info than total profitability to answer "can this make money" or not. Financial statements (like this S-1) do their best to separate out how much is being spent to keep customers from how much is spent to acquire them. In lots of cases (including this one) the company has proved that they have a profitable relationship with existing customers, and that they have tolerable-and-dropping costs in acquiring new customers (in this case it looks like they are breaking even on new customers in around 9 months). There are exceptions and sleight of hand (like when Uber doesn't reveal costs to get drivers, but this is 100% true for formerly-profitable companies too. You could make a much better argument for skipping on those, or by forcing more disclosure in S-1s. But painting broadly based on total profitability is just too simplistic.
caprese 7y ago
The answer is “yes, all industries where investors dont care about that” and luckily for investors there is nothing else to invest in
scarejunba 7y ago
Dude, why don't you just not invest and leave the rest of us to lose our money? If I want to capitalize someone I should be allowed to. The accredited investor thing is already bad enough.
- randoramax 7y ago
  Because there is large a social cost with allowing regular people and retirement investment funds to waste money in scams. I'm not saying that Slack IPO is a scam. I'm saying that if a majority of public companies cannot turn a profit ever then nobody will ever be able to retire, except the Madoffs that we didn't catch.
  - notSupplied 7y ago
    The Madoff scam has nothing to do with public companies being unable to turn a profit though.

nugget 7y ago

>I don’t see anyone clamoring to allow these small investor be allowed to get in on unicorns pre IPO Really? This sentiment is blanketed all over HN and other investment forums. One of the major macro changes to the investment landscape is rapidly growing companies staying private longer such that the gains benefit a much smaller pool of investors.

yeahitslikethat 7y ago
Doesn't everyone want the option to get in on these deals before they've been pumped and dumped? WE know the truth. The ipo buyers don't.
- tomc1985 7y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted. Most of the major IPOs of the last few years seem to follow that hump-into-oblivion pattern after public markets get in on it
  - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
    I get down voted a lot. It's fine. People here don't like what I have to say. Little debate. Just down votes. I speak the true tho.
    - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
      See!

evrydayhustling 7y ago

Ok, then why is loss-making more acceptable (safer for small investors) in a formerly profitable company than it is for a not-yet-profitable company? And as others have pointed out you are exactly wrong about efforts to make public investment available earlier. Besides founders who would love to have more fundraising options, there is plenty of evidence and outcry that small investors are not getting access to economic growth: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/private-inequity/570808/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/private...

chc 7y ago
> Ok, then why is loss-making more acceptable (safer for small investors) in a formerly profitable company than it is for a not-yet-profitable company? One has demonstrated the ability to turn a profit and the other has not. This seems a bit like asking "Why is radiation considered a valid cancer treatment and rhino horn isn't when both have failed to help people before?"
- evrydayhustling 7y ago
  People have a lot better info than total profitability to answer "can this make money" or not. Financial statements (like this S-1) do their best to separate out how much is being spent to keep customers from how much is spent to acquire them. In lots of cases (including this one) the company has proved that they have a profitable relationship with existing customers, and that they have tolerable-and-dropping costs in acquiring new customers (in this case it looks like they are breaking even on new customers in around 9 months). There are exceptions and sleight of hand (like when Uber doesn't reveal costs to get drivers, but this is 100% true for formerly-profitable companies too. You could make a much better argument for skipping on those, or by forcing more disclosure in S-1s. But painting broadly based on total profitability is just too simplistic.

caprese 7y ago

The answer is “yes, all industries where investors dont care about that” and luckily for investors there is nothing else to invest in

scarejunba 7y ago

Dude, why don't you just not invest and leave the rest of us to lose our money? If I want to capitalize someone I should be allowed to. The accredited investor thing is already bad enough.

randoramax 7y ago
Because there is large a social cost with allowing regular people and retirement investment funds to waste money in scams. I'm not saying that Slack IPO is a scam. I'm saying that if a majority of public companies cannot turn a profit ever then nobody will ever be able to retire, except the Madoffs that we didn't catch.
- notSupplied 7y ago
  The Madoff scam has nothing to do with public companies being unable to turn a profit though.