4 ms·

I love the software, though this kind of feels like the Dot Com bubble all over again.

• acchow 7y ago
  Companies didn't even have revenues back then.
• patio11 7y ago
  I would encourage people to read the Pets.com 10-Q to understand what the dot com bubble was like from a corporate finance perspective, because there are deeper lessons than "Some companies with substantial Internet operations IPOed." https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1100683/000089161800004394/e10-q.txt https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1100683/000089161800... Pets.com paid $10.5M for pet food then sold it for $8.7M, while needing $23M to keep the lights on that quarter. Compare to https://sec.report/Document/0001628280-19-004786/ https://sec.report/Document/0001628280-19-004786/ : Slack, unsurprisingly because it sells software, has positive gross margins rather than negative gross margins; they're healthy at ~80%. They appear to be able to turn $1 of sales and marketing spend in Year 1 into > $1 of software revenue in year 2. Their churn rate on a dollar basis is 43%. Excuse me, -43%; a cohort of SaaS customers paying $100M in year 1 will pay $143M in year 2 due to growth in number of seats more than offsetting churning accounts. There is no price at which a rational person should want to own Pets.com. There is, very clearly, a price at which a rational person should want to own Slack.
  • tantalor 7y ago
    > a price at which a rational person... This price is not that.
• paxys 7y ago
  I don't think people who say this were even around at the time of the dotcom bubble. There were public companies adding "tech" to their names and seeing their values rise 10x in a day. THAT was a bubble.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]