5 ms·

~4000 employees generating revenue of 760m, which vendors get a big chunk of, doesn't seem super impressive. I mean it's a nice amount of income, but it doesn't

by ajg1977 16y ago

~4000 employees generating revenue of 760m, which vendors get a big chunk of, doesn't seem super impressive. I mean it's a nice amount of income, but it doesn't seem very 'whoa..'.

chaz 16y ago
23x the prior year's earnings, more than a third coming from overseas, and founded in 2008? Sounds pretty impressive to me.
- olivercameron 16y ago
  With nearly $1 billion in funding, it'd be very disappointing to not be generating revenue at a very high level.
  - chaz 16y ago
    Assuming the rumors were true, they could have been bought for $6bn in November by Google on ~$750mm 2010 revenue after three rounds totaling $171mm -- an outstanding return. However, they chose to turn down the offer, and take on fourth round of nearly $1bn in Dec/Jan and (presumably) grow internationally. It's a bet by the board that they can grab land faster than anyone else.
  - dshankar 16y ago
    Check your facts. They turned $166M in funding (as of Dec 2010) into $760M in revenue for 2010. How the hell is $1B in funding in Jan 2011 going to retroactively affect revenue in 2010??
    - olivercameron 16y ago
      All I am saying is that if investors are willing to invest $1 billion, the company should be pulling in pretty high revenues, regardless of the time they raised the money. Jeez.
  - portman 16y ago
    Also, a large percentage of that was secondary, meaning it went to existing shareholders. So the actual primary funding was much less. Edit: Hypothetical numbers for illustration purposes only: A invests $100M in company. B purchases half of A's shares for $200M. C purchases half of B's shares for $300M. D purchases remaining A shares for $400M. So although they have "raised" $1B, the only amount that has been invested in the company is $100M.
DevX101 16y ago
How's your company doing?
vaksel 16y ago
back of napkin math: 50% goes to vendors, so that's down to 380mm 4,000 employees at average of $50K, comes out to 200mm 180mm remaining...they advertise pretty aggressively, so let's say they spend 100mm on ads(probably less). Which still leaves them with 80mm in profit
- iisbum 16y ago
  I know it's back of the napkin accounting, but lets not forget all the other operational costs? - Credit card processing on all transactions (3%?) - Office space for 4000 employees - Taxes - etc Would take another huge chunk out of that 80mm

by ajg1977 16y ago

~4000 employees generating revenue of 760m, which vendors get a big chunk of, doesn't seem super impressive. I mean it's a nice amount of income, but it doesn't seem very 'whoa..'.

chaz 16y ago

23x the prior year's earnings, more than a third coming from overseas, and founded in 2008? Sounds pretty impressive to me.

olivercameron 16y ago
With nearly $1 billion in funding, it'd be very disappointing to not be generating revenue at a very high level.
- chaz 16y ago
  Assuming the rumors were true, they could have been bought for $6bn in November by Google on ~$750mm 2010 revenue after three rounds totaling $171mm -- an outstanding return. However, they chose to turn down the offer, and take on fourth round of nearly $1bn in Dec/Jan and (presumably) grow internationally. It's a bet by the board that they can grab land faster than anyone else.
- dshankar 16y ago
  Check your facts. They turned $166M in funding (as of Dec 2010) into $760M in revenue for 2010. How the hell is $1B in funding in Jan 2011 going to retroactively affect revenue in 2010??
  - olivercameron 16y ago
    All I am saying is that if investors are willing to invest $1 billion, the company should be pulling in pretty high revenues, regardless of the time they raised the money. Jeez.
- portman 16y ago
  Also, a large percentage of that was secondary, meaning it went to existing shareholders. So the actual primary funding was much less. Edit: Hypothetical numbers for illustration purposes only: A invests $100M in company. B purchases half of A's shares for $200M. C purchases half of B's shares for $300M. D purchases remaining A shares for $400M. So although they have "raised" $1B, the only amount that has been invested in the company is $100M.

DevX101 16y ago

How's your company doing?

vaksel 16y ago

back of napkin math: 50% goes to vendors, so that's down to 380mm 4,000 employees at average of $50K, comes out to 200mm 180mm remaining...they advertise pretty aggressively, so let's say they spend 100mm on ads(probably less). Which still leaves them with 80mm in profit

iisbum 16y ago
I know it's back of the napkin accounting, but lets not forget all the other operational costs? - Credit card processing on all transactions (3%?) - Office space for 4000 employees - Taxes - etc Would take another huge chunk out of that 80mm