4 ms·
With nearly $1 billion in funding, it'd be very disappointing to not be generating revenue at a very high level.
by 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 agoAssuming 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 agoCheck 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 agoAll 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 agoAlso, 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.