3 ms·
Note that sales and marketing accounts for 66.6% (yes really) of total operating expenses and "Sales and marketing expense [includes] datacenter and customer su
by jackgavigan 13y ago
Note that sales and marketing accounts for 66.6% (yes really) of total operating expenses and "Sales and marketing expense [includes] datacenter and customer support costs related to providing our cloud-based services to our free users." (p55).
Their Net Loss, as a % of revenues, is decreasing year-on-year:
13 months to 31 January 2012: -227%
12 months to 31 January 2013: -191%
12 months to 31 January 2014: -135%
You can project that curve forward and predict that they'll be cash-flow positive by the end of 2015.
I think that, if you were to ask Levie off the record (i.e. with the restrictions imposed by the SEC), he'd say that they've found a repeatable and scalable business model and that the company could become profitable in the not-too-distant future.
They could slow their expenses' growth rate further by ceasing to offer free storage to new users. If they really started running out of money, they could cut expenses significantly (and increase revenue a bit) by saying to existing users "No more free storage! Pay us $x/GB from next month or you'd better download your files because we'll delete 'em!"
I doubt they'll do that, though. I expect they'll simply keep selling and marketing and growing bigger and bigger, in the same way that Amazon studiously avoid profitability in order to keep growing and expanding.
Interesting, by the way, that Andreessen Horowitz don't show up in the list of >5% shareholders.
- davidjgraph 13y agoThis might be dense, but why would you measure net loss as a % of revenues? That calculation uses revenues twice, each $ of revenue reduces loss by a $. Surely, it should be expenses as a % of revenue? Edit : Sorry, I'm not asking what it is, I'm wondering why a trend in that particular metric points towards profitability, one day.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jackgavigan 13y agoIt was easier. The end result (in terms of projecting forward) is the same however you do it. PS: It's not dense, by the way - fair question. > Edit : Sorry, I'm not asking what it is, I'm wondering why a trend in that particular metric points towards profitability, one day. For the purposes of a "finger in the air" projection of when they'll hit profitability, it doesn't matter whether you use "Net Loss as a % of Revenues" or "Expenses as a % of Revenues" because, as you pointed out, Net Loss = [Expenses - Revenues]. The numbers are different (by 100 percentage points) but the general shape of the curve is the same. If you extrapolate the curve out, you get to break-even in 2015. It's completely unscientific. I'm basically pulling numbers out of my ass. I have an MBA, you see. ;-)