zlacker

[parent] [thread] 16 comments
1. fraser+(OP)[view] [source] 2017-01-13 04:37:54
Twitter finances (TTM):

revenue: $2.52B gross profit: $1.49B

It's only losing money because of stock grants.

replies(4): >>nickba+g1 >>Joachi+wa >>jessed+Ne >>maccar+om
◧
2. nickba+g1[view] [source] 2017-01-13 04:59:34
>>fraser+(OP)
Which is a lesson in how VC can easily destroy a viable, profitable business with a "money-chasing-money" strategy.
replies(2): >>nl+73 >>fraser+97
◧◩
3. nl+73[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 05:23:59
>>nickba+g1
How do you figure that?

1) VCs own hardly any shared of Twitter[1]

2) Stock grants are used as compensation for people working at Twitter, NOT something that benefits investors (except in the sense people are working at the company the investors invested in I guess).

It's easy to blame VCs for everything, but I don't see how this makes any sense at all in this case.

[1] http://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-owner...

replies(2): >>nickba+v6 >>EGreg+1M
◧◩◪
4. nickba+v6[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 06:18:59
>>nl+73
Who is in line for a buyout before other investors and at what multiplier? That information is usually not public and can be more important than what percentage of ownership a particular investor has.
replies(1): >>nl+Wo
◧◩
5. fraser+97[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 06:29:25
>>nickba+g1
Twitter IPO'd over 3 years ago.
◧
6. Joachi+wa[view] [source] 2017-01-13 07:27:04
>>fraser+(OP)
Okay, but don't these stock grants substitute for salary? It's not like Twitter could just stop granting stock with no ill effects.
replies(1): >>rco878+hD
◧
7. jessed+Ne[view] [source] 2017-01-13 08:37:26
>>fraser+(OP)
NYT story on the matter: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/business/dealbook/twitter...

TL;DR -- Twitter paid out about $680M in grants

◧
8. maccar+om[view] [source] 2017-01-13 10:34:01
>>fraser+(OP)
> It's only losing money because of stock grants.

That's like saying "We're only losing money because we have to pay our staff"

replies(1): >>acdha+eE
◧◩◪◨
9. nl+Wo[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 11:18:55
>>nickba+v6
They are a public company, with a single class of shareholder. They can all choose to buy or sell via the public market.

Your comments would make some sense if they were pre-IPO.

replies(1): >>nickba+U53
◧◩
10. rco878+hD[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 14:12:34
>>Joachi+wa
They pay pretty competitive salaries as well. The stock grants will eventually roll off as people's plans vest and are replaced with smaller ones(new employees have been getting smaller ones for a while already)
◧◩
11. acdha+eE[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 14:19:26
>>maccar+om
They do pay their staff. Unfortunately the stock compensation was based on the … highly optimistic … story they told around the IPO about growing to be as large as Google or Facebook. Why spend prudently when you're about to be stupid-rich?
replies(1): >>danude+GI1
◧◩◪
12. EGreg+1M[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 15:17:59
>>nl+73
Didn't USV invest in Twitter? Did they cash out after IPO?
replies(1): >>vram22+Y51
◧◩◪◨
13. vram22+Y51[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 17:32:52
>>EGreg+1M
>Didn't USV invest in Twitter?

They sure did. Fred Wilson (USV partner) has talked about it (Twitter as a portfolio company of USV) many times on his blog avc.com .

>Did they cash out after IPO?

Not sure.

replies(1): >>EGreg+kG1
◧◩◪◨⬒
14. EGreg+kG1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 21:34:48
>>vram22+Y51
Well otherwise what does it mean if they have a tiny part of an $18B company?
replies(1): >>vram22+a73
◧◩◪
15. danude+GI1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 21:53:35
>>acdha+eE
I can't count the number of companies I've seen die or collapse because of this mentality.
◧◩◪◨⬒
16. nickba+U53[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-14 20:16:40
>>nl+Wo
Derp, you're right. I'm an idiot.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
17. vram22+a73[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-14 20:33:50
>>EGreg+kG1
Ok got you. I had not read the OP. Interesting.
[go to top]