Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘IPO news’ Category

Article from GigaOm.

“In some cases, cloud computing is merely a means to avoid investing in “undifferentiated heavy lifting,” but when done right, it actually can be a source of significant competitive advantage. So says Zynga, at least, which highlighted its unique cloud infrastructure, as well as its advanced analytics efforts, as part of its core strengths in the S-1 statementit filed this morning.

According to the form, Zynga views its “scalable technology infrastructure” as a core strength, stating, “We have created a scalable cloud-based server and network infrastructure that enables us to deliver games to millions of players simultaneously with high levels of performance and reliability.” In describing its cloud infrastructure as an important aspect of its business, Zynga’s S-1 says:

Our physical network infrastructure utilizes a mixture of our own datacenters and public cloud datacenters linked with high-speed networking. We utilize commodity hardware, and our architecture is designed for high availability and fault tolerance while accommodating the demands of social game play.

We have developed our architecture to work effectively in a flexible cloud environment that has a high degree of elasticity. For example, our automatic provisioning tools have enabled us to add up to 1,000 servers in a 24-hour period in response to game demand. We operate at a scale that routinely delivers more than one petabyte of content per day. We intend to invest in and use more of our own infrastructure going forward, which we believe will provide us with an even better cost profile and position us to further drive operating leverage.

Zynga has been touting its Z Cloud infrastructure for more than a year, which reverses the conventional approach to hybrid cloud computing. Whereas many analysts initially assumed companies would use private clouds as a gateway to public clouds, Zynga uses Amazon EC2 as a staging ground before ultimately moving games onto private cloud resources. Essentially, Amazon’s cloud lets Zynga scale elastically and determine average traffic load and other metrics, so that it can optimize its internal infrastructure for each game’s specific needs.

The goal of this strategy is efficiency: Zynga doesn’t have to invest in more resources than necessary upfront, nor does it have to worry about underprovisioning resources or otherwise inadequately configuring them when it brings games onto its private cloud. In many cases, private clouds can cost less than public clouds for applications with fairly stable usage patterns, and they help companies meet various requirements around security and compliance. Zynga uses Cloud.com for its private cloud infrastructure, as well as RightScale as a management layer that makes for a uniform experience in terms of managing both public and private resources.

As is the case with every leading web company, Zynga also highlights its big data strategy as a key differentiator. Describing its “sophisticated data analytics,” the S-1 notes, “The extensive engagement of our players provides over 15 terabytes of game data per day that we use to enhance our games by designing, testing and releasing new features on an ongoing basis. We believe that combining data analytics with creative game design enables us to create a superior player experience.”

Cloud computing and advanced analytics are double-edged swords, though. As Zynga’s S-1 acknowledges, relying on publicly hosted cloud computing resources makes it vulnerable to service outages like Amazon Web Services’ infamous April 2011 outage, which temporarily downed both FarmVille and CityVille. “If a particular game is unavailable when players attempt to access it or navigation through a game is slower than they expect, players may stop playing the game and may be less likely to return to the game as often, if at all,” the form states.

Relying on advanced infrastructures and analytics also means competing with companies such as Facebook, Google and others for employees skilled enough to keep Zynga’s operations on the cutting edge. Specifically, the company acknowledges, “game designers, product managers and engineers” are in high demand, making attracting and retaining them a resource-intensive process. In some cases, this has meant offering particularly attractive employees lucrative stock options, which could come back to bite the company. As it notes in the S-1, “[W]e expect that this [IPO] will create disparities in wealth among our employees, which may harm our culture and relations among employees.”

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

Article from SFGate.

“Facebook has sold about $6.6 million worth of its shares to the investment fund GSV Capital Corp. as the company is believed to be preparing for an initial public offering next year.

GSV said Monday that it had purchased 225,000 shares in the world’s most popular social network at an average price of $29.28 per share. The investment makes up about 15 percent of the publicly traded fund’s total portfolio.

On its website, GSV describes itself as a way for its investors to access “dynamic and rapidly growing” companies ahead of their IPOs.

The investment fund did not say how large its stake in Facebook is, compared with the company’s overall ownership, and did not offer clues to the overall valuation of the social network.

A $500 million investment in the Palo Alto company by Goldman Sachs and Digital Sky Technologies in January valued the company at $50 billion, though some anticipate the IPO will push the company to a valuation of as much as $100 billion.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from NYTimes.

“For Reid Hoffman, the chairman of LinkedIn, it took less than 30 minutes to earn himself an extra $200 million.

With the hours ticking down to his company’s stock market debut, Mr. Hoffman dialed into a conference call from San Francisco’s Ritz-Carlton hotel as his chief executive, Jeff Weiner, and a team of bankers raced up from Silicon Valley in a black S.U.V. to meet with potential investors.

Demand for shares was intense, and they decided to raise the offering price by $10, to around $45.

When trading began on May 19, LinkedIn did not open at $45. Or $55. Or $65. Instead, the first shares were snapped up for $83 each and soon soared past $100, showering a string of players with riches and signaling a gold rush that has not been seen since the giddy days of the tech frenzy a decade ago.

Now there are signs that a new technology bubble is inflating, this time centered on the narrow niche of social networking. Other tech offerings, like that of the Internet radio service Pandora last week, have struggled, and analysts have warned that overly optimistic investors could once again suffer huge losses.

That enthusiasm was on full display in the blockbuster debut of LinkedIn, which provides a window into how a small group — bankers and lawyers, employees who get in on the ground floor, early investors — is taking a hefty cut at each twist in the road from Silicon Valley start-up to Wall Street success story.

“The LinkedIn I.P.O. will be used very powerfully over the next year as these companies go public and bankers deal with Silicon Valley,” said Peter Thiel, the president of Clarium Capital in San Francisco and an early investor in PayPal, LinkedIn and Facebook. “It sets things up for the other big deals.”

The sharp run-up after the initial public offering set off a fierce debate among observers about whether the bankers had mispriced it and left billions on the table for their clients to pocket. But the pent-up demand for what was perceived as a hot technology stock set the stage for easy money to be made almost regardless of the offering price.

Naturally, Wall Street is enjoying a windfall. Technology I.P.O.’s have generated nearly $330 million this year in fees for the biggest banks and brokerages, nearly 10 times the haul for the same period last year, and the most since 2000.

Besides the $28.4 million in fees for LinkedIn’s underwriting team, which was led by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, there were also a few slices reserved for specialists like lawyers and accountants. Wilson Sonsini, the most powerful law firm in Silicon Valley, collected $1.5 million, while the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche earned $1.35 million.

Mr. Hoffman founded LinkedIn in March 2003 after making a fortune as an executive at PayPal, the online payments service, but even as LinkedIn grew and other employees and private backers got stakes, Mr. Hoffman retained 21.2 percent, giving him more than 19 million shares when it went public. He has kept nearly of all them, so for now his $858 million fortune — it was $667 million before the last-minute price hike — remains mostly on paper.

Mr. Weiner arrived more recently, in late 2008, after working at Yahoo and as an adviser to venture capital firms, but his welcome package included the right to buy 3.5 million shares at just $2.32. And they are not the only big winners who secured shares at levels far below the I.P.O. price.

For example, when LinkedIn raised cash in mid-2008, venture capital firms including Bessemer Venture Partners and Sequoia Capital, scooped up 6.6 million shares at $11.47 each in return for early financing. They have held on to the stock, but Goldman Sachs, which got 871,840 shares at $11.47, sold all of it for a one-day gain of nearly $30 million.

Scores of fortunate individuals also managed to profit.

Stephen Beitzel, a software engineer, worked at LinkedIn from its founding until March 2004, but kept his stock when he left. His shares are now worth $17 million, and he sold $1.3 million worth in the offering.”

Read the complete article here.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

“The tech industry’s initial public offering waveis showing no signs of slowing.

CafePress filed its S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday. The San Mateo, Calif.-based company is looking to raise up to $80 million in an IPO to be underwritten by J.P. Morgan, Cowen and Company, and Jefferies, according to the filing.

CafePress was founded in 1999 and sells user-customized products such as clothing, accessories, posters, stickers, and housewares through its flagship website CafePress.com. The company also owns a portfolio of other sites, such as CanvasOnDemand, which turns photographs into canvas artwork, and Imagekind.com, which sells artwork from independent artists.

CafePress is profitable and apparently growing. According to the filing, the company made $2.7 million in net income on $128 million in revenues in 2010. In the first three months of 2011, CafePress made $32 million in revenues, about 45 percent more than the $22 million it made in the first quarter of 2010. Last year, the company posted adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, debt and amortization (EBITDA) of $14.5 million.

But while the company’s financials are certainly solid, one could argue they’re not exactly spectacular. CafePress’ average order size has hovered around $47 for the past three years. The company’s top-line annual revenues have see-sawed recently, from $120 million in 2008, down to $103 million in 2009, and back up to $128 million in 2010. In the filing, CafePress blamed the 2009 dip on “macro-economic conditions in our primary markets that reduced discretionary spending by our customers coupled with the absence of election year sales.”

CafePress is just the latest in a recent series of Internet companies making moves toward the public markets. In the past month, LinkedIn, Yandex and Fusion-io have gone public, Groupon filed an S-1, and Kayak and Pandora have issued optimistic S-1 updates. Whether the activity represents another tech bubble or just a healthy and growing economy, it’s certainly shaping up to be a very busy summer for Silicon Valley.”

Read original post here.

 

Read Full Post »

Article from SFGate.

“The lofty language in Groupon’s initial public offering filing is prompting comparisons to Google’s highly anticipated premier seven years ago, as are the lofty valuations.

Various sources have pegged Groupon’s implied worth at $20 billion to $30 billion, dropping it squarely in the neighborhood of Google’s $27 billion at the time of its 2004 IPO.

Groupon is a fast-growing business, luring 83 million subscribers to its daily deal e-mails in 2 1/2 years. And it might end up a perfectly solid one. But for one simple reason and a lot of complicated ones, Groupon is no Google.

Here’s the simple one: Google reinvented an industry. Groupon tweaked one.

There are limits on how transformative a force the Chicago company can ever be, at least pursuing its current business model.

Why?

Strip away all the hope and hype surrounding Groupon and you’re left with this: It’s a coupon company. Its major innovation was to distribute them through e-mail instead of the Sunday paper.

Granted, Groupon does this very well, with a colorful corporate culture that has deservedly won it plenty of fans and attention. Andrew Mason is one of the most refreshing, entertaining and straightforward CEOs in the last decade. His letter in the IPO filing last week carried loud echoes of the “Don’t Be Evil” sentiment in Google’s S-1.

“We want the time people spend with Groupon to be memorable,” he wrote. “Life is too short to be a boring company.”

He added that the business is “better positioned than any company in history to reshape local commerce.”

But coupons have long had limited appeal among retailers and consumers for very specific reasons, and thus restricted sway over the larger retail market.

Small fraction used

In 2010, marketers distributed $485 billion worth of consumer packaged goods coupons, according to a report by NCH Marketing Services. But only about 1 percent of coupons are actually redeemed.

Everyone will occasionally take advantage of a deal that lands in their lap (or inbox), or wait for a sale on a high-priced item. But it’s a limited subset of people who routinely start their shopping by thinking, what can I buy, do or eat that’s on sale. Most people, most of the time know the brand, model or service they want and go from there. There’s no particularly compelling evidence that this is changing.

Here then is a key difference with Google: Thanks to the query you enter into its search engine, Google knows what you’re interested in at the precise point you’re ready to buy, and serves up ads to match.

Even its worst critics acknowledge this revolutionized advertising, bringing to the marketplace a level of scale and targeting never before seen. It unleashed a tectonic shift in how businesses spent their marketing dollars.

Since then, the Internet giant has plowed its huge profits into cutting edge research and development, pushing ahead the fields of information retrieval, language translation, image recognition, satellite imagery, self-driving cars and much, much more. There’s simply an order of magnitude difference in the respective levels of imagination and innovation on display at the two companies.

Reticent retailers

Groupon does remove some of the traditional friction surrounding discounts, by directly delivering deals that are increasingly personalized, while also – not incidentally – eliminating the stigma and hassle of clipping coupons. But the real sandpaper remains on the retail side.

Coupons are typically loss leaders, the discount a business is willing to swallow in order to get new customers in the door. By definition, such marketing tactics can only ever represent a sliver of the retail pie.”

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »