Please find me a time when it was common to IPO with profits. Here's a hint: you won't find such a thing.
IPOs are fundraising events. High growth companies are almost by definition losing money. The idea is to raise money in order to fund expansion. Companies don't even attempt to be profitable during this phase.
My concern is how a company can compete in this scenario without VCs? I am not talking about the technical side of competition but about deploying an army of salesmen.
At some point can this be seen as a new kind of dumping?
Ya, intentionally running in the negative for years on end should be considered dumping. Maybe a rule if you IPO you can't be in the negative for the previous two years?
This isn't enough data to draw any conclusions, but it is interesting enough to ask the anonymous internet to finish the research since I'm tired tonight :)
A business may be profitable (i.e. revenues greater than costs) but still have negative cash flow. Imagine I'm opening a chain of lemonade stands. I open a new stand each month, at a capital outlay of $3600. The stand will last me 3 years, so only $100 per month per stand shows up as a cost on my income statement. So, as long as each stand can make more than $100 per month per stand in operating profit (revenue, less cost of goods sold, less my staff etc.) from its first month onward, my business is profitable.
My business would be profitable even if I were to open 1000 lemonade stands next month. However, it doesn't mean I have the $3.6m required.
In short, IPO can be about funding growth. Profits can be a poor indicator of cash requirements if significant marketing costs or capital items (all of which cost real cash) are spread over time in the company's accounts. (The accounting treatment is useful, though, as it matches revenues to the costs which generated them, even if they were incurred much earlier.)
An IPO is a fundraising event, companies usually go public to raise money (very few are profitable at IPO). If they are already profitable, what is the main benefit of going public, increased scrutiny, lawsuits, and quarterly expectations?
Liquidity for shareholders. A private company's shares are in most instances essentially worthless or are substantially discounted because the "value" of the shares can't meaningfully be converted into cash (because there is either no market or a very limited market for those shares). A public company's shares are highly liquidable.
Seems like they bought Zopim for 1,803,345 shares. In their S-1 They mention: "20,267,882 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options to purchase common stock that were outstanding as of December 31, 2013, with a weighted-average exercise price of $1.41 per share;"
Which would bring the Acq. price of Zopim to ~2.5mil USD, if I understood it properly.
I take that back. It sounds like the purchase price was closer to 15mil.
>> In March 2014, we completed an acquisition of Zopim. The purchase price of approximately $15.9 million ($5.0 million of cash and $10.9 million of our common stock) includes $1.1 million of cash and $2.4 million of common stock consideration held back between 12 and 18 months as partial security for standard indemnification obligations and which is payable in the future under terms specified in the stock purchase agreement. In connection with the acquisition of Zopim, we established a retention plan pursuant to which we will pay up to $13.9 million in cash and equity consideration over two and three years, respectively, to Zopim employees in connection with their continued employment.
Revenue - 2011: 15.6M, 2012: 38.2M, 2013: 72M
Losses - 2012: 24.4M, 2013: 22.6M
Seems like going IPO with losses is the new trend