[Chambo]

But if they were swallowed whole by a small group of some other big names then they would be operating on a whole other level, management would be switched up and there would be a mass execution of staff... So who knows what would happen really. But I do fully agree it would destroy the company because it would either be cannibalized by other funders or crumble from within (this is all speculation and simply my opinion, and wtf do i know, im just a sales guy...)

On Deck has been fantasizing about this since inception in 2006.

[Ryan Shiroky]

On Deck has been fantasizing about this since inception in 2006.

Indeed. The day they are profitable they are going to start pushing that IPO. And as you said, its going to be the single worst thing they have ever done/desired.

What I don't understand... they are #2 in the space, HOW THE HELL are they NOT PROFITABLE?!?!?!? I don't see overhead as being a good excuse...

[jbrown]

Indeed. The day they are profitable they are going to start pushing that IPO. And as you said, its going to be the single worst thing they have ever done/desired.

What I don't understand... they are #2 in the space, HOW THE HELL are they NOT PROFITABLE?!?!?!? I don't see overhead as being a good excuse...

Easy. Keep raising capital from VC firms and selling a high growth story. Grow insanely now, profits come later. Until they don't and/or you can't continue to raise money. Then the wheels come off the bus (and the merchants go round and round...)

[Ryan Shiroky]

Easy. Keep raising capital from VC firms and selling a high growth story. Grow insanely now, profits come later. Until they don't and/or you can't continue to raise money. Then the wheels come off the bus (and the merchants go round and round...)

So, they are making VC firms ooohhhh and ahhhh while having their pockets turned out??? Wouldn't a VC (at some point in the meeting) ask "ok the growth is nice, but where is the ROI????"

[jbrown]

So, they are making VC firms ooohhhh and ahhhh while having their pockets turned out??? Wouldn't a VC (at some point in the meeting) ask "ok the growth is nice, but where is the ROI????"

Billions and billions were invested and lost in the dot.com crash of the late 90's based on investing in companies that reported the "# of eyeballs" they had captured. Not profits, not even revenues - just the future potential based on having lots of (non-paying) customers. Not the first time, and won't be the last time.

[Ryan Shiroky]

Billions and billions were invested and lost in the dot.com crash of the late 90's based on investing in companies that reported the "# of eyeballs" they had captured. Not profits, not even revenues - just the future potential based on having lots of (non-paying) customers. Not the first time, and won't be the last time.

I totally understand that... but it still makes no sense...

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

[Gini Co]

Indeed. The day they are profitable they are going to start pushing that IPO. And as you said, its going to be the single worst thing they have ever done/desired.

What I don't understand... they are #2 in the space, HOW THE HELL are they NOT PROFITABLE?!?!?!? I don't see overhead as being a good excuse...

My guess is that they are not profitable on a GAAP basis due to the accounting standards for Revenue Recognition and Loan Loss Reserves...This leads to little to no profit in high growth periods (i.e. their entire existence as a company.) I'm sure they're making positive returns in excess of cost of capital and overhead on their portfolio. Investors will be just fine.