Social media site Angie’s List IPO’d yesterday, and the market now values it at nearly $900 million.
While those are hardly Groupon Bubble numbers, the valuation is still high and more possible evidence of a bubble in social-media companies. So how did the press cover it?
First, a run through some numbers. Skip the next four graphs if you don’t like that stuff.
You can’t do a P/E (price-to-earnings ratio) on Angie’s List. It doesn’t have any “E.” The company has never made money and still loses it big time—$27 million in 2010 and $26 million in the first half of this year alone. That’s on 2010 revenue of $59 million and first half 2011 revenue of $39 million.
Let’s put this another way: Angie’s List took in $39 million in revenue in the first six months of this year and spent $65 million. Ouch. And the pace of losses continued to widen in the third quarter.
By my quick estimate based on current growth, it looks like the company will bring in about $85 million in sales this year. That’s more than 10 times sales.
While its sales are growing fast—41 percent in the first half and 55 percent in the third quarter—it’s worth noting that this is no startup. It’s a sixteen-year-old company.
Needless to say, it’s worth being skeptical of this company’s prospects.
Here’s MarketWatch’s David Weidner on Angie’s List’s debut:
Angie’s List Inc.’s surging debut following its initial public offering tells us that the right company, with the right financials, is still sought after by investors.
It’s almost how it’s supposed to work.
After initial enthusiasm, duds such as Pandora Media Inc. and GroupOn soiled the IPO stage. Pandora is down 24% since its debut and GroupOn never came to market.
I’m going to have to assume that “GroupOn” is the same thing as Groupon, which did indeed come to market two weeks ago. Its shares are up more than 20 percent from the IPO price.
And how does Angie’s List have the “right financials”? No case is made beyond this:
Investors are still willing to buy IPOs as long at they have a proven financial track record and a tangible product.
Never making money and losing increasing amounts of it over sixteen years is a “proven financial track record,” all right.
MarketWatch cousin The Wall Street Journal is better with this skeptical “Overheard”:
That said, as with other social-media stocks, there is still that pesky concept of valuation to deal with: Angie’s more-than-$900 million market capitalization works out to a multiple of about 11 times this year’s likely revenue.
And, in true dot.com fashion, the company forecasts losses for the foreseeable future.
The Journal also had a good curtain-raiser in yesterday’s paper. It emphasizes that the company loses money, and it pulls this eye-raising stat (emphasis mine):
Some analysts expect Angie’s List to trade higher than its IPO price on its first day, like other unprofitable Web companies with large customer lists that have gone public, including Groupon Inc. and Zillow Inc.
But its business model and finances have gotten mixed reviews, partly because of the company’s high costs to advertise for new paying users. Angie’s List increased selling and marketing spending from 63% of revenue in 2009 to 103% in 2011.
In other words, the company is spending more to bring in revenue than it’s getting in actual revenue. That’s a bet on rapidly expanding to new markets, where it hopes those new customers and clients will stick with Angie’s List and marketing costs will fall. Maybe so, but maybe not. It’s a bet (all stocks are to a certain extent, but bear with me), and that’s the point. It’s speculation.
USA Today is also skeptical, in a story about Yelp going public:
Yelp, like Groupon and Angie’s List, is a money-loser, so far. The company, founded in 2004, hasn’t earned a dime since 2006, according to documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. For its most recently reported period, it lost $7.6 million on revenue of $58.4 million.
- 1
- 2
From nothing to $85 million in sales in 16 years for a private company is remarkable.
No wonder the company is doubling down on marketing. I would too.
The nice thing about these new social media sites is that there is no brick-and-mortar overhead - thus they can shrink if necessary. No warehouses. No labor contracts. No inventory. No vendors. No logistics.
If the bubble bursts, there's no reason for the business to collapse entirely.
Just a server in a data center and enough people to keep it running.
And the product is customer-supplied!
Having customers pay to give you your product! Pure genius!
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 01:11 PM
It occurs to me that the some of the people who quite reasonably lack faith in money-losing enterprises are the same people who profess unwavering faith in the credit of our money-losing government.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 02:06 PM
"If the bubble bursts, there's no reason for the business to collapse entirely."
Ida' know. I always thought bankruptcy was a pretty good reason. In the good old days, we used to read about the legions succumbing to that reason daily on f***edcompany.com.
Leverage works if it allows you to capitalize on untapped demand and generates income.
Leverage that leaves you 50 million in the hole? Based on a strategy that costs 25 million per year more than it generates? Sounds more like Brewster's millions than Buffet's.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 02:30 PM
Yeah... but with a market capitalization of nearly a billion dollars, this business can afford to forgo revenue and swing for the fence.
If it works... Great. Investors make gobs of money.
If it doesn't, the company can just shrink and eat what it kills and investors don't lose everything.
It's one thing if you're pets.com and you have warehouses full of inventory and shipping and vendor contracts. You can't just shrink that kind of business - closing a warehouse impacts the business model directly and screws up the whole system. You have a lot of capital tied up in business that sells tangible products or that pays for content.
Of if you're pornosite.com (or CJR.org) and you pay (in theory) for content.
It's another thing to recede to 30 leased servers from 100 and to 50 CSR's from 300 when you not only don't pay for product, but actually charge people to produce your product and when you have no long-term capital commitment. You can shrink this kind of business as easily as you can grow it.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 02:59 PM
"If it doesn't, the company can just shrink and eat what it kills and investors don't lose everything."
Unless investors liquidate the stock since there's insufficient ROI and there's no revenue to pay off outstanding debt.
Then you're bankrupt and, due to the content only nature of the business, there's nothing for creditors to liquidate.
That's what I've seen in the past.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 04:33 PM