>With those kinds of numbers they can invest less in customer acquisition and turn on the money tap any time they want.
Where does this notion come from that these companies can "make money whenever they want", but haven't done so in a decade or more? People point to Amazon as an analogy all the time: it took Amazon about 5 years to make a profit, and this was the early internet. Bill.com is not Amazon.com.
That's a theory, a selling-point, and it comes from "Silicon Valley" itself. In reality, the growth tends to come from the customer acquisition spend, and growth will likely cease the minute customer acquisition spending stops. Growth is already slowing down, and this company has never made a dime. So what value do you put on it now?
Where does the idea assumption from that these companies are "putting profits back into the company"? That money has to show up in the financials statements as well, it's not magic.
Where does this notion come from that these companies can "make money whenever they want", but haven't done so in a decade or more? People point to Amazon as an analogy all the time: it took Amazon about 5 years to make a profit, and this was the early internet. Bill.com is not Amazon.com.
That's a theory, a selling-point, and it comes from "Silicon Valley" itself. In reality, the growth tends to come from the customer acquisition spend, and growth will likely cease the minute customer acquisition spending stops. Growth is already slowing down, and this company has never made a dime. So what value do you put on it now?
Where does the idea assumption from that these companies are "putting profits back into the company"? That money has to show up in the financials statements as well, it's not magic.