GoDaddy is Going Public
fortune.com
fortune.com
- Grew up poor, flunked high school, enlisted in the Marines during the Vietnam War
- Graduated from college, self-taught programmer at age 25
- Started Parsons Technology at 34
- Grew it to 1,000 employees and sold it for $64M at 44
- Started GoDaddy at 47
- Exited Godaddy in 2011 for $930M at age 61 (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/techflash/2014/06/go...)
Great entrepreneurs never develop overnight, this game only gets better with age.
Another thing about Parsons (that I remember but can't link to) is that he insisted on building all his systems in house and not licensing technology or software from others which seems to have worked to his advantage.
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
It's kind of a shame that being a publicly traded stock is Not correlated with a company cleaning up their act.
GoDaddy has been around a long time, one would think they would be profitable (at least barely) by now. And they are going public with this?
They also have a domain buy service. A domain sale I just handled which came by that service netted them a $6000 fee for essentially contacting the other party (who I worked for) by email. (Don't use them would be my very strong suggestion.)
Those are the upsells I'm talking about.
I'm not an expert or anything... but their "growth" story stinks; it looks like they're just trying to milk a dying cow. That, or I'm just way off base...
Also the current CEO is a former Yahoo! exec, not exactly confidence inspiring.
No other website builder we cover is the target of as much outrage from readers.
Forbearing a massive success with the new TLDs that seem to be given out like candy, I can't see any huge growth areas for them to move into. Maybe China, but that's always going to suffer from preferential treatment to incumbent local competition. (If the Chinese allow free DNS registration at all?)
The only way I'm seeing this is that the owners want to sell, but the financials are so bad they couldn't find a private buyer. I'll give it a pass unless anyone knows different?
That my shed some light on your doubts.
With this bad reputation and even some boycotts like "leave godaddy, they support sopa" it is obvious they don't have a good reputation and their service is "good enough to not bother switching"
I don't think they'd grow without massive marketing.
[1] I dont know how accurate this data is, although it doesn't look too far from truth http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/top-registrars/global/...
Oh sure, right. As if he didn't know that when he got involved in the process and hired investment bankers.
1B in revenue on 1B in debt...its right at the limit for healthy.
If you are a sufficiently high net-worth individual or investing on behalf of a sufficiently large fund, you may be able to make a private deal with one of the investment banks participating in the IPO, but I don't know much about that.
My hope is that it is the former, my fear is that it is the latter.
Even Facebook eventually ended up above their IPO price so maybe GoDaddy won't do so bad. Give it a few years.
The cheap domain thing is not a capital intensive industry, there are thousands of IT companies that can sell you a domain out there, it is not as if you need a factory or hundreds of thousands of staff to get into the business, so cheap isn't necessarily going to get you into a monopoly position - e.g. de Beers - so that they can have the market to themselves.
If they were making cars instead of domains and selling everything at what amounts to a loss year in, year out, some EU type of organisation would come along with an anti-dumping tariff to put an end to it.
Why is it with tech companies that GoDaddy style business models are allowed to persist? Sure some of those losses are due to acquisitions, but, again, why can companies that don't make money allowed to buy up companies that do make money?
I haven't looked too deeply at their internals, but some companies choose to (properly) mark down existing assets or investments on their books to current market value at certain times for strategic tax purposes. Eg. if you have a warehouse full of stuff you can't sell, but profit from other divisions the right thing to do is to write down those assets to market value (sometimes that is zero, but not always)
What do you mean "allowed"? You mean "allowed" by the government or "allowed" by investors who perhaps may know something that you don't?
Investors make mistakes for sure and bet on the wrong horse. But if they are they are making a calculated risk by using information that you are not privy to or knowledge that you don't have. (And I can see from some of the comments on this post that is not unusual.)