Web Hosting Talk : Other Forums : Web Hosting Lounge : OK im baffled

[Keeg]

I just recieved my Dec 2000 issue of webhosting mag and in there they talk about a couple of what i considered the big guys in the US for webhosting Catalog and rackspace the numbers these guys are posting in the mag have got to be misprints. according to the mag Catalog did 2.4 million in sales in the last 6 months and rackspace did 1.7 million in 1999, are these numbers for real? is that all these guys are doing? Not only that but if the losses reported are acurate how did they stay in business?


Steve

[webfors]

Just got my issue as well, and was very surprised by those numbers. I'm not sure how to interpret them.

Anyone else have any insight on this??

[cbaker17]

Those #'s were for dedicated server sales only I believe.

[BC]

Uhhhhhh........ 2.4 million dedicated servers?? 6 months?! That's 400,000 servers a month = 13,333 servers per day.

Yeah right.....

[Matt Lightner]

BC,

I believe they're talking dollars, not servers.

Matt

[BC]

Oops, how embarrassing!

[Keeg]

rackspace is listed as having 1.7 million in revenues with a net loss of 1.65 million for 1999, that essentially means for each dollar they brought in it cost them 2 bucks. how does one run a business like that? or a better question is why would you want to? My reason for asking these questions is what kind of future does a company like this have without an IPO, and will an IPO really do the trick for them.

Steve

[Chicken]

We all have creative ways about reporting losses but that does seem excessive. It is one thing to lower your tax bill...

[etLux]

Originally posted by Keeg
Catalog did 2.4 million in sales in the last 6 months and rackspace did 1.7 million in 1999... is that all these guys are doing?

I think there are one or two people in this forum who wouldn't mind doing paltry sums like those.

Of course, those are just the newbies...

[kunal]

Like chicken said, maybe they are just reporting losses to cut on the tax they pay. It is kinda silli for us, but for the company, the tax compensation must be extremely large!

[Keeg]

i realise reporting losses is not a bad thing but from an investor standpoint loosing a buck for everyone you make is a terrible position. losses of 1.65 million wouldnt be so bad if total revenue was around the 17 to 20 million mark but not at 1.7 million bucks in revenue, that would be a stupid move by the CFO. Even the reported loss by digex is understandable but its worse, reported earnings of 59.8 million and a loss of 63 million thats explainable from aquisitions but the rackspace one still baffles me.

Steve

[CRego3D]

yes, plus the numbers just don't add up .. that's not nearly enought money .. sure it's not an error in the publisher's part ?

[nox]

I don't have the benefit of having rec'd the publication yet, (in Australia it takes considerably longer to catch up as usual, even though we are always in your future... )

How do these figures compare to projections. There could be a 2, 3, or 5 year plan involved which accounts for losses for a period of time, especially if capital is being burned with new plant and equipment.

Are they trading losses or are they attributed to some other company activity?

I think etLux could be right in as much as the actual cashflow can pay for a lot of people to stay above the poverty line.

What's the actual bottom line figures on the balance sheet?

I can't wait to get the mag to have a look.....

[kunal]

I never recieve a copy, even though I have subscribed

[nox]

kunal,

I'll tell you what, if you want me to I'll send my copies on to you after reading them.

It seems that the industry has changed by the time each issue is printed anyway, but at least you'll have a reference library.

We can't have a WHT admin being behind in the news, now can we....

But on a serious note, why dontcha call them?