IPO热潮重现，IT业何去何从

    IT行业的大多数公司至少从营运或现金流角度看是盈利的，但GAAP盈利（即考虑到非现金支出）就不那么普遍了。很少看到等待IPO的公司规模很小或者亏损连连，这对于整个市场的正常化是有利的。而且，说到底，利润率也很重要：一家销售额为5,000万美元—1亿美元的软件公司能上市，因为它的毛利润率是80-90%；一家电子商务公司的毛利润率是20-30%，再加上高昂的客户获取成本，上市必须具备更大的规模（可能至少是5-10倍）。

    3.二级市场见高下。要让股市投资者慢慢对一家新上市公司感到“放心”，需要有6-12个月的时间，同时等待像流通盘小、内部人士锁定期等因素显现。我们可以围绕“高成长的软件和互联网公司绝对估值应为多少倍”这个标准进行有益的探讨，但显然二级市场已经根据利润率、增长率、竞争优势等因素清楚地分出了这些公司的优劣。

    比尔•格利去年的一篇文章很好地分析了为何有些公司的股价是营业收入的10倍多，而大多数公司却做不到这一点。看看软件和互联网行业新上市的一些公司，你就会发现差距有多大。下面的数据截至上周，从中我们就可见一斑：

    • LinkedIn – 股价是过去12个月营业收入的16倍以上

    • Zynga – 股价是过去12个月营业收入的8倍以上

    • Carbonite – 股价是过去12个月营业收入的3.4倍

    • Active Network –股价是过去12个月营业收入的2.4倍

    我要说的不是Active的估值倍数就“应该”是2.4倍或者Zynga就“应该”超过8倍，或者其他哪家公司的估值倍数是合理的。有些科技股在二级市场表现非常强劲，其他股票则苦苦挣扎。但二级市场投资者显然是根据不同的内在要素和行业要素，对近期一些新上市的股票做出了评判。这对于资本市场的整体健康和可持续性是件好事……但如果近期上市的所有公司都直线上涨或下跌，对于IPO体系可不是件好事。

    4. 上市后业绩的稳定性一如既往的重要——如果贵公司的营业收入和盈利能力仍非常不可预测，最好还是先不要上市。近期有些公司上市后的业绩弱于预期，股价都受到了严厉的惩罚。最近体验到这种痛苦的Pandora绝不是唯一一家，上周随着其2011年4季报公布，Pandora的股价下跌了约25%，已明显低于16美元的IPO价格。

    Most companies in the IT sector are profitable at least on an operating or cashflow basis, although often not on a GAAP basis when non-cash expenses are taken into account. It's pretty rare to see smaller scale businesses or wildly unprofitable ones in the IPO pipeline, which is good for the overall market normalization. And, finally, margins matter -- a $50-100M software company can go public given it's 80-90% gross margins, an e-commerce company with 20-30% gross margins and high customer acquisition costs needs to be much bigger (probably 5-10x at least).

    3. Public Markets Distinguish Strong From Weak. It takes 6-12 months for public market investors to get "comfortable" with a newly-public company, and also for idiosyncratic factors like small float and insider lockups to work themselves out. We can have a healthy debate about what the multiples of rapidly growing software and Internet companies should be in absolute terms, but the public markets are very clearly distinguishing between the stronger and weaker businesses based on profit margins, growth, competitive advantages, etc.

   Bill Gurley's post last year does a great job analyzing why some businesses are valued at 10x+ revenue and most aren't. If you look at newly-public companies in the software and Internet sector you see a wide spread. As of this week, here's a sample of multiples:

    • LinkedIn (LNKD) – 16x+ trailing revenue

    • Zynga – 8x+ trailing revenue

    • Carbonite (CARB) – 3.4x trailing revenue

    • Active Network (ACTV) – 2.4x trailing revenue

    My point isn't that Active "should" be valued at 2.4x or Zynga "should" be over 8x or any other specific company is appropriately valued. Some tech IPOs have performed very strongly in the secondary market, others have struggled. But public market investors are clearly distinguishing between companies based on a variety of intrinsic and sector-specific factors and valuing recent IPOs pretty differently. This is a good thing for the overall health and sustainability of capital markets… it's bad for the ecosystem if all recently public companies go straight up or straight down.

    4. Post IPO Consistency is as Important as Ever - If your company's revenue and profitability are still quite unpredictable, you're probably better off staying private for now. Recently public companies that surprise to the downside are brutally punished. Hardly the only one but Pandora (P) was the latest to experience it this week with its earnings announcement for Q4 2011, the stock price dropping about 25% and well below the original IPO price of $16.