> With more than $1 billion in net cash, following this change, Flexport is now in a great position to take advantage of the opportunities in front of us to return to profitability as soon as the end of next year.
This feels like a tone-deaf statement to make in an email laying off 1 in 5 of your company.
"We're letting you go, but look how much cash we have!"
It cares because: running out of cash is a bad idea for any company and running leaner says that you will have more runway. Whether or not it will be enough runway as perceived by that very same stockmarket will determine your share price. If there are no buyers for your stock the price will drop like a stone, so this is both a message to current shareholders 'don't sell, we'll make it' and potential buyers 'sellers are missing out on a great deal, you should buy our stock'. Of course this is more impactful if you are publicly listed (which Flexport isn't). But it will impact their ability to raise money, at what valuation that will happen and how existing shareholders will be diluted.
It may all not work and they may still go bust but that's their current messaging in ELI5 mode.
It may also be that Flexport - in spite of earlier messaging - is quietly planning an IPO. I think that would be a fairly stupid move at this stage but who knows.
Another audience for these messages is their customers: if it turns out that Flexport's future is insecure they may well take their business elsewhere or stop considering using Flexport. That can reduce their runway even quicker.
"Stock market" is normally used to refer to shares of public companies traded in stock exchanges. They don't need to make public announcements to communicate with private investors. There will be time to make the IPO attractive when the IPO comes.
This is a quote in the article: "It's clear that our customers want us to be a profitable company they can rely on to solve important problems in their supply chain." I'd say they are the main audience.
Yes, that is what it normally means. But: the stock market has effects far beyond the stock market itself and Flexport supplies enough companies that are listed that their status can have significant effect. That's why you see publications like the Wall Street Journal reporting on them.
>But: the stock market has effects far beyond the stock market itself and Flexport supplies enough companies that are listed that their status can have significant effect. That's why you see publications like the Wall Street Journal reporting on them.
You are way overestimating the importance of FlexPort.
I've worked in that space, you are most likely underestimating the importance of FlexPort as a bellweather for whether (heh) or not FlexPort is able to materially change the freight forwarding business which has been solidly stuck in the past. A very small outfit that you've likely never heard of made massive changes possible in container shipping in the 80's and 90's, but that whole world is held together with duct tape and baling wire when it comes to IT. So FlexPort is an interesting company to monitor, it will either cause a revolution or it will go under. Obviously some investors (not the ones known for being cautious) thought it was a good bet. Some see this as a negative signal (myself included) some think it will go the other way. Regardless, their name is in play, whatever their actual effect on the whole logistics world is in terms of volume, what matter is how they deal with the parties that have signed on and whether or not it gives them a competitive edge.
They've been in business now for a decade, have multiple billions in turnover. True, on the whole that isn't 'significant' yet but it is a pretty strong indicator that there is something going on there that bears watching.
This feels like a tone-deaf statement to make in an email laying off 1 in 5 of your company.
"We're letting you go, but look how much cash we have!"