Just curious- What is canonical worth?

[josephellengar]

No reason.

[kool_kat_os]

More than my house? :-)

[MaxIBoy]

At this point, Canonical is pretty heavily in debt.

[KiwiNZ]

At this point, Canonical is pretty heavily in debt.


Source ?

[MaxIBoy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/internet.software

[aysiu]

Not close to breaking even doesn't mean heavily in debt... unless they're "in debt" to Mark Shuttleworth. As far as I can tell, they're not making a profit, but Mark Shuttleworth is footing the bill for at least the next few years.

[KiwiNZ]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/internet.software

Not been close to breaking even does not equate to being "heavily in debt"

Your statement is at best FUD .

Making inflammed statements like yours can be damaging

[mips]

Source ?

I cannot remember a source but I do recall Mark saying they are currently running at a loss. He is looking long term though.

He did not invest all his wealth in Canonical though, only a small portion.

[Ub1476]

I recall that Shuttleworth said it would be around 4 more years before they got in profit with Ubuntu.

[smoker]

i think canonical was created as a long term project. many businesses don't make instant profits, doesn't mean they are not going to do well over time. i don't buy shares, but if they were available, i think canonical shares would be something i would think about!

[Thelasko]

Just because they don't turn a profit doesn't mean they aren't worth anything. Lot's of companies don't turn profits and are worth quite a bit. Microsoft paid $246 million for a 1.6% share in Facebook while they were losing money.

Profits are on the income statement and value is on the balance sheet. Value/equity is assets minus liabilities. While we know Canonical is losing money on the income statement, we don't know what the balance sheet looks like. However, when an upstart has a poor income statement, the balance sheet usually doesn't look good either.

It really amounts to several questions:
Is Shuttleworth the only source of capital?
Is Shuttleworth funding the company with stock or with bonds?
If there are other investors, do they fund the company with stock or bonds?

If there are no bonds and the company is only funded through the sale of stock, it should have some pretty good value. If the company is funded through bonds, the value of those bonds needs to be subtracted from the company's assets. You also have to factor in the potential for the company to turn a profit in the future. If the company is expected to turn a profit in the near future, it will have a much higher value than one that isn't.

In the end, Canonical is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it.

Disclaimer: IIAMBA (I ain't an MBA)

[KiwiNZ]

Canonical is a privately owned company. There is no need to release any of the information

[mdsmedia]

Canonical is a privately owned company. There is no need to release any of the information
I had this same conversation (argument?) with a guy who works for Mandriva on itwire.com.

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21468/1090/

Someone posted a link (see above) to a blog post from this "employee" of Mandriva who argued that Ubuntu's (Canonical's) business plan was unsustainable because it didn't plan to break even "for at least 4 years" and because they don't disclose their business plan to the public. He argued that because Mandriva is a public company and discloses its financials to the world, and Ubuntu doesn't, being backed by Mark, it was "dumping Ubuntu" on the world and killing other desktop Linux distros, such as Mandriva.

Mandriva is expected to break even in the next 12 months, but "the current market conditions" could scuttle that prediction, he said, so I asked him why Ubuntu's business plan wasn't sustainable, given the "at least 4 years" prediction, and Mandriva's "break-even in the next 12 months....but not in the current market".

I think his main contention was that Ubuntu (Canonical) should disclose its financial condition, and business plan, as Mandriva does because it's a public company. I countered that Canonical is not a public company, Mark has made clear what his plans for Ubuntu are, and that's more than he has to do as Canonical is NOT a public company.

[mips]

Not been close to breaking even does not equate to being "heavily in debt"


It's relative, if it was me I would be "heavily in debt" ;)

[lukjad]

Canonical is a privately owned company. There is no need to release any of the information
Right on! This is not really something I care about either, as long as Ubuntu works for me. ;)

[MaxIBoy]

Not close to breaking even doesn't mean heavily in debt... unless they're "in debt" to Mark Shuttleworth. As far as I can tell, they're not making a profit, but Mark Shuttleworth is footing the bill for at least the next few years.

That's what I meant-- Shuttleworth loaned the company quite a bit of money, so they owe money to him. I just kind of assume he'll ask for it back when they start turning a profit. (Which they will, someday. RedHat did it.)

If you owe money, and you're currently running at a loss, I consider that to be "pretty heavily in debt."

[aysiu]

It's not really as if Canonical is some independent company that came to Mark Shuttleworth and said, "Hey, can you lend us some money?"

Mark Shuttleworth started Canonical and Ubuntu. He's "lending" money to himself. Or he's basically footing the company until it can stand on its own two feet, but it is his company.

That is not the same as being in debt.

[KiwiNZ]

Canonical is a privately owned company.It is inappropriate to make uninformed speculation. This can be damaging .

I am going to close this thread