Warby Parker announced that it had raised $75 million ........................

[Chris Ryser]

Warby Parker, the Eyewear Seller, Raises $75 Million

• By Michael J. de la Merced, March 14, 2018

Warby Parker opened its website eight years ago and quickly became one of the inspirations for a generation of e-commerce brands aiming at a younger, hipper customer base.

Now the eyewear retailer has raised another slug of money — with some coming from a big investor with a history of investing in companies that are close to a stock market listing.


Warby Parker announced on Wednesday that it had raised $75 million in a new round of financing led byT. Rowe Price, the mutual fund company, and including Baillie Gifford, the asset manager. It also disclosed that it had added Youngme Moon, a professor at Harvard Business School Who sits on the board of Unilever, as a new director.


The round values Warby Parker at about $1.7billion, excluding the new investment, according to a person briefed on the matter. It offers the latest sign of support for the company as it expands its eyewear business.


Read all of it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/b...ype=collection

[Lab Insight]

Warby Parker, the Eyewear Seller, Raises $75 Million

• By Michael J. de la Merced, March 14, 2018

Warby Parker opened its website eight years ago and quickly became one of the inspirations for a generation of e-commerce brands aiming at a younger, hipper customer base.

Now the eyewear retailer has raised another slug of money — with some coming from a big investor with a history of investing in companies that are close to a stock market listing.


Warby Parker announced on Wednesday that it had raised $75 million in a new round of financing led byT. Rowe Price, the mutual fund company, and including Baillie Gifford, the asset manager. It also disclosed that it had added Youngme Moon, a professor at Harvard Business School Who sits on the board of Unilever, as a new director.


The round values Warby Parker at about $1.7billion, excluding the new investment, according to a person briefed on the matter. It offers the latest sign of support for the company as it expands its eyewear business.


Read all of it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/b...ype=collection

The big question to answer.... is the company profitable? Coastal contacts did the exact same thing and never made a single dollar profit. It was sold at a stupid price in exchange for a new e-commerce platform with global market share.

I would bet Warby is no different and will end up selling out within the next 5 years. The stock capital raised is simply letting it continue to grow and capture at any cost to be gobbled up at some point.

It's ridiculous how portfolio managers and stock investors value it at 1.7 billion. I'm sure their balance sheet is full of debt.

[Chris Ryser]

The big question to answer.... is the company profitable? Coastal contacts did the exact same thing and never made a single dollar profit. It was sold at a stupid price in exchange for a new e-commerce platform with global market share.

Warby Parker announced on Wednesday that it had raised $75 million in a new round of financing led byT. Rowe Price, the mutual fund company, and including Baillie Gifford, the asset manager. It also disclosed that it had added Youngme Moon, a professor at Harvard Business School Who sits on the board of Unilever, as a new director.

.................I would just about bet *all the tea in China* that a Mutual Fund Company would make an in depth study of a company, before investing $ 75 million.

Coastal was purchased with a long term future ahead, also, and past the introductory periods of a new type business style, by a corporation that is also a careful long term planner.

[Lab Insight]

.................I would just about bet *all the tea in China* that a Mutual Fund Company would make an in depth study of a company, before investing $ 75 million.

Coastal was purchased with a long term future ahead, also, and past the introductory periods of a new type business style, by a corporation that is also a careful long term planner.

Chris, I sometimes wonder that these investment portfolio managers are simply just looking out for number one and padding their fees and commissions as their main objective? These evaluations are done based on growth, market share and speed of accomplishment, not profitability. It is very misleading IMHO.

Like I said before, it's being built to sell in the near future. That's when the stock will pay dividends. As long as there is a major buyer out there with fat coffers, this sort of thing will keep happening.

[Chris Ryser]

Like I said before, it's being built to sell in the near future. That's when the stock will pay dividends. As long as there is a major buyer out there with fat coffers, this sort of thing will keep happening.

.......................maybe that system which was the standard in commerce, is no longer valid these days, at least for the mega companies.

It could be that they prefer to buy a new concept business, after it has been around for a few years and is still alive and growing, without showing any profits.

Essilor bought *Coastal*, renamed it Clearly. Now they came out with a new website with the old name of Coastal Obviously somebody must have made a wrong decision 4 years ago.

[Lab Insight]

.......................maybe that system which was the standard in commerce, is no longer valid these days, at least for the mega companies.

It could be that they prefer to buy a new concept business, after it has been around for a few years and is still alive and growing, without showing any profits.

Essilor bought *Coastal*, renamed it Clearly. Now they came out with a new website with the old name of Coastal Obviously somebody must have made a wrong decision 4 years ago.

One would hope a company that makes zero profit when acquired will eventually turn a profit, but has not up to this point. So yes, I would agree that was a wrong decision. The blunder really is two fold...that they overpaid huge and it continues to compete directly with their regular customers.

There's an old saying...You can dress up and put lipstick on a pig to go to the market, but underneath it's still just a pig.

[Lab Insight]

It's amazing how much you can actually pay for a quality product when you eliminate the branding. Not bad for a couple young schmucks in college with no optical experience.

[Chris Ryser]

It's amazing how much you can actually pay for a quality product when you eliminate the branding. Not bad for a couple young schmucks in college with no optical experience.

This move to get approval by the largest US healthcare insurance company, should get them the ticket to sell out to the highest bidder above 100 million
US Dollars, from Essilor-Luxottica to VSP

[Lab Insight]

This move to get approval by the largest US healthcare insurance company, should get them the ticket to sell out to the highest bidder above 100 million
US Dollars, from Essilor-Luxottica to VSP

Why sell out so soon? They haven't been in the game for very long yet. Hold out and raise your stock value.

[Chris Ryser]

Why sell out so soon? They haven't been in the game for very long yet. Hold out and raise your stock value.

you got a good point ............................

However, as smart as they are, they could pull a similar one or another, in the same field for not getting bored, with a long lifespan ahead.

[Chris Ryser]

Why sell out so soon? They haven't been in the game for very long yet. Hold out and raise your stock value.

,


.....................on second thought, how about if the largest US Health Insurance plays with the idea of jumping into the optical retail market, and uses this occasion to test it out in a practical way, before buying them ?

[Chris Ryser]

Why sell out so soon? They haven't been in the game for very long yet. Hold out and raise your stock value.

• UnitedHealth says it will offer about 2 million of its Medicare Advantage beneficiaries access to Warby Parker's prescription eyewear.

..................if the 2 million Advantage beneficiaries will purchase one pair of glasses each, at $ 60.00 each, that will make a sudden unexpected increase of WP turnover by a $ 120 millions, and continue into the future.

To let the spinning wheel run freely: it will also force the other big healthcare optical's, as EyeMed (Essilor-Luxottica) and VSP to rethink their setups, and bypass their present optical retailers.

[Chris Ryser]

They have started to penetrate Canada with FYI, but has been a slow process in getting decent traction. FYI will be gobbled up (no Thanksgiving pun intended) at some point.

.................by checking the Montreal area on their website, they show a total of three ODs being members, and that is not a famous amount.

[Lab Insight]

.................by checking the Montreal area on their website, they show a total of three ODs being members, and that is not a famous amount.

FYI or VSP?

[Chris Ryser]

FYI or VSP?

Sorry about that.............it should have had the link included: FYI

https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=lcl...,lf:1,lf_ui:10

[Lab Insight]

Sorry about that.............it should have had the link included: FYI

https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=lcl...,lf:1,lf_ui:10

Nothing that is based outside of Keh-Beck ever does well there and we all know why. OSI is the only group to penetrate, but would be just all the others if its home base was based in Toronto or Calgary.

As for VSP, after almost 7 years in Canada without a peep, doubt it will ever be moved from the back burner.

[oculus]

.................by checking the Montreal area on their website, they show a total of three ODs being members, and that is not a famous amount.

In Quebec .. FYI is brand Visique they have lot more then 3 offices.

[Chris Ryser]

In Quebec .. FYI is brand Visique they have lot more then 3 offices.

Thanks............will check them out. They changed it in 2017...last year.

[Chris Ryser]

You are correct, I came up with about 19 of them in Quebec.

..........still no huge presence.

[Chris Ryser]

What happens if a monopoly within a free market drove smaller companies out of business with low prices and then raised prices once the competition was gone (electricity, water, etc)?


The standard answer is “other firms will enter the market and undercut the monopolist.”

This is, however, a bit of an “assume a spherical cow” answer in the real world, as there are often barriers to entry such as high startup costs or access to scarce resources and the monopolist may have made it difficult for new firms by contractually locking up key resources, workers, or distribution channels (think of the ability to put cables on utility poles, pipes under roadways, or fiber along public right-of-ways).

In the long run, the monopoly is likely unstable and people who are locked out of direct competition will eventually develop alternatives (wireless broadcast instead of wired internet, for example).


This is the sort of situation Keynes was speaking of when he said “in the long run, we are all dead.” There seems to be no reason other than devotion to economic orthodoxy that we cannot take action to prevent or break up monopolies instead of waiting an indefinite period for the market to do it.



It’s a question of whether the market exists for the benefit of society, or whether it exists as a near-religious entity whose principles should always be deferred to.

source:
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-i...city-water-etc