Snap Tumbles Below IPO Opening Price as Analysts Say Sell(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Snap Tumbles Below IPO Opening Price as Analysts Say Sell
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-06/snap-tumbles-for-first-time-since-ipo-as-analysts-say-sell
230 comments
The system works best over the long term if IPO shares are a little bit underpriced. Bankers have no trouble moving them and earning their fees, buyers are happy to take them because they get some pop and the company feels like they captured most of the value from the shares they sold.
A big pop says the shares were underpriced and the company left money on the table. A decline means the shares were overpriced and the buyers may become reluctant in the future.
For a company that only IPOs once, they don't really care if buyers become reluctant next time but they do care if a narrative develops that they have a loser stock.
A big pop says the shares were underpriced and the company left money on the table. A decline means the shares were overpriced and the buyers may become reluctant in the future.
For a company that only IPOs once, they don't really care if buyers become reluctant next time but they do care if a narrative develops that they have a loser stock.
OK. They IPOed. They got their money. That part of the story is done. Now the stock is in the pubic's hands. Analysts think it is over-priced, so people sold. And an article said so. This is just some basic reporting on it. I'm not sure why you are choosing to use it as an opportunity to call people out as being ignorant.
The article in question here is titled, very specifically, "Snap Tumbles Below IPO Opening Price..." making the comment you're responding to especially apropos.
While you may think that just the IPO is finished "that part of the story is done", it is very specifically that part of the story that we are currently discussing.
You'd have to be blind not to have noticed the rather irrational interest that the investing public takes in IPOs lately, especially tech IPOs. Despite both the 2001 dot-bomb and the 2007-2009 crunch, there are clearly a large number of investors hoping for a low-probability / high-reward speculative investment in tech IPOs regardless of the unerlying business fundamentals.
Pointing out that IPOs are typically a sucker's game is something worth repeating, I think.
While you may think that just the IPO is finished "that part of the story is done", it is very specifically that part of the story that we are currently discussing.
You'd have to be blind not to have noticed the rather irrational interest that the investing public takes in IPOs lately, especially tech IPOs. Despite both the 2001 dot-bomb and the 2007-2009 crunch, there are clearly a large number of investors hoping for a low-probability / high-reward speculative investment in tech IPOs regardless of the unerlying business fundamentals.
Pointing out that IPOs are typically a sucker's game is something worth repeating, I think.
Well, I did learn something from that comment. I guess I am ignorant. :)
You've got to remember that Investment Banks have two sets of customers -> the big investors who they want to please and their corporate clients who want to sell shares. In recent times the big investors have become massively more powerful than anyone else, private equity hasn't had a crash like banking has.
In recent times a safe bet for the banks has been to underprice the IPO so that their big investor clients make lots of profit in the first couple of days, and then to weather the storm of the disappointed public company.
The newly public company won't actually do as much future business with the bank as the big investors will.
In recent times a safe bet for the banks has been to underprice the IPO so that their big investor clients make lots of profit in the first couple of days, and then to weather the storm of the disappointed public company.
The newly public company won't actually do as much future business with the bank as the big investors will.
A couple of comments.
The share price is _not_ supposed to drop after an IPO. The insiders still have a lock-up of 6 months, so a lower price would be bad for them. Moreover, the investors in the IPO also want some upside. In the end, the IPO price is a negotiated price that takes into account a lot of considerations. Once public, the price is dictated by the last trade.
And "smalltime" investors shouldn't invest in IPOs because of the so-called winner's curse.
The share price is _not_ supposed to drop after an IPO. The insiders still have a lock-up of 6 months, so a lower price would be bad for them. Moreover, the investors in the IPO also want some upside. In the end, the IPO price is a negotiated price that takes into account a lot of considerations. Once public, the price is dictated by the last trade.
And "smalltime" investors shouldn't invest in IPOs because of the so-called winner's curse.
I suppose that if markets were working in a very ideal way, the IPO stock price wouldn't matter much to the stock price half a year from now. Instead, the share price would be a pure function of the internal value and prospects of the company.
In the real world, market psychology and all, I think it's better for the medium term stock price to start off as something which the media will frame as a success story. I.e. better start at $80 and quickly rise to $100 than to start at $120 and quickly fall to $100.
Disclaimer: opinions based upon voices in head, not upon any kind of research.
In the real world, market psychology and all, I think it's better for the medium term stock price to start off as something which the media will frame as a success story. I.e. better start at $80 and quickly rise to $100 than to start at $120 and quickly fall to $100.
Disclaimer: opinions based upon voices in head, not upon any kind of research.
One of my best short sells besides 2009 short selling, was twitter. My money was allocated else where so I couldn't get in on the Snap fun. However this was pretty predictable outcome.
Just note that the stock price is down below first day close. The original owners sold at open price which was 17. The price is now ~24, so its up nearly 40% since initial open.
i believe that anyone who held significant stock prior to IPO is locked out of at least selling for a couple months - SEC probably has some regulations regarding that kind of thing.
some of the original owners might be "locked" and unable to sell for some time. if you say original investors - then that should be reported and available for public to see soon.
I love the way all reporting of stocks has to show the stock either 'surging', 'soaring' or 'tumbling', 'crashing'. An IPO priced at $24.00 that sells three days later at $23.77 has not tumbled. Sure, it was relatively volatile in the first few days but that is common on high profile IPO's until the price settles to a market determined level.
EDIT: No doubt if it rises to $25.00 tomorrow it will have 'rebounded' and be worth another hyped headline.
EDIT: No doubt if it rises to $25.00 tomorrow it will have 'rebounded' and be worth another hyped headline.
Not to mention the wider market is actually in a 'tumble' for the last few days, probably in anticipation of the fed rate increase.
If a 12% single day drop doesn't count as a tumble then what would in your definition?
You have to take it in context of relative volatility. There are products where a 12% move wouldn't be notable. In this case, it's under a week old. This expected volatility is why market makers do not sell options on ipo issues for a little while.
These kinds of stories are like basing a climate change story on unseasonably warm weather.
These kinds of stories are like basing a climate change story on unseasonably warm weather.
In other words, people are using the market to determine the valuation rather than using the valuation to determine the market.
This is how the market works. It's crowd sourcing valuations. It's not a bad thing. Do you have a better way to determine the valuation of a complex business?
The purpose of the market is not to determine valuations, it is to facilitate transactions. The transactions happen at different prices (very close together) - the idea is the market participants (buyers and sellers) have their own ideas about valuation and enter transactions accordingly. All else is speculation.
> the purpose of the market is not to determine valuations
Promoting price discovery [1] is one of the fundamental features and functions of a market.
Side note: the line between "speculation" and "investing," where the former refers to short-term shareholding and the latter to a specific set of Graham-Dodd valuation models, is not a general economic term. It only makes sense when discussing Graham-Dodd investment styles, which are a subset of long-term financial investment styles, which are themselves a subset of the market.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discovery
Promoting price discovery [1] is one of the fundamental features and functions of a market.
Side note: the line between "speculation" and "investing," where the former refers to short-term shareholding and the latter to a specific set of Graham-Dodd valuation models, is not a general economic term. It only makes sense when discussing Graham-Dodd investment styles, which are a subset of long-term financial investment styles, which are themselves a subset of the market.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discovery
[deleted]
Sample over a wider time-window (a quarter, at least, seems reasonable; a year if you really want a sense of the business's pulse).
Motion in the stock right now is noise; possibly profitable noise for some people, but there's very little to draw conclusions from in these post-IPO fluctuations.
Motion in the stock right now is noise; possibly profitable noise for some people, but there's very little to draw conclusions from in these post-IPO fluctuations.
that's how it goes for companies without real profit.
At least until after a few 10ks
I lost about 50% on my Apple stock in a single day shortly after buying it during the early 2000s. I didn't mean the company's actual business had drastically deteriorated. It just meant that shares I had previously evaluated to be a good purchase were now on sale and it was time to buy more.
Not to mention list price usually acts as a good floor (unless the IPO was overpriced to begin with).
:+1
Facebook IPO set target price to 38$. It went down immediately at extreme point falling down to 18$ a share. It only got back to 38$ after around one year. What is the price now? 137$ Not saying this will happen to Snap, just saying IPO-s usually show similar dynamics.
Facebook IPO set target price to 38$. It went down immediately at extreme point falling down to 18$ a share. It only got back to 38$ after around one year. What is the price now? 137$ Not saying this will happen to Snap, just saying IPO-s usually show similar dynamics.
I'm the biggest loser, having bought $60,000 worth of FB at 18, only to sell it at 19 or 20. Geez O Pete. I couldn't get comfortable with such a big chunk of my net worth in one stock. Not sure if Snap will perform the same miracles as FB however.
Gains are gains. It's not the gains you wish-you-coulda-woulda-shoulda, it's the losses!
You shouldn't judge decisions purely based on their outcome, and especially not with stocks. If 60k is a significant chunk of your net worth and you don't want to just gamble, it was probably rational to at least sell part of it...
Getting 5-10% extra is a win in my books. You did the right thing at the time, don't sweat it.
Stocks are fragile creatures in need of constant monitoring attention.
It's funny how the truth is probably the opposite, for the average investor.
One should make a buy/sell decision based on a medium/long term evaluation of the company prospects and try to ignore as much as possible the daily ups and downs.
One should make a buy/sell decision based on a medium/long term evaluation of the company prospects and try to ignore as much as possible the daily ups and downs.
Not only average investors.
Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style: This year we neither bought nor sold a share of five of our six major holdings. -- Warren Buffet in the 1990 letter to the shareholders [1].
[1] http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1990.html
Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style: This year we neither bought nor sold a share of five of our six major holdings. -- Warren Buffet in the 1990 letter to the shareholders [1].
[1] http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1990.html
It's like it was written by the Trump administration.
While I don't believe that $SNAP financials are solid (I am bearish), I do applaud them and Mulesoft for going public.
Too often today large (well past series C) tech companies (I won't name any names) refuse to go public and instead continue to take private equity and foreign investment and prop themselves up on absurd valuations with no-checks and balances. Some of these companies are absolute dog shit, yet they continue to receive unlimited funding and insane valuations in a vacuum with no market to short them. Wall Street calls bullshit when they see it, and smart people short bad companies when they find them. Silicon Valley doesn't provide a way to short these propped-up companies, they just continue to self-promote themselves on private equity and foreign investment.
Too often today large (well past series C) tech companies (I won't name any names) refuse to go public and instead continue to take private equity and foreign investment and prop themselves up on absurd valuations with no-checks and balances. Some of these companies are absolute dog shit, yet they continue to receive unlimited funding and insane valuations in a vacuum with no market to short them. Wall Street calls bullshit when they see it, and smart people short bad companies when they find them. Silicon Valley doesn't provide a way to short these propped-up companies, they just continue to self-promote themselves on private equity and foreign investment.
I saw this and thought I was going crazy. I could have sworn I just read it. And I was right!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672675
You made the same comment on the Mulesoft IPO announcement. :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672675
You made the same comment on the Mulesoft IPO announcement. :)
Hah, caught me copying from myself a bit ;-). Still my comment applies.
Also regarding twitter :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13620748
Wall Street calls bullshit when they see it, and smart people short these types of companies. Silicon Valley doesn't provide a way to short these propped-up companies, they just continue to self-promote themselves on private equity and foreign investment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13620748
Wall Street calls bullshit when they see it, and smart people short these types of companies. Silicon Valley doesn't provide a way to short these propped-up companies, they just continue to self-promote themselves on private equity and foreign investment.
Yeah, it's totally relevant to this discussion. It just threw me off.
I happend to be looking at that 17 day old thread earlier to see what people said about the Mulesoft IPO to see if it was worth participating in.
I happend to be looking at that 17 day old thread earlier to see what people said about the Mulesoft IPO to see if it was worth participating in.
I don't often get caught copying myself. But when I do, it's by jedberg.
I don't understand what the advantage of companies going public is. If they are public don't they have to essentially "force" profits for their shareholders? Wouldn't a company that has a sustainable income that doesn't want to grow be better off staying private where they can be "themselves?"
Not exactly. There's benefit to staying private, but it's more about the time-value of money than the need to grow. Private companies can generally optimize for longer timeframes than public companies. Except for Amazon, whose shareholders seem cool with the idea of plowing all free cash flow into growth. Shareholders are often much more conservative than private owners and won't allow drastic changes. Private owners are more comfortable with variation.
Growth is necessary for all companies, public or private. If you're not growing, you're dying. That's not always true, but it's true enough -- not just in economics, but for all organisms, literal and metaphorical. It's less about absolute growth than relative growth. If your competitor is growing faster, eventually they will crowd you out of the market.
Growth is necessary for all companies, public or private. If you're not growing, you're dying. That's not always true, but it's true enough -- not just in economics, but for all organisms, literal and metaphorical. It's less about absolute growth than relative growth. If your competitor is growing faster, eventually they will crowd you out of the market.
>Growth is necessary for all companies, public or private.
Well, no. Only public ones have that pressure. If the owners of a private company agree, they can sit at any size and make a steady profit.
Well, no. Only public ones have that pressure. If the owners of a private company agree, they can sit at any size and make a steady profit.
Beyond some size (some revenue, and/or more than 500 shareholders), even a private company essentially needs to make all the disclosures that a public company does; in which case, you have all the pains of a public company and non of the gains.
Google went public when it did because it was effectively already public.
Google went public when it did because it was effectively already public.
> Beyond some size (some revenue, and/or more than 500 shareholders), even a private company essentially needs to make all the disclosures that a public company does;...
I don't think that's true. Do you have some source that confirms this?
If you go e.g. to Cargill's website (a $100 billion private company), you won't find any detailed financial information. There are some high level numbers and their yearly report is some marketing fluff. Same thing for e.g. Ikea.
As a public company there is relentless pressure to deliver ever increasing quarterly profits above anything else. Trying to focus on anything else (e.g. sustainability or long term plans), opens you up to criticism and lawsuits from your stock holders.
I don't think that's true. Do you have some source that confirms this?
If you go e.g. to Cargill's website (a $100 billion private company), you won't find any detailed financial information. There are some high level numbers and their yearly report is some marketing fluff. Same thing for e.g. Ikea.
As a public company there is relentless pressure to deliver ever increasing quarterly profits above anything else. Trying to focus on anything else (e.g. sustainability or long term plans), opens you up to criticism and lawsuits from your stock holders.
IKEA actually publishes a yearly report[1] that is close to what a public company would publish. But they don't have to.
Regardless, the 500 shareholder thing specifically applies to American companies as far as I know. [2]
[1] http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/pdf/yearly_summary/IKEA_Group_Y...
[2] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/5/500-shareholder-threshol...
Regardless, the 500 shareholder thing specifically applies to American companies as far as I know. [2]
[1] http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/pdf/yearly_summary/IKEA_Group_Y...
[2] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/5/500-shareholder-threshol...
>Trying to focus on anything else (e.g. sustainability or long term plans)
This is such a tired meme. Public companies do all kinds of long term planning.
I love the fact that Silicon Valley thinks there's nothing better for the company than a young, maverick CEO, and that an experienced board and accountability are useless.
This is such a tired meme. Public companies do all kinds of long term planning.
I love the fact that Silicon Valley thinks there's nothing better for the company than a young, maverick CEO, and that an experienced board and accountability are useless.
Since Snap shares don't include any voting rights, the company isn't forced to do much of anything.
I find this trend of holding voting shares separately a future issue. I know people should invest with their eyes open but this seems to be bending the rules to me. If your selling equity you should be selling right to influence and surprised its not an exchange rule forcing voting rights to ensure their companies dont become dynasties run by minority 'a-class' share holding family members out to milk the company...cough cough paint company that wont be named.
Yeah, much the same can be said for GOOG. It's like a weird variable rate (currently 0) bond of infinite duration, not a stock.
Very similar to an index fund, except this one is indexed in stock of this company.
Huh, I hadn't thought of it quite that way before. Something to ponder. Most ETFs seem to just vote the default, but I think maybe some pass through proxies.
I'm no startup expert, but I imagine part of it is that the company's owners (founder, VCs, etc) would like to reap some rewards of their successful endeavor and diversify their riches into other businesses. That means finding buyers, which is presumably most easily accomplished by going public. It's great to build a billion dollar business, but it might as well not exist until you sell some of it to someone.
I imagine that going public, simply by creating a lot of new shares, is also an effective way to raise additional capital, which could be used to grow the company more, similar to a private fundraising round but larger in scale.
I imagine that going public, simply by creating a lot of new shares, is also an effective way to raise additional capital, which could be used to grow the company more, similar to a private fundraising round but larger in scale.
> It's great to build a billion dollar business, but it might as well not exist until you sell some of it to someone.
This statement is boggling. Only in Silicon Valley can a "billion dollar business" be worthless except for the price of its shares. Anywhere else, "billion dollar business" implies some kind of actual revenue.
This statement is boggling. Only in Silicon Valley can a "billion dollar business" be worthless except for the price of its shares. Anywhere else, "billion dollar business" implies some kind of actual revenue.
A giant diamond is also worthless unless you can sell it to someone.
Hoping others with intimate knowledge of investment banking and the market can also chime in, but here are my thoughts.
1.) Raise substantial additional capital for R&D, growth, new products, pay down debt, etc.
2.) Exit event. Allows founders, employees and pre-IPO investors to "cash out". Typically at nice fat returns since they get heavily discounted shares.
3.) Increased public awareness since IPO's usually have media coverage and a general frenzy.
1.) Raise substantial additional capital for R&D, growth, new products, pay down debt, etc.
2.) Exit event. Allows founders, employees and pre-IPO investors to "cash out". Typically at nice fat returns since they get heavily discounted shares.
3.) Increased public awareness since IPO's usually have media coverage and a general frenzy.
4) Use outsized market cap for acquisitions. Facebook for example picked up Instagram for a billion dollars, in large part (~70%) using its very lofty valuation/shares as exchange. Basically in net an incredibly cheap acquisition of an incredibly valuable property.
Not so much "heavily discounted shares" but "lower price to earnings valuations". PE ratio differences are how companies like Berkshire Hathaway use arbitrage to increase their value. They take the difference between a private entity's PE (2-4 X) vs public (17.94 in the case of the Berk beast) to increase the value of their stock.
This is both Voodoo economics (how is $1 million a year profit worth $4 mil in one scenario, and $17.94 in another?) as well as somewhat logical, as public companies have more rules and transparency (in theory, if not always in practice) that make a profitable more public company more stable.
This is both Voodoo economics (how is $1 million a year profit worth $4 mil in one scenario, and $17.94 in another?) as well as somewhat logical, as public companies have more rules and transparency (in theory, if not always in practice) that make a profitable more public company more stable.
In my opinion, there are several advantages of a company going public. The foremost being accountability. I guess it's a bit psychological. Once you are public, inherently that feeling imposes some financial discipline on you as a founder/CEO. Then there are the mandated standards that force discipline upon you further. Next is the cheap availability of capital. Public money is one of the most economical ways of financing large sums of capital, on realistic terms. Third, you are not at the whims and fancies of a select group of investors. You can structure the company shares in ways that can either give you complete control or lets you keep strategic control while allowing you to de-risk your investor cohort.
That being said, one of the most frustrating parts of being a public company is SoX compliance. This is not just for the CEO but for any executive/VP dealing with finances and sales. Every large sale takes a bit longer because now you have to have this additional layer of scrutiny. When you are used to silicon valley pace, these delays can frustrate you, but you eventually get used to it I guess.
That being said, one of the most frustrating parts of being a public company is SoX compliance. This is not just for the CEO but for any executive/VP dealing with finances and sales. Every large sale takes a bit longer because now you have to have this additional layer of scrutiny. When you are used to silicon valley pace, these delays can frustrate you, but you eventually get used to it I guess.
That's valuable, but not necessarily to the owners. Witness Craigslist, which is extremely successful and still private; the owner doesn't see a need to grow or share the profits.
Founders can unload substantial part of their stock as long as they can keep the company afloat for a short period after the IPO (at least a year)
Private investors still want to get paid. Unless the company is 100% bootstrapped, which is almost never the case.
Where do you draw the line though? If you could short every series A or B company, you'd make a killing doing so.
As far as I can tell, the companies themselves owe it to no one other than their investors and employees to consider going public. If going public doesn't further their position, and private funding is available, the responsible thing (as perverse as that is) is to pursue private funding, no? So who's the one ultimately responsible for the current situation, the companies or the investors enabling them?
As far as I can tell, the companies themselves owe it to no one other than their investors and employees to consider going public. If going public doesn't further their position, and private funding is available, the responsible thing (as perverse as that is) is to pursue private funding, no? So who's the one ultimately responsible for the current situation, the companies or the investors enabling them?
"If you could short every series A or B company, you'd make a killing doing so."
That's not really how shorting works. You'd have to find someone willing to let you sell their shares, you'd have to incentivize them to do so, you'd have to find a willing buyer, and you'd have almost unlimited loss potential.
That's not really how shorting works. You'd have to find someone willing to let you sell their shares, you'd have to incentivize them to do so, you'd have to find a willing buyer, and you'd have almost unlimited loss potential.
>"If you could short every series A or B company, you'd make a killing doing so."
To short a stock you generally borrow that stock(on margin) from a broker. How do you do that with a pre-IPO company?
To short a stock you generally borrow that stock(on margin) from a broker. How do you do that with a pre-IPO company?
You can bet against anything with a derivative instrument as long you can find a counterparty for your bet.
That's not shorting though. The difference being that a short sale has an effect on the market while a bet is invisible (so you can bet the whole market cap of the company without moving the market)
Interesting POV. Didn't think the public markets would provide a stricter level of accountability than the private market.
I feel like Snapchat is what all the younger kids are using, at least so I've noticed. I'm 30 but old school. I don't see them using it past a certain age (say.. college most likely). Everyone who uses Snapchat will probably gravitate to or concurrently use Instagram and Facebook. Facebook will persist into old age, perhaps Instagram as well.
There's a notion of active vs. passive engagement in each of these. Snapchat requires more active engagement to be interesting. There's the story aspect but not sure it's compelling enough. Facebook is nice because as soon as you turn it on you have this sort of mini magazine like feed that tells you what all your 'friends' are doing, you don't really need to do much to get involved, and it becomes easy to boop the like button to engage / like things.
What I think snap does have, that could be quite cool from a technology standpoint is its ability to create these "masks/goggles" that react when you say stick out your tongue or raise your eyebrows. I think that sort of what I would term reactive AI is something that carries a lot of potential. I don't know how much I see it becoming an ad-revenue generator, like FB/Insta/Twit that have more of this passive magazine like structure that still somehow fosters engagement.
Also curious to see what happens when rates go up
I feel like Snapchat is what all the younger kids are using, at least so I've noticed. I'm 30 but old school. I don't see them using it past a certain age (say.. college most likely). Everyone who uses Snapchat will probably gravitate to or concurrently use Instagram and Facebook. Facebook will persist into old age, perhaps Instagram as well.
There's a notion of active vs. passive engagement in each of these. Snapchat requires more active engagement to be interesting. There's the story aspect but not sure it's compelling enough. Facebook is nice because as soon as you turn it on you have this sort of mini magazine like feed that tells you what all your 'friends' are doing, you don't really need to do much to get involved, and it becomes easy to boop the like button to engage / like things.
What I think snap does have, that could be quite cool from a technology standpoint is its ability to create these "masks/goggles" that react when you say stick out your tongue or raise your eyebrows. I think that sort of what I would term reactive AI is something that carries a lot of potential. I don't know how much I see it becoming an ad-revenue generator, like FB/Insta/Twit that have more of this passive magazine like structure that still somehow fosters engagement.
Also curious to see what happens when rates go up
I see my friends leaking out of Facebook, mostly into Snap. It is free from the dead weight of the past problem that plagues Facebook.
what is the problem?
Care to elaborate? :)
I don't think you can blame companies for taking free money at high valuation when it's offered to them. Who's investing? Either it's a good investment or it isn't; if the latter, whoever's investing won't have their money much longer.
I'd hardly consider an ownership stake in your company to be "free", with or without voting rights.
Depends if your company is worth anything. But you're right, I meant "cheap" rather than "free".
While their financials could not be solid they can use the capital to try new things, including acquiring other companies. Since Google and Facebook we are seeing a new kind of companies which are more flexible on trying new ventures and being relatively successful comparing to companies like Xerox or IBM that were/are not able to integrate innovations in their business.
Shorting a company that doesn't have a large free float can actually be quite expensive. You have to borrow the stock from someone, and pay them for the privilege.
Before Snap's IPO, I declined when asked to make predictions. But I did say what I thought would be the best for venture-backed companies in the long run. It is a small pop on IPO day followed by a months-long drag down to a reasonable valuation.
The small pop would signal healthy IPO conditions. The slow run down would show investors aren't in full-throttle bubble mode. We got the pop, plus some, as well as the the drag down, albeit sooner and faster than expected. If SNAP continues to between here and the offering price we can still chalk this up as a win for SV.
(Keep in mind, Facebook--whose revenues grew 54.2% from FYE 2015 to FYE 2016--trades at 14.4x FYE 2016 revenues. That implies a $5.82bn valuation for Snap. It's trading at a $30.4bn valuation, or 5x higher.)
[1] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AFB&fstype=ii&ei=4-...
Disclaimer: this is not investment advice. Please don't be a numpty and buy or sell securities based on Internet comments.
The small pop would signal healthy IPO conditions. The slow run down would show investors aren't in full-throttle bubble mode. We got the pop, plus some, as well as the the drag down, albeit sooner and faster than expected. If SNAP continues to between here and the offering price we can still chalk this up as a win for SV.
(Keep in mind, Facebook--whose revenues grew 54.2% from FYE 2015 to FYE 2016--trades at 14.4x FYE 2016 revenues. That implies a $5.82bn valuation for Snap. It's trading at a $30.4bn valuation, or 5x higher.)
[1] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AFB&fstype=ii&ei=4-...
Disclaimer: this is not investment advice. Please don't be a numpty and buy or sell securities based on Internet comments.
Not really a fair direct comparison to FB. Snap's revenues grew 600% from 2015 to 2016 (versus FB's 54% growth), you have to account for growth rate as well. Snap is estimated to be at $2B in 2018 (by Goldman)[1]. So yes, still overvalued, but not nearly as bad as an implied $5B valuation.
[1]http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-is-predicting-s...
[1]http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-is-predicting-s...
> Not really a fair direct comparison to FB
Fair enough. The standard growth adjustment to the P/E ratio is the price/earnings to growth (PEG) ratio. Let's consider a price/revenue to growth (PRG) ratio for Facebook and Snap.
Facebook's $398bn valuation [1] sits on $27.6bn of 2016 revenues, up 54.2% from 2015 [2]. This represents a PRG of 0.266. Snap's $30.4bn valuation [3] rests on $404 million of 2016 revenues, up 690% from 2015 [4]. Thus, a PRG of 0.109.
Snap needs to grow revenues by at least 290% a year every year for the foreseeable future to reach Facebook's price/revenue levels. Put another way, Snap has a year and a half [5] to hit $2bn in revenues. (At that point, its price-today-to-revenues-tomorrow profile will be similar to Facebook's price-today-to-revenues-today.)
[1] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AFB&ei=z_C9WLngO4W8...
[2] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AFB&fstype=ii&ei=JP...}
[3] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ASNAP&sq=snap&sp=2&ei...
[4] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ASNAP&fstype=ii&ei=1v...
[5] log 1.29 ((27.64 / 398.3) * 30.44) / 0.4045)
Disclaimer: this is not investment advice. Please don't be a numpty and buy or sell securities based on Internet comments.
Fair enough. The standard growth adjustment to the P/E ratio is the price/earnings to growth (PEG) ratio. Let's consider a price/revenue to growth (PRG) ratio for Facebook and Snap.
Facebook's $398bn valuation [1] sits on $27.6bn of 2016 revenues, up 54.2% from 2015 [2]. This represents a PRG of 0.266. Snap's $30.4bn valuation [3] rests on $404 million of 2016 revenues, up 690% from 2015 [4]. Thus, a PRG of 0.109.
Snap needs to grow revenues by at least 290% a year every year for the foreseeable future to reach Facebook's price/revenue levels. Put another way, Snap has a year and a half [5] to hit $2bn in revenues. (At that point, its price-today-to-revenues-tomorrow profile will be similar to Facebook's price-today-to-revenues-today.)
[1] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AFB&ei=z_C9WLngO4W8...
[2] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AFB&fstype=ii&ei=JP...}
[3] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ASNAP&sq=snap&sp=2&ei...
[4] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ASNAP&fstype=ii&ei=1v...
[5] log 1.29 ((27.64 / 398.3) * 30.44) / 0.4045)
Disclaimer: this is not investment advice. Please don't be a numpty and buy or sell securities based on Internet comments.
> Snap needs to grow revenues by at least 290% a year every year for the foreseeable future
No they don't, you're exaggerating substantially.
They'll hit near $1 billion in sales for fiscal 2017.
FB's price to sales number as you noted is 14.
For Snapchat to hit that level, they need around $2 billion in sales as of today (that'll soon be even lower I suspect).
They'll need one year of 100% growth after this year. They could easily get near or hit the 14 sales multiple by the end of 2018 in other words, without needing a single year of 290% growth in either 2017 or 2018. Your speculation missed by a mile.
They did $404 million for 2016. 290% growth on that would get them near $1.56 billion. In just five to six quarters of your growth projection, they'd have caught up to the Facebook sales multiple.
Or be conservative about it. They need:
100% growth for 2017 = ~$800m in sales for the year
70% growth for 2018 = ~$1.35b in sales for the year. They'd have a 21 sales multiple there (50% higher multiple, with near 50% faster growth).
50% growth for 2019 = ~$2 billion in sales, which gives them the 14 price to sales multiple on today's market valuation. Based on what kind of sales growth rates have been achieved by the likes of Twitter, these growth numbers are reasonable.
Not even remotely close to requiring 290% per year growth for years into the foreseeable future.
No they don't, you're exaggerating substantially.
They'll hit near $1 billion in sales for fiscal 2017.
FB's price to sales number as you noted is 14.
For Snapchat to hit that level, they need around $2 billion in sales as of today (that'll soon be even lower I suspect).
They'll need one year of 100% growth after this year. They could easily get near or hit the 14 sales multiple by the end of 2018 in other words, without needing a single year of 290% growth in either 2017 or 2018. Your speculation missed by a mile.
They did $404 million for 2016. 290% growth on that would get them near $1.56 billion. In just five to six quarters of your growth projection, they'd have caught up to the Facebook sales multiple.
Or be conservative about it. They need:
100% growth for 2017 = ~$800m in sales for the year
70% growth for 2018 = ~$1.35b in sales for the year. They'd have a 21 sales multiple there (50% higher multiple, with near 50% faster growth).
50% growth for 2019 = ~$2 billion in sales, which gives them the 14 price to sales multiple on today's market valuation. Based on what kind of sales growth rates have been achieved by the likes of Twitter, these growth numbers are reasonable.
Not even remotely close to requiring 290% per year growth for years into the foreseeable future.
> In just five to six quarters of your growth projection, they'd have caught up to the Facebook sales multiple.
>> Put another way, Snap has a year and a half to hit $2bn in revenues
"Five to six quarters" is the same as a year and a half.
> 50% growth for 2019 = ~$2 billion in sales, which gives them the 14 price to sales multiple on today's market valuation
In 2019. We are comparing Snap's price-to-revenue ratio, adjusted for expected growth, with Facebook's. If you increase the time Snap has to reach a price-to-revenue threshold then you've reduced its growth. That, in turn, requires a higher price-to-revenue ratio to make the growth-adjusted PRG comparable.
Going from $404 million to $2.06 billion in 3 years (instead of 2 or 1.5) means a 70.4% growth rate (instead of 122% or 190%) [1]. That produces PRG ratios of 1.07, 0.627 and 0.399, respectively. Higher than Facebook's 0.266.
[1] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cagr.asp
>> Put another way, Snap has a year and a half to hit $2bn in revenues
"Five to six quarters" is the same as a year and a half.
> 50% growth for 2019 = ~$2 billion in sales, which gives them the 14 price to sales multiple on today's market valuation
In 2019. We are comparing Snap's price-to-revenue ratio, adjusted for expected growth, with Facebook's. If you increase the time Snap has to reach a price-to-revenue threshold then you've reduced its growth. That, in turn, requires a higher price-to-revenue ratio to make the growth-adjusted PRG comparable.
Going from $404 million to $2.06 billion in 3 years (instead of 2 or 1.5) means a 70.4% growth rate (instead of 122% or 190%) [1]. That produces PRG ratios of 1.07, 0.627 and 0.399, respectively. Higher than Facebook's 0.266.
[1] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cagr.asp
> "Five to six quarters" is the same as a year and a half.
You said they need 290% growth for years into the foreseeable future. You were wildly exaggerating. They never once need to hit near 290% style growth rates in the next three fiscal years (including 2017).
You seem to be intentionally ignoring that they don't need 290% type growth to reach FB's sales multiple rapidly.
100% -> 70% -> 50% growth is perfectly reasonable based on historical comparisons and what Snap has already managed.
By the end of 2018, their 21 sales multiple would justify the contrast with Facebook's 14 type level, based on the much higher growth rate.
Or, let's be even more realistic about it. Their stock declines from here as most are expecting. They have a $22 billion market cap instead. Their sales hit $1 billion for 2017, and then $1.7 billion for 2018. Their multiple at that point (13) is below the Facebook 14 number. That's a mere seven quarters or less away now, performing at a growth rate that is likely to be hit or nearly so. That's assuming they don't outperform on ad sales and deliver even higher growth.
You said they need 290% growth for years into the foreseeable future. You were wildly exaggerating. They never once need to hit near 290% style growth rates in the next three fiscal years (including 2017).
You seem to be intentionally ignoring that they don't need 290% type growth to reach FB's sales multiple rapidly.
100% -> 70% -> 50% growth is perfectly reasonable based on historical comparisons and what Snap has already managed.
By the end of 2018, their 21 sales multiple would justify the contrast with Facebook's 14 type level, based on the much higher growth rate.
Or, let's be even more realistic about it. Their stock declines from here as most are expecting. They have a $22 billion market cap instead. Their sales hit $1 billion for 2017, and then $1.7 billion for 2018. Their multiple at that point (13) is below the Facebook 14 number. That's a mere seven quarters or less away now, performing at a growth rate that is likely to be hit or nearly so. That's assuming they don't outperform on ad sales and deliver even higher growth.
> You seem to be intentionally ignoring that they don't need 290% type growth to reach FB's sales multiple rapidly
They need at least 290% growth to reach parity with Facebook on a PRG basis. This is a mathematical fact arising from their and Facebook's numbers and the definition of the PRG ratio.
There are four components to the PEG ratio: price (P), earnings and earnings growth rate [1]. For the PRG ratio, we amend this to price, revenues (R) and revenue growth rate (G), i.e. P / (R * G * 100). We can further expand G to revenues today (R0), revenues tomorrow (R') and the years between today and tomorrow (y) using the definition of compound annual growth rate [2]. We can thus derive a fuller expression of the PRG ratio [3].
Using Facebook's FYE 2015 numbers for R0 and FYE 2016 numbers for R', where R' = R since we're using a historical R', we find a PRG ratio of 0.266 [4]. We now seek to find under what conditions Snap can make a 0.266 PRG given its current valuation. R0 = R = $404 million (FYE 2016 revenues) since we're forecasting R'. P is set by the market.
All we have to play with are R' and y related by (R' / 404 million) ^ (1 / y) = 3.833. Solving for y given R'=$2.06bn yields 1.19 years. Going from $404 million to $2.06bn in 1.19 years means a 283% growth rate.
The math is unyielding. In one year, Snap needs $1.5bn (in 2 and 3 years $5.9bn and $23bn, respectively) to hold, at a minimum, parity with Facebook based on this metric. If they don't, their PRG ratio goes up or their valuation goes down. This is a fact based on definition, not an opinion.
Valuing unprofitable high-growth companies is hard. Your quibble may be with the metric. When Snap becomes profitable it will lend itself to the far more tolerant P/E and PEG ratios. Until then, they need to grow or devalue.
[1] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pegratio.asp
[2] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cagr.asp
[3] PRG Ratio = P / [100 * R * ((R' / R0) ^ (1 / y) - 1)]
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13807118
They need at least 290% growth to reach parity with Facebook on a PRG basis. This is a mathematical fact arising from their and Facebook's numbers and the definition of the PRG ratio.
There are four components to the PEG ratio: price (P), earnings and earnings growth rate [1]. For the PRG ratio, we amend this to price, revenues (R) and revenue growth rate (G), i.e. P / (R * G * 100). We can further expand G to revenues today (R0), revenues tomorrow (R') and the years between today and tomorrow (y) using the definition of compound annual growth rate [2]. We can thus derive a fuller expression of the PRG ratio [3].
Using Facebook's FYE 2015 numbers for R0 and FYE 2016 numbers for R', where R' = R since we're using a historical R', we find a PRG ratio of 0.266 [4]. We now seek to find under what conditions Snap can make a 0.266 PRG given its current valuation. R0 = R = $404 million (FYE 2016 revenues) since we're forecasting R'. P is set by the market.
All we have to play with are R' and y related by (R' / 404 million) ^ (1 / y) = 3.833. Solving for y given R'=$2.06bn yields 1.19 years. Going from $404 million to $2.06bn in 1.19 years means a 283% growth rate.
The math is unyielding. In one year, Snap needs $1.5bn (in 2 and 3 years $5.9bn and $23bn, respectively) to hold, at a minimum, parity with Facebook based on this metric. If they don't, their PRG ratio goes up or their valuation goes down. This is a fact based on definition, not an opinion.
Valuing unprofitable high-growth companies is hard. Your quibble may be with the metric. When Snap becomes profitable it will lend itself to the far more tolerant P/E and PEG ratios. Until then, they need to grow or devalue.
[1] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pegratio.asp
[2] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cagr.asp
[3] PRG Ratio = P / [100 * R * ((R' / R0) ^ (1 / y) - 1)]
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13807118
They also increased their losses from 2015 to 2016, and their growth is slowing substantially as Instagram is competing more aggressively with them.
Agree. There will never exist a direct comparison, given this current market is about one company owning a particular niche in the overall online services market. There are no close 2nd placers when it comes to a particular model and offering.
Well, there has to be a little offset to compensate for the size. It's easier to grow a smaller business at high rates than it is at Facebook scale.
> we can still chalk this up as a win for SV.
But a loss for the investors that bought the stock on the open market. So even if you think that's a good thing it will definitely reduce the chance of seeing another pop with the next IPO.
A 'drag down' is never a good thing for a stock.
But a loss for the investors that bought the stock on the open market. So even if you think that's a good thing it will definitely reduce the chance of seeing another pop with the next IPO.
A 'drag down' is never a good thing for a stock.
> it will definitely reduce the chance of seeing another pop with the next IPO
"Pop" is a function of the gap between what the underwriters pay the company (the offering price), what the underwriters offer the market (the opening price) and what the market offers itself (the first-day closing price).
Lower first-day closing expectations thus mean less "pop", less profit for the bankers and/or a lower offering price for the company. If you believe, as I do, that valuations are touching on frothy, none of those is a bad thing.
Keep in mind that Snap was happy to go public at 14 to 16 a share [1]. Bankers priced at 17, it opened at 24 and then we got this mess.
> A 'drag down' is never a good thing for a stock
It can be healthy for the market if it encourages sustainable practices. That's my point--it's good in the long run.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/02/16/snap-pric...
"Pop" is a function of the gap between what the underwriters pay the company (the offering price), what the underwriters offer the market (the opening price) and what the market offers itself (the first-day closing price).
Lower first-day closing expectations thus mean less "pop", less profit for the bankers and/or a lower offering price for the company. If you believe, as I do, that valuations are touching on frothy, none of those is a bad thing.
Keep in mind that Snap was happy to go public at 14 to 16 a share [1]. Bankers priced at 17, it opened at 24 and then we got this mess.
> A 'drag down' is never a good thing for a stock
It can be healthy for the market if it encourages sustainable practices. That's my point--it's good in the long run.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/02/16/snap-pric...
> But a loss for the investors that bought the stock on the open market.
It's a loss for speculators who gambled that it would go up. I'm lacking sympathy for people who snap up stock at IPO and assume it can't possibly drop.
> A 'drag down' is never a good thing for a stock.
It's a great thing for anyone who wants to buy at the lower price.
It's a loss for speculators who gambled that it would go up. I'm lacking sympathy for people who snap up stock at IPO and assume it can't possibly drop.
> A 'drag down' is never a good thing for a stock.
It's a great thing for anyone who wants to buy at the lower price.
The point of his post is "it's good for Snapchat in the long run - it indicates a healthy company."
So, it's very good for investors who invested in the company, i.e. the sorts of people that won't be selling the stock within 2 days of buying it. They'll hold on, and presumably make money in the long run as the values drag down.... and back up beyond the ipo value.
So, it's very good for investors who invested in the company, i.e. the sorts of people that won't be selling the stock within 2 days of buying it. They'll hold on, and presumably make money in the long run as the values drag down.... and back up beyond the ipo value.
This company isn't offering voting rights nor planning dividends. What's the benefit of owning shares, other than trying to choose the right moment to sell them to other speculators?
The benefit is that you might receive dividends later on, after a period of revenue growth.
Granted, it'll be years if not decades before SNAP pays a dividend, if it succeeds at all. But on the flip side, SNAP's future dividends could turn out to be worth much more than the current price, even after discounting for risk and the opportunity cost of your capital.
Granted, it'll be years if not decades before SNAP pays a dividend, if it succeeds at all. But on the flip side, SNAP's future dividends could turn out to be worth much more than the current price, even after discounting for risk and the opportunity cost of your capital.
I would think less of a pop in future IPOs is also a good thing. It means that the markets are valuing shares in tech companies in a measured and reasonable way to begin with, which results in less market volatility, which in turn results in fewer of the kind of financial plot-twists that burn companies down and toss engineers out on the street.
Its only a bad thing if you're trying to short-term game the market with simplistic strategies. And if you're doing that you have worse problems.
Its only a bad thing if you're trying to short-term game the market with simplistic strategies. And if you're doing that you have worse problems.
It's only a loss if they sell...
> we can still chalk this up as a win for SV
Snap is not located in Silicon Valley, if that's what you meant by "SV".
Snap is not located in Silicon Valley, if that's what you meant by "SV".
I didn't decline when asked. I said "sell".
It's below the opening price which is not a big deal. FB on the other hand quickly dipped below the offering price. If the 3 days expected value of a recent IPO is significantly different from the opening price, that would create an easy arbitrage opportunity.
> It's below the opening price which is not a big deal.
It is if you bought at the opening. Retail investors don't get to participate at the offering price.
It is if you bought at the opening. Retail investors don't get to participate at the offering price.
Stocks go up and down. If you're shocked that a stock you bought at 25 is now trading at 24 you probably shouldn't be trading.
Retail investors shouldn't be gambling on IPOs.
yeah but it isn't as headline worthy. There is a syndicate of investment banks legally propping up the price at $17 for a short time. If selling pressure somehow breaches the syndicate bid, HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. Whether or not it's a big deal depends on who you are.
Their finances look horrible; worse than Twitter. Unlike Twitter, however, they make almost 0 Gross Profit (not even counting admin expenses and R&D). It looks like they're counting entirely on growth but the revenue numbers still look very small. Twitter's revenue is $2 billion+, Facebook is $27 billion+. Snap's $400 million looks measly by comparison especially when you consider the expenses incurred.
Their growth figures look really bad relative to Facebook at the same stage.
It should, they're not the next Facebook. No social network is going to be. Facebook managed their growth rates, in a mostly open field, while not having to compete with another social network quasi-monopoly with 1.2 billion daily actives.
Who even compares Facebook with Snap? gooby pls
> Twitter's revenue is $2 billion+, Facebook is $27 billion+. Snap's $400 million looks measly
Apples to apples etc...
TWTR revenue 665M in 2013 (the year they went public)
TWTR revenue 316M in 2012 (the year before)
FB rev 5.09B in 2012 (the year it went public)
FB rev 3.7B in 2011 (the year before)
SNAP rev ??? in 2017 (the year it went public)
SNAP rev 400M in 2016 (the year before)
Apples to apples etc...
TWTR revenue 665M in 2013 (the year they went public)
TWTR revenue 316M in 2012 (the year before)
FB rev 5.09B in 2012 (the year it went public)
FB rev 3.7B in 2011 (the year before)
SNAP rev ??? in 2017 (the year it went public)
SNAP rev 400M in 2016 (the year before)
It is amazing how a few analysts can change how much a company is valued on the stock market. Has the opinion about Snapchat on tech forums like this, whose opinion should matter since we're literally the people who built it have significantly changed since two days ago to justify a 4 billion dollars price change?
There are many of us techies who think it's rediculously over priced. It's cool with teens because their parents aren't there. Teens are fickle and will move on, especially if parents show up (or those teens stay around long enough to become the parents). I give it 10 years.
I disagree, I think snapchat will be less vulnerable to the "parents are there" effect because it's more about messaging than it is profiles.
So you're saying it will get turned over to the parents, at which point it will become worthless? Like Facebook?
The thing with Facebook is every day teens are slowly turning into the "old people" on Facebook (who are heavy users) and every day new teens join to replace them.
Do you see kids looking at stuff parents used and say "SO COOL"?
"at which point it will become worthless? Like Facebook?"
Every company goes through the hype phase. What is 'left over' is usually the raw utility of the product.
'Parents' got onto Facebook and continue to use it = some degree of utility. Teens 'stay on' because of the ubiquity of it.
Snap is not Facebook. It's very possible that 'parents' never go onto snap, because it offers them little outside of messaging. 'Sharing moments' is just not what people > 30 care to do that much. Maybe some, but not likely a critical mass.
Furthermore - even these features are somewhat faddish among the young.
There is a very real possibility that Snap is a huge fad, with very little underlying utility.
Now - Snap is different. They refer to themselves as a 'camera company' so maybe they can keep innovating, but I'm doubtful.
But if they position themselves as an 'aspirational youth brand' - then they might stay relevant.
Think: Nike, Lululemon - they make pretty good gear used by 'real atheletes/yoga types' - which gives the brand enough validation for you and I and other chumps to pay $$$ for their gear while we sweat it out.
They are LA based, which is good for that. Also - those 'snap glasses' - even though they were not very 'useful' - actually were a brilliant bit of marketing, and hit the zeitgeist of relevance perfectly.
So either/or:
1) They make an app that appeals to 'everyone' - which I doubt.
2) They continue to innovate in 'camera/sharing/experience' perpetually, which I doubt.
3) They can stay cool. Which I also doubt, but wouldn't put it pas them.
Again the issue is also real valuation: $25 Billion is a lot of valuation for a company that's not making any money. I don't care what their 'growth' is. What matters is 'how big they can grow, how well they keep customers, and how well they convert on them'.
I'm doubtful that Snap - as we see it today is going to grow into commodity usage.
Twitter has I think a broader appeal - and look where they are.
Facebook did not change that much from after their IPO - the product offer is largely the same. The same thing millenials used, their parents and grandparents used. I don't think Snap can say the same.
They could be succesful, but there's a lot more risk in it than say, FB - and that risk should be reflected in the valuation.
Every company goes through the hype phase. What is 'left over' is usually the raw utility of the product.
'Parents' got onto Facebook and continue to use it = some degree of utility. Teens 'stay on' because of the ubiquity of it.
Snap is not Facebook. It's very possible that 'parents' never go onto snap, because it offers them little outside of messaging. 'Sharing moments' is just not what people > 30 care to do that much. Maybe some, but not likely a critical mass.
Furthermore - even these features are somewhat faddish among the young.
There is a very real possibility that Snap is a huge fad, with very little underlying utility.
Now - Snap is different. They refer to themselves as a 'camera company' so maybe they can keep innovating, but I'm doubtful.
But if they position themselves as an 'aspirational youth brand' - then they might stay relevant.
Think: Nike, Lululemon - they make pretty good gear used by 'real atheletes/yoga types' - which gives the brand enough validation for you and I and other chumps to pay $$$ for their gear while we sweat it out.
They are LA based, which is good for that. Also - those 'snap glasses' - even though they were not very 'useful' - actually were a brilliant bit of marketing, and hit the zeitgeist of relevance perfectly.
So either/or:
1) They make an app that appeals to 'everyone' - which I doubt.
2) They continue to innovate in 'camera/sharing/experience' perpetually, which I doubt.
3) They can stay cool. Which I also doubt, but wouldn't put it pas them.
Again the issue is also real valuation: $25 Billion is a lot of valuation for a company that's not making any money. I don't care what their 'growth' is. What matters is 'how big they can grow, how well they keep customers, and how well they convert on them'.
I'm doubtful that Snap - as we see it today is going to grow into commodity usage.
Twitter has I think a broader appeal - and look where they are.
Facebook did not change that much from after their IPO - the product offer is largely the same. The same thing millenials used, their parents and grandparents used. I don't think Snap can say the same.
They could be succesful, but there's a lot more risk in it than say, FB - and that risk should be reflected in the valuation.
If Snap is not Facebook, why did Facebook hustle to get Messenger out? Snap is messaging. Messaging kind of a big deal.
Any company can own any of a number of corners of the social media space. Facebook can't eat Tumblr unless Tumblr drops the "commentary is king" ball. Snap can't eat Instagram unless Instagram drops the "streams of nice pictures" ball. No one company can control it all because there are many different social physicses and people can only handle a few physicses under a single brand name.
And no one can eat Snap unless Snap drops the "send media to your friends right now" ball.
All Snap has to do is execute. Sure, they could stumble over themselves, but person-to-person media rich messaging is theirs to lose.
Any company can own any of a number of corners of the social media space. Facebook can't eat Tumblr unless Tumblr drops the "commentary is king" ball. Snap can't eat Instagram unless Instagram drops the "streams of nice pictures" ball. No one company can control it all because there are many different social physicses and people can only handle a few physicses under a single brand name.
And no one can eat Snap unless Snap drops the "send media to your friends right now" ball.
All Snap has to do is execute. Sure, they could stumble over themselves, but person-to-person media rich messaging is theirs to lose.
FB got messaging out because yes, it's a big deal - it's THE deal in mobile.
Snap is not really messaging - it's 'sharing moments'. It's not really very good as a 'simple messaging app' - unlike FB, which is very basically messaging.
My mother will use FB messenger, she won't use Snap.
'Basic messaging' is the ubiquitous thing, 'Enhanced messaging is 'niche-ish'.
Snap definitely could go to ubiquity, but I don't think they will. Maybe.
Snap is not really messaging - it's 'sharing moments'. It's not really very good as a 'simple messaging app' - unlike FB, which is very basically messaging.
My mother will use FB messenger, she won't use Snap.
'Basic messaging' is the ubiquitous thing, 'Enhanced messaging is 'niche-ish'.
Snap definitely could go to ubiquity, but I don't think they will. Maybe.
Thanks for the analysis. I have only played with Snap on friends phone s. Sounds like Twitter is a better comparison then?
I guess when I am thinking about "messaging" I am just thinking 1:1 or 1:few publishing and private. Which Snap is (mostly? Kim Kardashian is on there so semi-public)
The distinction between media capture and text is interesting though. I haven't thought about the possibility that those are fundamentally different.
I guess when I am thinking about "messaging" I am just thinking 1:1 or 1:few publishing and private. Which Snap is (mostly? Kim Kardashian is on there so semi-public)
The distinction between media capture and text is interesting though. I haven't thought about the possibility that those are fundamentally different.
Unless they morph into something different or maybe try to be everything for everyone which seems to be the strategy nowadays, e.g. FB, Amazon, at least Amazon completely dominated the book sector before morphing.
To me this was apparent in their corporate rebrand as Snap Inc. Threading the needle and parlaying your hype into a diversified, profitable holdings corp is the formula they seem to be following. IMO Amazon got there naturally, FB took big, deliberate steps to get there, and Twitter is not getting there fast enough.
I'm bearish on Snap at current numbers, but willing to see how they play their position for long term growth.
(I have no positions, this is not investment advice, reality is a construct of the human mind etc)
I'm bearish on Snap at current numbers, but willing to see how they play their position for long term growth.
(I have no positions, this is not investment advice, reality is a construct of the human mind etc)
[deleted]
How the market works is the only people whose opinions matter are those who put their money where their mouth is.
They didn't. The price went up because dumb money got their first chance to buy the hype and it went down because there is only so much dumb money to go around.
I'm not convinced it is just the analysts that change the company valuation. When the price goes down, the media looks to attribute a reason to it. They see the analysts said sell and say that must be the cause.
The reality is often a lot more complex.
The reality is often a lot more complex.
Did you read about the lawsuit against Michael Dell after taking Dell private? Essentially he was sued because there was a price differential between the PE firms bid and the "true" market value of Dell, both of which were drastically above Dell's stock price.
Valuations of companies are complex irrational things.
Valuations of companies are complex irrational things.
The company's financial fundamentals are terrible. The only thing holding the value up is fluff and hot air. If people get less excited by that the price goes way down and that's what happened today. If people really really lose excitement the price will fall like a rock since there's no typical financial fundamental circuit breakers (like P/E ratio) to stop the thing from just going down down down.
It is difficult to comment on whether Snap is overvalued without analyzing its potential worth. Instead, here are a few observations about Snap's business:
* It seems unlikely Snap could plummet in popularity over a few months like some mobile game or Taylor Swift song. If Snap flames out, the usage graph will probably decay more like Skype than Draw Something. The two prongs of its platform allow Snap to (1) enable communication like Skype and (2) distribute content like YouTube. Distribution and communication companies tend to decline much slower than content creators like Zynga.
* Snap's entertainment platform could finally crack interactive TV/video. This will be fascinating to watch unfold as Snap empowers content creators to create digestible, interactive video for the coveted advertising demographic of users aged 15-34. In particular, could adding a buy button marry video and commerce in a novel and lucrative way?
* Through videos and pictures, Snap can infer a lot about users: style, hobbies, habits, food preferences, and more. This is also a hidden treasure trove for Instagram and Facebook, but given the high frequency of Snap messaging, the data could be richer and more authentic with Snap.
* It seems unlikely Snap could plummet in popularity over a few months like some mobile game or Taylor Swift song. If Snap flames out, the usage graph will probably decay more like Skype than Draw Something. The two prongs of its platform allow Snap to (1) enable communication like Skype and (2) distribute content like YouTube. Distribution and communication companies tend to decline much slower than content creators like Zynga.
* Snap's entertainment platform could finally crack interactive TV/video. This will be fascinating to watch unfold as Snap empowers content creators to create digestible, interactive video for the coveted advertising demographic of users aged 15-34. In particular, could adding a buy button marry video and commerce in a novel and lucrative way?
* Through videos and pictures, Snap can infer a lot about users: style, hobbies, habits, food preferences, and more. This is also a hidden treasure trove for Instagram and Facebook, but given the high frequency of Snap messaging, the data could be richer and more authentic with Snap.
Given the nature of Snapchat, one would hope that mining pictures for data, as suggested in your third point, would turn away many users.
It's unclear if they will mine pictures; the third point was merely speculation on what could present a valuable component of the business. That said, mining could be done in a non-creepy way similar to how Facebook mines data without alienating (too many) users.
Do you really think the teen to young adult demographic, who used Snapchat as a nude selfie channel, are going to be interested in Snap as a commercial media with ads channel?
Extrapolating from personal anecdotes and media reports, the vast majority of Snaps may be non-nude messages. If true, Snap presents a very compelling medium for advertisers to reach teens and young adults. Moreover, the ads could get inserted into public Stories, which are less likely to include nudes, than private messagss. In this way, Snap would be similar to how TV networks monetize.
Well, yes, you could place ads wherever you wanted. Whether the userbase responds well to your ads is another story.
Advertising in one-to-one messages feels very intrusive, I could see a market for direct marketing in the stories section however it would have to beat the indirect advertising marketers are currently paying the power users for.
Advertising in one-to-one messages feels very intrusive, I could see a market for direct marketing in the stories section however it would have to beat the indirect advertising marketers are currently paying the power users for.
[Too late to edit the parent]
The metric to monitor for Snap is daily engagement. Snap has all but confirmed it will not play the MAU game [0]. This doesn't mean Snap won’t try to expand the user base, but merely that maximizing MAUs isn’t the same priority as at Facebook.
This strategy is risky because it means Snap must generate growth from somewhere other than user acquisition, which is the typical playbook for consumer startups.
On the plus side, this frees Snap to pursue an Apple-like strategy of pushing the boundaries of coolness and innovation as opposed to diluting the service until it's vanilla enough to reach 1B+ users. The more mainstream your aims, the fewer risks you can afford with the core product.
Strategically, it may let Snap sidestep the trap that ensnared Twitter. Twitter’s greatest sin was simply not being Facebook. Wall Street and the media need a foil for every market leader, and Twitter has been sadly shoved into this role.
Playing the MAU game is playing Facebook’s game, and Zuckbergerg has so far dominated anyone who competes.
Focusing on daily engagement offers a chance to battle the lion in water instead of on land, to position Snap as different from Facebook and pioneering a different market. Unseating Facebook as the #1 social network is extremely daunting for Snap, if not downright impossible. As Twitter today and AMD from the 1990s can attest, life as the #2 player can be challenging. Wall Street whacks you with much lower multiples, and the press is hardly any kinder.
Whether Snap actually convinces Wall Street and others to value them as different from Facebook remains to be seen, but this route is not surprising given Twitter’s carnage.
Even if Snap stumbles, what Spiegel and Murphy accomplished is nothing short of extraordinary. They grew a pure sexting app into a $30B communication and entertainment platform. This transformation didn't result from one "lucky" choice, but rather a series of risks and enhancements over multiple years. If you had given me 4-5 years to maximize the value of a sexting app, I think maybe, in the most optimistic scenario, with all the luck in the world, the app could have sold for $3M (with $0 as the likely scenario). What they did is 10000x greater than what I could have achieved under the same circumstances.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-20/snap-said...
The metric to monitor for Snap is daily engagement. Snap has all but confirmed it will not play the MAU game [0]. This doesn't mean Snap won’t try to expand the user base, but merely that maximizing MAUs isn’t the same priority as at Facebook.
This strategy is risky because it means Snap must generate growth from somewhere other than user acquisition, which is the typical playbook for consumer startups.
On the plus side, this frees Snap to pursue an Apple-like strategy of pushing the boundaries of coolness and innovation as opposed to diluting the service until it's vanilla enough to reach 1B+ users. The more mainstream your aims, the fewer risks you can afford with the core product.
Strategically, it may let Snap sidestep the trap that ensnared Twitter. Twitter’s greatest sin was simply not being Facebook. Wall Street and the media need a foil for every market leader, and Twitter has been sadly shoved into this role.
Playing the MAU game is playing Facebook’s game, and Zuckbergerg has so far dominated anyone who competes.
Focusing on daily engagement offers a chance to battle the lion in water instead of on land, to position Snap as different from Facebook and pioneering a different market. Unseating Facebook as the #1 social network is extremely daunting for Snap, if not downright impossible. As Twitter today and AMD from the 1990s can attest, life as the #2 player can be challenging. Wall Street whacks you with much lower multiples, and the press is hardly any kinder.
Whether Snap actually convinces Wall Street and others to value them as different from Facebook remains to be seen, but this route is not surprising given Twitter’s carnage.
Even if Snap stumbles, what Spiegel and Murphy accomplished is nothing short of extraordinary. They grew a pure sexting app into a $30B communication and entertainment platform. This transformation didn't result from one "lucky" choice, but rather a series of risks and enhancements over multiple years. If you had given me 4-5 years to maximize the value of a sexting app, I think maybe, in the most optimistic scenario, with all the luck in the world, the app could have sold for $3M (with $0 as the likely scenario). What they did is 10000x greater than what I could have achieved under the same circumstances.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-20/snap-said...
Why does it matter whether Snap will play the MAU game? That's what analysts will be measuring them on, whether they choose to acknowledge that or not.
I thought this was relevant more so because of all the analysts covering SNAP, not a single one has a but rating on it.
That's pretty unusual for a 10+ billion dollar company
That's pretty unusual for a 10+ billion dollar company
SEC rules say that underwriters (i.e. most of Wall Street) aren't allowed to hype their own handicraft until a suitable number of days have passed. The length of this "quiet period" keeps changing, but according to this article, it's now 10 days on the books, with most underwriter/analyst firms choosing to play it safe and observe 25 days of restraint.
https://ipocandy.com/quiet-periods/
https://ipocandy.com/quiet-periods/
What is a underwriters/handicraft? Are they writers paid by the company to write bearish articles about them and have 'no' affiliation so there's no disclaimer?
In an IPO, the underwriters are the investment banks who handle the initial distribution of the stock. From Wikipedia:
"Securities underwriting refers to the process by which investment banks raise investment capital from investors on behalf of corporations and governments that are issuing securities (both equity and debt capital). The services of an underwriter are typically used during a public offering in a primary market.
This is a way of distributing a newly issued security, such as stocks or bonds, to investors. A syndicate of banks (the lead managers) underwrites the transaction, which means they have taken on the risk of distributing the securities. Should they not be able to find enough investors, they will have to hold some securities themselves. Underwriters make their income from the price difference (the "underwriting spread") between the price they pay the issuer and what they collect from investors or from broker-dealers who buy portions of the offering."[1]
When the comment above said "underwriters aren't allowed to hype their own handicraft", the "handicraft" he's referring to is the new stock that they just distributed, and hyping it generally takes the form of the banks' analysts issuing "buy" recommendations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting#Securities_underw...
"Securities underwriting refers to the process by which investment banks raise investment capital from investors on behalf of corporations and governments that are issuing securities (both equity and debt capital). The services of an underwriter are typically used during a public offering in a primary market.
This is a way of distributing a newly issued security, such as stocks or bonds, to investors. A syndicate of banks (the lead managers) underwrites the transaction, which means they have taken on the risk of distributing the securities. Should they not be able to find enough investors, they will have to hold some securities themselves. Underwriters make their income from the price difference (the "underwriting spread") between the price they pay the issuer and what they collect from investors or from broker-dealers who buy portions of the offering."[1]
When the comment above said "underwriters aren't allowed to hype their own handicraft", the "handicraft" he's referring to is the new stock that they just distributed, and hyping it generally takes the form of the banks' analysts issuing "buy" recommendations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting#Securities_underw...
It's not _that_ unexpected in this case.
In short, SNAP's IPO was big enough that most of the banks which like the company participated in the IPO. Legally anyone involved in the IPO can't publish an analysis for (IIRC) 10 days, which means that the banks which like them can't talk.
In short, SNAP's IPO was big enough that most of the banks which like the company participated in the IPO. Legally anyone involved in the IPO can't publish an analysis for (IIRC) 10 days, which means that the banks which like them can't talk.
Interesting, does this create a perverse incentive for SNAP to get as many banks as possible onboard so that there's a bigger embargo on analyst commentary? Provided they can get enough banks, natch.
Yes.
Wall Street provides highly liquid markets to the rest of the world, but when it comes to the way the finance sector's own services are delivered, the pros excel at turning price-efficient markets into cozy cartels.
Wall Street provides highly liquid markets to the rest of the world, but when it comes to the way the finance sector's own services are delivered, the pros excel at turning price-efficient markets into cozy cartels.
The issue is the backs they don't get are the ones that don't believe in their company, so any company that likes them can't talk.
Isn't that backwards? They'd like to have a friendly bank who didn't buy any of their stock who could just talk them up (though whether they'd like that more than money in their pockets is questionable); at the moment their friends are all embargoed and only their enemies are talking.
Why wouldn't a friendly bank buy into them?
Exactly. It would be convenient for Snap if there was a friendly bank who hadn't bought into them, because then that friendly bank would not be embargoed. But there's no reason for a bank to do that.
I guess I don't understand what you meant by "backwards," then.
You said "does this create a perverse incentive for SNAP to get as many banks as possible onboard so that there's a bigger embargo on analyst commentary?" which to my mind is backwards: the embargo creates a perverse incentive for Snap to get as few banks as possible onboard so that there's a smaller embargo on analyst commentary.
Brokers involved in the IPO, including for example Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Cowen, Jefferies, RBC, Stifel and UBS, are restricted for 10 days. Don't be surprised to see a few buy ratings at that point.
[ Edit: I said 40 days, but the rule was changed. http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/notice_doc_file_ref... ]
[ Edit: I said 40 days, but the rule was changed. http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/notice_doc_file_ref... ]
That's because every bank that's bullish on Snap participated in the IPO and is legally prevented from posting research about it for some time. It's a self-selected group of analysts that say sell.
Maybe the strategy is to start at obscenely overpriced so when you "tank" and descend into just very overpriced, the market thinks you might soon return to previous heights and you settle around there.
The strategy was to get 3+ Billion dollars. It succeeded beautifully, and since shares have no voting rights they don't have to worry about pressure from Wall Street.
They will have to worry about talent acquisition/retention if the stock price tanks though. But maybe that is offset in the short term by the appeal of working for a company with public shares.
They will have to worry about talent acquisition/retention if the stock price tanks though. But maybe that is offset in the short term by the appeal of working for a company with public shares.
I can't argue with the logic of the talk show guest, (who seems very good at her job!)
They are dealing with economy of scale. If facebook+google have 90% ad penetration then snap must displace facebook.
They are dealing with economy of scale. If facebook+google have 90% ad penetration then snap must displace facebook.
Displacing might not be the actual word. You could, for example, say that the digital ad market will double in 5 years, and Snapchat will capture all of that additional revenue, becoming bigger than FB and Google combined.
It wouldn't be displacing them per se, they'd still sell the same $ to the same companies.
Will that happen? My guess would be on no. I don't think there's room for a 3rd large player in the digital ads world, Twitter tried to be it, but failed. But hey, maybe Snap is able to do it (but I doubt it).
It wouldn't be displacing them per se, they'd still sell the same $ to the same companies.
Will that happen? My guess would be on no. I don't think there's room for a 3rd large player in the digital ads world, Twitter tried to be it, but failed. But hey, maybe Snap is able to do it (but I doubt it).
It displaces them in the relevant metric (ad penetration), so I think it still fits fine in this context. It would be different if the original commentator was arguing that Snap is going to displace FB/Google's current revenue.
People keep saying that their financials are terrible, but last I checked they were killing on Revenue [1] compared to the average IPO [2]. Especially if you consider that average revenues at IPO have been steadily dropping since 2012.
Average IPO revenue 2015: $38M
SNAP revenue 2015: $58M
SNAP revenue 2016: $350M
Add to the fact that in 2015 on 30% of IPO companies were profitable, they seem to be well within market bounds.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/data-shows-nearly-half-of-sna...
[2] https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content
Average IPO revenue 2015: $38M
SNAP revenue 2015: $58M
SNAP revenue 2016: $350M
Add to the fact that in 2015 on 30% of IPO companies were profitable, they seem to be well within market bounds.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/data-shows-nearly-half-of-sna...
[2] https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content
Comparing revenues without corresponding expenses seems a little suspicious.
Call me old fashioned, but I think it makes sense to value a company based on profit rather than revenue.
> People keep saying that their financials are terrible, but last I checked they were killing on Revenue
How is having more revenue without profitability a positive sign?
How is having more revenue without profitability a positive sign?
I have always found it fascinating the role analysts play to impact the price of a stock. Today was the perfect storm of shitty news/advice that drove the price down. Before this morning the stock was up in after-hours trading.
Most comments focus on $SNAP itself, but as JumpCrisscross noted: It's also a bad sign for SV IPOs in general.
With the upcoming FED hikes and the recent stock market rally, one could say that it will be a lot harder for late stage companies to aquire further financial resources in VC/the private equity market.
After the $SNAP hype and crash the public market will probably not be willing to invest in other tech companies in the next months anymore, at least not at the current valuation level.
With the upcoming FED hikes and the recent stock market rally, one could say that it will be a lot harder for late stage companies to aquire further financial resources in VC/the private equity market.
After the $SNAP hype and crash the public market will probably not be willing to invest in other tech companies in the next months anymore, at least not at the current valuation level.
This market seems to over-reward profits (FB, NFLX, NVDA) and over-punish losses (TWTR, SNAP).
"over-"punish losses?
Twitter hasn't made a profit once in its years of existence, and does not appear to have a way to make any. Snap said they might never profit in the prospectus.
How would you value these companies to reach the conclusion that losses are "over punished"?
Twitter hasn't made a profit once in its years of existence, and does not appear to have a way to make any. Snap said they might never profit in the prospectus.
How would you value these companies to reach the conclusion that losses are "over punished"?
The market is always right. I just don't believe anyone is willing to take such big risks of failure anymore with so little chance of winning. SNAP was priced so expensive and just to justify the 17$ it would need to make money for years or grow exponentially. Which both didn't happen in the last couple of years, growth is even declining.
The subset of the market called "equities traded publicly on U.S. exchanges" is right within its own local maxima of pricing such securities, but it's still subject to inflows and outflows, which depend on macroeconomic picture, interest rates and attractiveness of other subsets.
Specific securities, sectors or the stock market in general still can be overbought and oversold.
Specific securities, sectors or the stock market in general still can be overbought and oversold.
Isn't this what happened with FB as well?
There are a lot of differences between FB and SNAP.
The biggest two:
1) FB dropped on opening day itself, which was actually great for Facebook (the company), but not so great for the Morgan Stanley bankers who were underwriting the IPO. They overestimated the price that retail investors would want to pay, so they overpaid Facebook for the shares.
2) SNAP is issuing only Class A shares, which are non-voting. Some other companies have segregated classes of shares with different voting rights, but according to SNAP's own S-1, they are the first company to have an IPO with only non-voting shares available.
Combine that with the fact that they have no plans to make a profit[0] or to issue any dividends[0][2], and that means that the appeal to investors is very limited: they have no way to influence company decisions, and no way to participate in profits from the company. Those are usually the two biggest contributors to the fundamental value of a stock.
[0] this is not my opinion; this is a direct quotation from their S-1: "We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability."
[1] Again, directly from their S-1: "We do not intend to pay cash dividends for the foreseeable future."
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517...
The biggest two:
1) FB dropped on opening day itself, which was actually great for Facebook (the company), but not so great for the Morgan Stanley bankers who were underwriting the IPO. They overestimated the price that retail investors would want to pay, so they overpaid Facebook for the shares.
2) SNAP is issuing only Class A shares, which are non-voting. Some other companies have segregated classes of shares with different voting rights, but according to SNAP's own S-1, they are the first company to have an IPO with only non-voting shares available.
Combine that with the fact that they have no plans to make a profit[0] or to issue any dividends[0][2], and that means that the appeal to investors is very limited: they have no way to influence company decisions, and no way to participate in profits from the company. Those are usually the two biggest contributors to the fundamental value of a stock.
[0] this is not my opinion; this is a direct quotation from their S-1: "We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability."
[1] Again, directly from their S-1: "We do not intend to pay cash dividends for the foreseeable future."
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517...
If they would pay a dividend, would class A shares have an advantages there?
If not I can't see how Snaps stock could be worth anything at all. It was just free money for them from the IPO without any obligations to the new "owners".
If not I can't see how Snaps stock could be worth anything at all. It was just free money for them from the IPO without any obligations to the new "owners".
> There are a lot of differences between FB and SNAP.
> [1] Again, directly from their S-1: "We do not intend to pay cash dividends for the foreseeable future."
That's not one of the differences between FB and SNAP, the same risk is listed in Facebook's S-1 (only the word "cash" is missing).
> [1] Again, directly from their S-1: "We do not intend to pay cash dividends for the foreseeable future."
That's not one of the differences between FB and SNAP, the same risk is listed in Facebook's S-1 (only the word "cash" is missing).
> That's not one of the differences between FB and SNAP, the same risk is listed in Facebook's S-1 (only the word "cash" is missing).
I didn't say that was a difference - I said that their plans not to issue dividends combined with their unique voting structure was significant.
That disclaimer means something completely different when you're talking about a company that is issuing stock with voting rights (even when the CEO has majority ownership), as opposed to a company in which the stock carries literally no voting rights.
I didn't say that was a difference - I said that their plans not to issue dividends combined with their unique voting structure was significant.
That disclaimer means something completely different when you're talking about a company that is issuing stock with voting rights (even when the CEO has majority ownership), as opposed to a company in which the stock carries literally no voting rights.
Fair enough. But I don't think the situation would be any better if that particular risk was absent from the filing.
[deleted]
The material differences between FB and Snap are not their offering prices or share structures.
The material difference is the product - who it will appeal to, and how long it will remain appealing.
When FB went public, they had a product that was appealing to parents, grandparents, and everyone else.
Snap has currently a niche offer, that may not get traction into other demographics.
In order to justify their valuation they have to have a ubiquitous penetration, and I don't see them getting it - at least not with the offer they have today.
The material difference is the product - who it will appeal to, and how long it will remain appealing.
When FB went public, they had a product that was appealing to parents, grandparents, and everyone else.
Snap has currently a niche offer, that may not get traction into other demographics.
In order to justify their valuation they have to have a ubiquitous penetration, and I don't see them getting it - at least not with the offer they have today.
[deleted]
> Some other companies have segregated classes of shares with different voting rights, but according to SNAP's own S-1, they are the first company to have an IPO with only non-voting shares available.
To me this shows the cynicism inherent in the entire stock market system. We're all just trading on the popularity and good will of these companies, and they know it.
To me this shows the cynicism inherent in the entire stock market system. We're all just trading on the popularity and good will of these companies, and they know it.
Investors have the option to read about all the these low level details and can chose not to invest but in reality that does not happen.
[0] does not mean "no plans to make a profit" it just means what it actually says.
Other than that getting IPO price correct is very complex for companies without a history of profits. However, any price greater than zero is still useful.
Other than that getting IPO price correct is very complex for companies without a history of profits. However, any price greater than zero is still useful.
> [0] does not mean "no plans to make a profit" it just means what it actually says
They do not have plans to make a profit. They have plans to do things, and those things may, in the future, generate a profit, but they have not committed to any concrete timeline for generating a profit or set any estimated targets for profitability, which I think can be reasonably summarized in a colloquial context by "no plans to make a profit".
They do not have plans to make a profit. They have plans to do things, and those things may, in the future, generate a profit, but they have not committed to any concrete timeline for generating a profit or set any estimated targets for profitability, which I think can be reasonably summarized in a colloquial context by "no plans to make a profit".
> [0] this is not my opinion; this is a direct quotation from their S-1: "We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability."
> [1] Again, directly from their S-1: "We do not intend to pay cash dividends for the foreseeable future."
FWIW this is a negative spin on the statements. The first [0] statement sounds like a standard warning, and the second [1] specifically calls out cash dividends, not profits. FB has not paid any cash dividends, neither has Google, but both have large profits. It's uncommon for tech companies to pay cash dividends. Apple and Microsoft do it (both very old companies), but few others do.
> [1] Again, directly from their S-1: "We do not intend to pay cash dividends for the foreseeable future."
FWIW this is a negative spin on the statements. The first [0] statement sounds like a standard warning, and the second [1] specifically calls out cash dividends, not profits. FB has not paid any cash dividends, neither has Google, but both have large profits. It's uncommon for tech companies to pay cash dividends. Apple and Microsoft do it (both very old companies), but few others do.
> FB has not paid any cash dividends, neither has Google, but both have large profits. It's uncommon for tech companies to pay cash dividends
The difference is that people can purchase shares in Facebook and Google that give them voting rights. That is not true for Snapchat.
The fact that Snapchat isn't giving dividends today isn't notable per se, but the fact that it's not giving dividends and investors have no mechanism to influence the company's direction (which includes pressuring them to provide dividends in the future) is literally unprecedented.
The difference is that people can purchase shares in Facebook and Google that give them voting rights. That is not true for Snapchat.
The fact that Snapchat isn't giving dividends today isn't notable per se, but the fact that it's not giving dividends and investors have no mechanism to influence the company's direction (which includes pressuring them to provide dividends in the future) is literally unprecedented.
Eh, not really. Google and FB both structure their shares so the founders own >51% of the shares, so your votes are meaningless. In fact Google recently explicitly restructured their shares to make sure the founders maintained majority share going forward.
Market premium on GOOGL (voting shares) is 2.4% as of this writing, FWIW.
Market premium on GOOGL (voting shares) is 2.4% as of this writing, FWIW.
> Google and FB both structure their shares so the founders own >51% of the shares, so your votes are meaningless.
It's possible for disagreement to exist between the founders, requiring a majority coalition to be built using non-government-held votes.
It's possible for disagreement to exist between the founders, requiring a majority coalition to be built using non-government-held votes.
> Google and FB both structure their shares so the founders own >51% of the shares, so your votes are meaningless. In fact Google recently explicitly restructured their shares to make sure the founders maintained majority share going forward.
Minority shareholders have rights even without majority voting control. Some of those rights do apply to non-voting shares, but they're much more limited.
GOOGL isn't particularly relevant here; all that says is that investors today are confident in the leadership's plans. That could change tomorrow, and it means nothing for Snapchat.
Minority shareholders have rights even without majority voting control. Some of those rights do apply to non-voting shares, but they're much more limited.
GOOGL isn't particularly relevant here; all that says is that investors today are confident in the leadership's plans. That could change tomorrow, and it means nothing for Snapchat.
Remind me again what the difference in price between GOOG and GOOGL is. That seems like a good indicator for the value of voting rights, no?
> That seems like a good indicator for the value of voting rights, no?
It's more of an indicator of the current level confidence in Google's leadership. You can look at that as a point-in-time snapshot of how much investors value voting rights in Google today, sure, but that doesn't mean much for Google a year from now, or for Snapchat today.
If investors lost confidence in Google's ability to execute and believed that the leadership was the root cause of this failure, then the ability to vote them out (or even simply put pressure on them) would carry a greater premium than it does today.
It's more of an indicator of the current level confidence in Google's leadership. You can look at that as a point-in-time snapshot of how much investors value voting rights in Google today, sure, but that doesn't mean much for Google a year from now, or for Snapchat today.
If investors lost confidence in Google's ability to execute and believed that the leadership was the root cause of this failure, then the ability to vote them out (or even simply put pressure on them) would carry a greater premium than it does today.
Facebook had $1B in profit in 2011(1), the IPO was mid 2012. Maybe it wasn't enough to justify the $100B+ valuation at IPO but at least they had their business figured out; which is not the case for Snap, yet..
(1): https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/01/facebook-1-billion-profit/
(1): https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/01/facebook-1-billion-profit/
What's there to figure out? Serve ads. That's the business.
It's a tricky business. ask twitter
yes, and now it's worth over 3x its opening day price.
Exactly, so I wouldn't hold my breath over this. It will fluctuate for a bit.
b/c they were growing and figured out their mobile strategy. Snap has both yet to solve
>> Snap has both yet to solve
Huh? Snap is mobile only. Facebook was way behind in mobile, particularly in advertising (I don't think they even did mobile ads at that point). On the growth point, unless they do something really cool, I think they're screwed. Instagram has them covered and Snapchat growth slowed significantly since Insta Stories launched.
Huh? Snap is mobile only. Facebook was way behind in mobile, particularly in advertising (I don't think they even did mobile ads at that point). On the growth point, unless they do something really cool, I think they're screwed. Instagram has them covered and Snapchat growth slowed significantly since Insta Stories launched.
Can we agree that trading at 93 times revenue should be the real headline here? While I find it insane, and others will disagree, it's the real talking point which ever side you sit on!
Yes it opened around this price, but the IPO price was $17. Another non-story about a stock dropping in price after it grew like crazy just before the drop.
SNAP inc priced the public offering at $17 a share.
'Weighting the evidence objectively, the intelligent investor should conclude that IPO does not stand only for "initial public offering". More accurately, it is also shorthand for: It's Probably Overpriced, Imaginary Profits Only, Insiders' Private Opportunity, or Idiotic, Preposterous and Outrageous.', Benjamin Graham
I hope I am not down-voted. I want to grab the opportunity to sum up my impressions on snap, so I can come back a year later and read up, how stupid they have been.
Snap is neither twitter nor fb, which of course is a source of uncertainty. It's not twitter, because snap's data consists of a lot of internet dark matter - so to speak - pixels, that is. Let hell break loose and buy up machine learning engineers and researchers in bulk and let them poke around in it. There sure will be some way to optimize ads, and then just sell it off: the perfect blended ad to the right audience at the right time and space.
Is there anything more substantial beside fun? Yes, a nice social pressure signal, millions of tiny celebrity effects playing out every day, together with all the drama, gossip and emotion - which should have a positive effect on ads. The score-rich - I mean the poor teen talent - gets a discount on a product, that has been seen on other influencers (but not too many). The poor pool of losers and in-betweens might buy a burger to get over the pain.
This social game is so much fun, it's even fun to just write about it. All this drama, all this pain, captured on tape and stored on a shelve. Ready for a smart machine to look at it and ask: I saw your face before, and the look of yours on someone else, you look sad, you're mostly inside, I have the perfect product to cheer you up, may I? And, oh, I make it fun for you to acquire it, too.
You think this is scary? You think it's borderline exploitation, because the data generators can be kept sad, if their score is too low?
Which brings me to my conclusion for the record. Snap will thrive part because people just do not care about these things anymore and part because the majority has not much choice. Stronger and more resistant individuals will just reject the instant gratification and focus softening. People, who kind of see through the hype and the value propositions, that maybe matter too you and maybe matter, because somebody would like to make it matter for more people, so I have to adjust. Maybe 80% of a population, according to some estimates, does things, because everybody does them - no or few questions asked. And hey, if all it takes to be accepted is a push of a button, what's the problem?
And so the story continues. Snap will thrive. One thing that would kill both facebook and twitter (and snap) would be Moore's law, in the sense, that a social network of friends can be held completely on the interactors devices, because, well in few years, 128GB per phone is ok, text and messages are cheap and can be routed without being stored and scanned and images can be stored and cached locally.
But there is no money in letting people alone. No money, if I cannot distract them. No money if I cannot read what they read and see what they see. No money, if I cannot control them and their experience.
Snap is neither twitter nor fb, which of course is a source of uncertainty. It's not twitter, because snap's data consists of a lot of internet dark matter - so to speak - pixels, that is. Let hell break loose and buy up machine learning engineers and researchers in bulk and let them poke around in it. There sure will be some way to optimize ads, and then just sell it off: the perfect blended ad to the right audience at the right time and space.
Is there anything more substantial beside fun? Yes, a nice social pressure signal, millions of tiny celebrity effects playing out every day, together with all the drama, gossip and emotion - which should have a positive effect on ads. The score-rich - I mean the poor teen talent - gets a discount on a product, that has been seen on other influencers (but not too many). The poor pool of losers and in-betweens might buy a burger to get over the pain.
This social game is so much fun, it's even fun to just write about it. All this drama, all this pain, captured on tape and stored on a shelve. Ready for a smart machine to look at it and ask: I saw your face before, and the look of yours on someone else, you look sad, you're mostly inside, I have the perfect product to cheer you up, may I? And, oh, I make it fun for you to acquire it, too.
You think this is scary? You think it's borderline exploitation, because the data generators can be kept sad, if their score is too low?
Which brings me to my conclusion for the record. Snap will thrive part because people just do not care about these things anymore and part because the majority has not much choice. Stronger and more resistant individuals will just reject the instant gratification and focus softening. People, who kind of see through the hype and the value propositions, that maybe matter too you and maybe matter, because somebody would like to make it matter for more people, so I have to adjust. Maybe 80% of a population, according to some estimates, does things, because everybody does them - no or few questions asked. And hey, if all it takes to be accepted is a push of a button, what's the problem?
And so the story continues. Snap will thrive. One thing that would kill both facebook and twitter (and snap) would be Moore's law, in the sense, that a social network of friends can be held completely on the interactors devices, because, well in few years, 128GB per phone is ok, text and messages are cheap and can be routed without being stored and scanned and images can be stored and cached locally.
But there is no money in letting people alone. No money, if I cannot distract them. No money if I cannot read what they read and see what they see. No money, if I cannot control them and their experience.
It may not be too clear from the headline - but analysts were saying sell before the IPO as well.
[deleted]
The borrow rate my broker (IB) is quoting is 120% despite only 7.55% of the float being short.
I guess the clearing firms just don't have any shares to lend out -- we could see another price drop once the stock is easier to borrow.
I guess the clearing firms just don't have any shares to lend out -- we could see another price drop once the stock is easier to borrow.
This IPO is yet another indicator of a civilization in decline.
Snapchat watches people in their most private, most intimate moments, who are unaware that all of their data passes through centralized servers. Why should states even bother with intrusive surveillance anymore, when people freely offer to surveil themselves?
If Snapchat disappeared tomorrow, people would just upload their nude photos elsewhere. Nothing of value would be lost, except for maybe the world's largest, most centralized pornography database, with fairly reliable correlation to real identities. That could never lead to abuse of power.
Snapchat watches people in their most private, most intimate moments, who are unaware that all of their data passes through centralized servers. Why should states even bother with intrusive surveillance anymore, when people freely offer to surveil themselves?
If Snapchat disappeared tomorrow, people would just upload their nude photos elsewhere. Nothing of value would be lost, except for maybe the world's largest, most centralized pornography database, with fairly reliable correlation to real identities. That could never lead to abuse of power.
> Snapchat watches people in their most private, most intimate moments, who are unaware that all of their data passes through centralized servers.
I think most people who use Snapchat are still aware that Snapchat can see their nudes.
I think most people who use Snapchat are still aware that Snapchat can see their nudes.
The average Snapchat user isn't going to think about the process of uploading a picture to a central server which is then relayed to the intended recipients and then deleted on the proprietary client-side application (which can be worked around, the problem is that third-party may retain data indefinitely). The average consumer is not that technically literate, consider the people who think Facebook = Internet.
You might be surrounded by well above-average technical literacy people. I woud guess that even of the people that are aware of how centralized messaging servers work, most don't think about it for months at a time.
Greater fool theory in action. Hope the people who bought it at IPO sold it fast enough.
It's barely below IPO price http://m.imgur.com/X58hugr
What is "Snap"?
Snap, Inc., the company that produces Snapchat and Spectacles.
SNAP is their stock symbol.
Snap Inc. is the company formerly known as Snapchat Inc.
ooo wowww, who _ever_ would have seen this coming?
"Disappearing photos" is a silly concept. Why would anyone buy shares in that?
An IPO is a mechanism for a company (and its investors and other stakeholders) to sell shares in exchange for money.
The investment bank that facilitates the IPO has the job of "marketing" those shares (and doing the administrative stuff around the IPO).
The goal in selling something is to get the best possible price. Therefore, a stock price that goes up at the date of the IPO and then declines below the initial price is the GOAL. It means the bank has done its job well. It got the maximum amount of money out of buyers.
If the price stood level, it would mean the bank had left money on the table. If the price went up immediately and then STOOD THERE, it would mean the bank severely underpriced the IPO. Thats the worst case scenario. If the price dips immediately and nobody buys, it just means the IPO was overpriced.
This also means that buying at IPO means that you're getting screwed unless you want to hold longterm. You're always paying a premium, unless you believe that the investment bank made a mistake. And you obviously have more data to make that bet than goldman sachs does. Obviously.
As a smalltime investor, for whom there is essentially unlimited liquidity in the market, just don't buy IPOs. And don't get excited over IPOs dipping below opening price. It just means you don't understand the mechanism.