4 ms·

Much greater losses than Twitter's S1. Snap's revenue is 27% higher but 548% greater net losses. Twitter s1: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/00

by brentm 10y ago

Much greater losses than Twitter's S1. Snap's revenue is 27% higher but 548% greater net losses. Twitter s1: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312513390321/d564001ds1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312513...

artursapek 10y ago
...and TWTR isn't doing so well
- bduerst 10y ago
  Which could in part be because of Snapchat, if we're being honest.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
slezakattack 10y ago
I'm wondering where the loss is coming from. I'm skeptical that it's all coming out of the cost of infrastructure and workforce. I know they've had some company acquisitions in the past, so I wonder how that is coming into play.
- dopamean 10y ago
  400 million a year to Google and then who knows how much more on AR/VR stuff.
- fastball 10y ago
  Well, they do have 1859 employees. If you say on average they're paid $50k each (totally made up estimate, would love for someone to give me a better one), that would be almost $100mil a year in base salary alone.
  - ladon86 10y ago
    I would 2.5x that estimate and with benefits etc, round it up to total cost $200k per employee.
    - calvinlh 10y ago
      Keep in mind it's highly unlikely that all of those employees are engineers, probably lots of sales/marketing/customer service people. Still, with benefits and stuff I'd estimate maybe 100k per on the low end.
brentm 10y ago
Also quite expensive in terms of trailing sales multiple. > Twitter went public at valuation around 30x trailing year sales and 15x forward year sales. At $25 billion, Snap would be valued at a huge 62x trailing sales. > Assuming they could reach $1 billion of revenue in 2017, the 25x multiple would still be steep relative to the two predecessors. (via http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/02/02/snaps-ipo-filing-everything-you-need-to-know/ http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/02/02/snaps-ipo-filing-e...)
fastball 10y ago
I think their losses can be at least partly explained by their somewhat inexplicable number of employees, which happen to number 1859 at the end of 2016. Don't understand why a company with a mobile app as their sole product need that many employees. I was expecting that number to be more like 100.
- jcdavis 10y ago
  I'm always a little surprised about how naive HNers are about corporate sales (and BD). We can bikeshed all day how many engineers they "really" need, but for $400m in annual revenue (plus that growth) they probably need a 400 person sales org minimum.

by brentm 10y ago

artursapek 10y ago

...and TWTR isn't doing so well

bduerst 10y ago
Which could in part be because of Snapchat, if we're being honest.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

slezakattack 10y ago

I'm wondering where the loss is coming from. I'm skeptical that it's all coming out of the cost of infrastructure and workforce. I know they've had some company acquisitions in the past, so I wonder how that is coming into play.

dopamean 10y ago
400 million a year to Google and then who knows how much more on AR/VR stuff.
fastball 10y ago
Well, they do have 1859 employees. If you say on average they're paid $50k each (totally made up estimate, would love for someone to give me a better one), that would be almost $100mil a year in base salary alone.
- ladon86 10y ago
  I would 2.5x that estimate and with benefits etc, round it up to total cost $200k per employee.
  - calvinlh 10y ago
    Keep in mind it's highly unlikely that all of those employees are engineers, probably lots of sales/marketing/customer service people. Still, with benefits and stuff I'd estimate maybe 100k per on the low end.

brentm 10y ago

Also quite expensive in terms of trailing sales multiple. > Twitter went public at valuation around 30x trailing year sales and 15x forward year sales. At $25 billion, Snap would be valued at a huge 62x trailing sales. > Assuming they could reach $1 billion of revenue in 2017, the 25x multiple would still be steep relative to the two predecessors. (via http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/02/02/snaps-ipo-filing-everything-you-need-to-know/ http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/02/02/snaps-ipo-filing-e...)

fastball 10y ago

I think their losses can be at least partly explained by their somewhat inexplicable number of employees, which happen to number 1859 at the end of 2016. Don't understand why a company with a mobile app as their sole product need that many employees. I was expecting that number to be more like 100.

jcdavis 10y ago
I'm always a little surprised about how naive HNers are about corporate sales (and BD). We can bikeshed all day how many engineers they "really" need, but for $400m in annual revenue (plus that growth) they probably need a 400 person sales org minimum.