8 ms·
Snap Misses User-Growth Estimate as Facebook Copying Takes Toll
- chollida1 9y agoPersonal notes from the earnings reports: - ARPU $1.05 vs 50c y/y - rev. $181.7m, est. $185.8m (range $154.0m-$206.0m) - adj. loss/share 16c, est. loss 15c (loss range 8c-19c) - Short interest is down to 28% of float, financing rate 3.5%, 2 days to cover - daily active users (DAUs) rose to 173 million in the quarter ended June 30 from 143 million in the year-earlier quarter and 166 million in the previous quarter. Unfortunately this will be compared with Instagram Stories, now one year old, had more than 250 million users as of Aug. 2, up from about 250 million in June and 200 million in April. - $5.4M IN `OTHER' REVENUE MOSTLY FROM SPECTACLES They seem to continue to follow twitter in amazing product awful company meme. They tell people to look at their non GAAP numbers and then continue to roll out poor non GAAP numbers. On the holy shit scale of things: - Stock-based compensation expense ($)2,237,149,000 for the year, that's not a typo!!!!! - Snap’s revenue was up 153 percent from the same period last year, rising to $181 million. But the amount of money it lost also ballooned, growing about four fold to $443 million. So they increased revenue by selling dollars for 90 cents. That's not too encouraging. Their stock just touched $12 in the after markets. You've got to feel a bit for the employee's who were locked up due to earnings. The Positive: One positive note, could be that now that they have release their disappointing earnings, the shorts may cover, providing the stock abit of a bump over the next week to allow employee's a tail wind that they can sell their shares into. - Every Snapchat daily user creates more than 20 messages - Evan and Bobby have agreed not to sell anymore shares this year - 250 million snaps are saved to Memories every day
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- soVeryTired 9y agoI don't understand the shock at the stock-based comp expense. Surely a couple of million is a drop in the ocean. What have I missed?
- chollida1 9y agoThat's actually in billions, typically in financial reports the 1000's are dropped to make the numbers easier to read,my fault. I've made this clear now.
- soVeryTired 9y agoGotcha, thanks
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pinaceae 9y agothat's over 2 BILLION.
- wtvanhest 9y agoIf it isnt a typo... its 2bn. Not 2mm
- JauntTrooper 9y ago$2.2 billion is 13.5% of the company, and that's just in new stock grants provided as compensation over the last six months.
- acchow 9y agoNo, it's for the year. And the way I understand it, they took a one time charge during this year for all stock based compensation ever. So it's really all stock based compensation ever. They did not hand out $2.2bn in stock in 6 months.
- rrdharan 9y agoThe $637 million (or $750 million depending on when/how you look at it) was definitely handed out specifically as a bonus for taking the company public: https://www.recode.net/2017/2/2/14465646/evan-spiegel-snap-ipo-bonus-750-million https://www.recode.net/2017/2/2/14465646/evan-spiegel-snap-i...
- JauntTrooper 9y ago> Stock-based compensation expense ($)2,237,149 for the year, that's not a typo!!!!! Yep, to be clear that's in thousands of $. So $2.2 billion. That includes a one-time $637 million RSU grant to the CEO immediately before the IPO, which was 3% of the company. The shares vested immediately at IPO and weren't subject to any continued service requirements.
- abalone 9y agoI recall that Snapchat uses backloaded vesting (10/20/30/40), unlike most startups, so perhaps that explains why this figure seems unusually large. I don't necessarily understand the details of Black–Scholes but I think it allocates the expense according to the vesting schedule. So if I'm right, we're seeing the lion's share of those early grants (around 2012-2013). Anyone want to chime in on how exactly this expense is calculated? I feel silly in that I don't even know if it's supposed to include the gain in value in the current reporting period, as opposed to just the FMV at grant date spread over the vesting period.
- JauntTrooper 9y agoYou won't need Black Scholes for these. Black Scholes is just a formula to estimate the value of a stock option. It doesn't say anything about when to allocate expenses, that's governed by GAAP accounting rules. Under US GAAP, the value of stock-based compensation has to be recorded at the fair value at the date of grant, not date of vest. The date of vest is used to decide when the award shows up as an expense. If a company is public, the value of an RSUs is probably just going to be the trading price. Snap's RSUs were a little more complicated because the grant dates of the pre-IPO awards were before the company was public, so they had to estimate the grant date fair value at the time using third party valuations, recent stock issuances to investors, and internal valuation techniques. If you look at their initial SEC filing, Snap says it issued 169.9 million RSUs from April 2015 - December 2016, and estimated the values to range from $15.36 - $16.33. The weighted average value of those shares was $2.7 billion. That's valuation. Now let's talk expense recognition. Those awards only show up in the income statement as an expense once they are expected to actually vest, after subtracting out expected forfeitures. That's why only about half of the $2.7 billion I mentioned above showed up so far in their financial statements so far. The rest of it will show up over the next three years.
- hari_seldon_ 9y agoSo basically their cost of revenue is going up? They need to spend more to earn every dollar this year compared to last year, which makes reporting their overall revenue feel very misleading!
- tim333 9y agoIf they'd increased revenue by selling dollars for 90 cents that only would have cost $10.9m, much cheaper than the $443m loss. Maybe they should try that next time.
- ransom1538 9y agoYes. How does 'snap' lose $443 million? How is that even possible given it's a simple iphone app (sure android too). The only explanation is piling cash into massive fires 24/7.
- jonknee 9y agoWell for starters they agreed to spend $400,000,000 a year with Google Cloud. On a quarterly basis they are giving Google more than half of their revenue.
- tim333 9y agoIt's quite an impressive amount. I wonder what it would have cost them to have their own hardware and a small team of engineers to run it. I'm guessing maybe 10% of that?
- prostoalex 9y agoFor starters, roughly $200 mil was spent on acquisitions.
- dusanbab 9y agoThat wouldn't be an expense though, unless they wrote it down. Nitpicking, I know. What's $200MM after all ;)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- nextstep 9y agoThis article from 10 days ago claimed that most employees have a $15 strike price: https://www.theinformation.com/soon-free-to-sell-few-snap-employees-have-stock-profits https://www.theinformation.com/soon-free-to-sell-few-snap-em... (paywall). Can anyone confirm that most late Snap employees unlikely to exercise options anytime soon?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- acchow 9y agoI don't know where they can get their figures. $15 sounds a bit high for a median. The average tho is in the S-1: $2.33. Maybe the average is heavily skewed downwards by some very cheap penny options?
- mhmiles 9y agoI have to believe it’s heavily skewed with older huge grants to higher ups
- awa 9y agoMost late employees got generous RSU's instead of options.
- nextstep 9y agoOnly to employees hired post IPO though, correct?
- ng12 9y agoNo, they've been granting private RSUs for at least a year before.
- rrdharan 9y agoWhy would it be restricted to post-IPO employees? It's pretty common to get RSU grants at a startup pre- or post-IPO. Typically you can negotiate the mix. Source: have received and negotiated on offers within the last three years from "name-brand" pre-IPO startups.
- naturalgradient 9y agoLink to earnings webcast, going on right now: http://services.choruscall.com/links/snap170810AfkYZvWT.html http://services.choruscall.com/links/snap170810AfkYZvWT.html
- mslate 9y agoWow, whoever administrated the Q&A let an analyst on the line who wasn't expecting it--and was laughing out loud at Snap's executives' answers. Looking forward to listening to that again once the audio file gets posted.
- mhmiles 9y agoFor the curious the question starts at around 54:00 with the laughing at 56:45
- joeblau 9y ago> The company has been urging investors to think of it as different from Facebook. I remember when Twitter tried to convince investors that it wasn't like Facebook and their stock is down from that period. You might not be like Facebook, but Facebook is going to try and be like you.
- capkutay 9y agoTotally anecdotal story, but I've been trying to promote my music as a hobby. The main social channels that independent artists use are facebook/instagram and google/youtube. There's almost no reason to use snapchat for promotion. There's no straight forward way to engage a new audience and broadcast your content. Snap as it is today seems to be for already established entities to further engage their existing audience. I don't see a big market opportunity there.
- mhmiles 9y agoI’ve read similar complaints in stories that claimed to have talked to "influencers"
- kilroy123 9y agoMy side gig is a small business. We advertise heavily on Facebook. I also have no clue how to approach Snapchat ads. How do I target our demographic on there? What data do they even have on users?
- pryelluw 9y agoYou do the influencer model where you pay someone to mention your business. Thats it. Can be really profitable of done well.
- whipoodle 9y agoIt seems to be more for brand advertising. Meaning you're not trying to convert people right from the ad.
- fapjacks 9y agoA hundred times this. I'm in the same exact boat trying to promote my side project music, and the only time I ever hear anything about Snapchat, it's some beautiful woman on Instagram asking her followers to follower her on Snapchat. It definitely seems to be used to expand existing audiences and not grow new ones.
- pryelluw 9y agoThat's on point. By being overly closed they have pushed away the demand they have for advertising. I wish I could buy ads on their content based on location but cant (I buy media for others).
- mongodude 9y agoSnap still has some of the best user engagement metrics in the industry which continues to attract top advertisement dollars. Whats worrying is the apathetic attitude of management to reduce cost and boost revenues rather than being blinded by the superiority of their product. When Facebook investors complained about poor revenues from mobile users, it took them no more than 2 quarters to show a remarkable increase in their ad revenue from mobile traffic. Snap would need this kind of aggressive revenue focus to stand a chance against the might of Facebook.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y agoNo, just read up on what happened to Twitter when they went down this route. Snap is doing bad not because of revenue. Of course that too, but the core reason is their growth has slowed while it's clear that their core feature is becoming commoditized. It's not even about Facebook, there are many other snapchate-esque apps springing up around the world and snapchat can't do much about it. In fact this is much worse situation than Twitter where they did keep their core strength to some degree. Doesn't matter how much revenue they generate this quarter, if they don't exist a couple of years later like myspace.
- gcb0 9y agoTwitter stagnated years ago. yes they tried, but it was just adding ads and other crap. they never lift a finger to improve performance or usability. their site and apps still feel like 6+years ago. like nobody is even working there anymore.
- tanilama 9y agoIf your core feature can be easily copied by your competitors, is that an advantage to start with?
- mandeepj 9y agoOnly if one of your competitor is Facebook. They have over 2b users
- tanilama 9y agoWell, FB is there for a long time, so the whole prospect of Snapchat relies on that Facebook shows mercy not to copy their feature? That sounds like a horrible business to begin with.
- yahna 9y agoWhen FB, Google, Amazon, Microsoft are all worth several hundred billion how much room is left to not get copied? Seems like the best you are hoping for is that you end up entrenched before they react (like twitch vs youtube).
- tanilama 9y agoThat is the point, investors, and engineers alike should be wary of such companies whose foundation seat on sand. And I don't really understand when Twitter has set a bad precedent for social media companies, why people still bet on Snapchat. Weird choice.
- matthewbauer 9y agoWell FB was once in the same spot.
- mandeepj 9y agoBut no one tried to rip them off like they are doing it now. Google took their own approach to social and failed.
- overcast 9y agoI think at this point, unless your product is pretty niche, it's just going to get swallowed by the big guys.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y agoThese guys should not have gone public. I apologize if I am wrong and they went public because they really had no other option, but my impression at this point is that they got impatient and wanted to cash out. I say this because I think it's ridiculous how much money the founders took off the table when they IPOd, despite how bad they were doing objectively. Now they're saying they won't sell their shares "for the rest of this year" (which is like 4 months away) as if that's some sort of noble thing to do, but if you already have hundreds of millions of dollars in your bank account that's nothing. I am glad to be wrong, so if anyone knows more about this (that they had no other choice than to go public) please enlighten me.
- joobus 9y ago> These guys should not have gone public. > it's ridiculous how much money the founders took off the table when they IPOd > please enlighten me. What do you not understand? They didn't run the business for altruism's sake. They wanted money, and they got a ton of it. It's classic FYIGM.
- fullshark 9y agoI fail to see the downside in going public for Snap given their IPO set up. They got 3.4 billion dollars and gave up nothing for it really.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- whipoodle 9y agoSounds good to me, I would probably do the same thing.
- ucaetano 9y agoSnap's stock-based comp over the past 6 months: $2.2B Google's stock-based comp over the past 6 months: $4.0B Yep, this is pretty messed up, it will adjust hard.
- kondro 9y agoMake no mistake. Snap's (relatively early) IPO wasn't to raise capital for further expansion, it was to ensure founders had easy access to liquidity in a service they knew wouldn't thrive over the next 5-10 years.
- billmalarky 9y agoIf that's the case why did Evan Spiegel keep turning down buyout offers, including potentially a $30B one from google last year?
- dreaminvm 9y agoWas the rumored $30B offer from Google ever serious? This news only popped up recently with SNAP stock nosediving before lockup expiry for employees. Another reason for turning down a buyout situation is the terms. They (Evan and the VCs) would not have such favorable terms as the IPO where they received substantial stock grants, liquidation preferences and retain absolute control over the company without requiring a large (any) financial interest.
- saimiam 9y agoWhat does he know that the rest of the world doesn't? I'd be on the lookout for insider buying filings
- ehxcaet 9y agoI think Snap is pretty dead. Between Instagram and Facebook stories, I just don't see the appeal of Snapchat. Most of the time, if I want to send stupid shit to my friends, I do it in Messenger because we can laugh about it later, too.
- chrischen 9y agoClearly people do use snapchap, so either you're right and they have hundreds of millions of insane people, or you're just clearly not the target demographic.
- ehxcaet 9y agoI'm not saying there aren't users. I'm saying that it's getting absolutely mauled by its competition. Obviously it's hyperbole to say it's dead, but it's definitely dying unless it can do something drastic. It's got no redeeming features that would make me want to use it over Messenger, Messenger/Facebook Stories, or Instagram Stories. I used Snapchat myself up until its competitors were released - so did many of my friends.
- chrischen 9y agoMy point is it appears to be mauled from your perspective, but you’re clearly not the target user. If you were, people wouldbe jumping off of there as quickly as you did, but that’s clearly not the case. It’s more likely you’re missing something and they do have a user demographic that is strongly entrenched. Of the users they do have they have strong user activity. Take my 11 year old sister. She primarily uses snapchat and I can’t see her ever switching. She definitely doesn’t shop around these apps based off of some pro/con table of features.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- thejocinone 9y agoNot the target demographic, 21 and I don't think there's a single person I know who doesn't use Snapchat while Facebook stories is literally always empty. I'd say Instagram stories is the real competitor. Even then, when I meet someone Snapchat is usually the first thing that gets exchanged.
- nsx147 9y agoMost people on HN bearish on SNAP...and I am too in the short term. The problem with SNAP at the moment it is HARD to spend money on ads. There is no open API that individual businesses / ad agencies can use to easily spend...meaning longer iteration cycles for companies trying to figure out creative etc and turn it into a profitable channel. As long as they can deliver SOME value to advertisers in the form of app installs/ traffic to site/whatever businesses will find it and do SNAP's job for them - turn it into a profit machine once they have programmatic access. From what I can see they are copying FB's ad platform which is great...once that API is out there I think it will be a different game. Or they could just end up like TWTR
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jonknee 9y agoThe problem is more than it is hard to buy ads, they also missed their user growth target by a mile (24%). Slowing growth and losing buckets of money is not a great look.
- nsx147 9y agoYes - one of the problems
- prostoalex 9y agoRemains to be seen if those ads deliver, advertisers seem kinda muted on Instagram ads ROI http://marketingland.com/instagrams-direct-response-ads-havent-totally-clicked-with-advertisers-187723 http://marketingland.com/instagrams-direct-response-ads-have...
- gcb0 9y agoor they could try to only cater to premium advertisers and not be the cess pool of bad ads that programmatic invariably brings along.
- phmagic 9y agoOn the bright side, hopefully the amount of millionaires minted by Snap will improve the angel investing scene in Venice Beach
- jameslk 9y agoI'm betting either Snap or Twitter will be acquired, once their price is low enough (maybe soon). They aren't just going to fizzle out as they both have substantial number of users. I don't own either, but my guess is that their stock will see a big bump similar to the outcome of LinkedIn's acquisition by Microsoft. This is just a war of attrition.
- pi-err 9y agoThere's a gap going from "the next Facebook" to "a nice niche for 15-20 US demographics". There'll be more adjustments as the market answers the usual question: are they enough advertising dollars to fund a niche social network? Meanwhile, FB really stands out as the "Microsoft of social networks" in this decade. They really manage to cut every new head as it pops up from the ground. FB now works as a system, while any other competitor looks like a feature.
- soVeryTired 9y agoThank f*ck snap wasn't allowed into the S&P 500...
- ZenoArrow 9y agoHas anyone else noticed the stream of articles set out to undermine Snap over the past few months? Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but I don't think the sole reason for these articles is about their financial position.