6 ms·
Personal 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 (
by chollida1 9y ago
Personal 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 agoFair enough, I did some more digging. $1.99 billion in stock-based compensation was recognized in the first 3 months of the year. $637 million of that was given to the CEO according to his October 2016 employment contract, which all vested at IPO in March 2017. Then there's the pre-IPO employee RSUs. Those typically are subject to 4 years of time vesting, as well as a performance requirement that triggered when the company IPOed. $1.3 billion of those were recognized as of March 31 2017 because they met their performance vesting requirement (IPO-ing). Those were probably the shares that had already satisfied the time-vesting requirement. The company still hasn't recognized an additional $1.3 billion in stock-based compensation that will be recognized on its financial statements over a weighted-average period of the next 3.1 years. Those were probably issued relatively recently since they haven't met their time vesting requirement yet.
- prostoalex 9y agoRemember the Simpsons episode where the CEO of the Internet company invites everyone to treat themselves to some free shares?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ptero 9y agoThree zeros (a factor of 1000)
- JauntTrooper 9y ago> Stock-based compensation expense ($)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]