3 ms·
They can't easily afford to splurge on the best acquisitions at this point. Instagram cost $1 billion. YouTube cost $1.65 billion. Snapchat is heading toward b
by adventured 8y ago
They can't easily afford to splurge on the best acquisitions at this point. Instagram cost $1 billion. YouTube cost $1.65 billion.
Snapchat is heading toward bankruptcy or a forced sale if they don't dramatically cut costs. They're down to $1.4b in cash (from $2b three quarters prior). They can't safely buy an Instagram at this point. Pretty soon they're going to be the $1-$2 billion acquisition.
Twitter is in much better financial condition of course, although a $1-$2 billion acquisition is still a huge chunk of change for their business ($6b in cash, ~$300m-$400m per year in profit). Twitter's problem is that their cash is precious, because their business doesn't generate a ton of it (they've been persistently hauling billions of cash around from their past funding days). That cash is a big safety buffer that they can't easily replace if they burn it. They can use their market cap of course, and shareholders will only tolerate so much of that at their size and given their non-growth context. Twitter needs to figure out what it wants to do before the market 'realizes' what they're actually worth (zero growth gets you an optimistic ~20 PE * $350m profit = $7 billion; a further 2/3 drop from here); it's similar to the old Yahoo scenario pre Alibaba (no growth, the market temporarily giving you an abnormally high valuation, a trapped product).
The giants are seemingly moving fast because they have comically obscene amounts of cash pouring in and can't figure out what to do with it (other than share buybacks ala Facebook, or other capital return programs; in Google's case, they're just piling it up or buying real estate). So they spray it all around. A billion dollar acquisition mistake is meaningless if you're Microsoft and generating ~$40b in operating income (next four quarters). For Snapchat, it'd be fatal.
Google's net tangible assets are up to $149 billion now. They're starting to look more like a financial company than a tech company. Like a private equity company that happens to own a lucrative search engine monopoly and a media company (YouTube). JP Morgan's net tangible assets by contrast are $182b and Bank of America is $170b.
- manigandham 8y agoSure, but I'm talking about buy competitors before they get to the 1B acq price, otherwise they're already close to Snap's size. Agree with the rest. It's both interesting and troubling that the giants have so much cashflow that they continue consuming new companies for a long time without worry. All companies die eventually but we're in a whole new world with 1T market caps.
- adventured 8y agoInstagram had 30 million monthly active users when they were acquired. Roughly 1/10th the size of Snapchat today. It was the growth curve that caught Facebook's attention of course. YouTube was a bleeding disaster of a business when Google scooped them up, for a price that was universally mocked as outrageously high. I'm skeptical even Twitter with their $6b in cash could absorb that type of mess and see it through. The problem you run into, in trying to buy interesting competitors, is they're not for sale for cheap if they're actually any good. That's the specific reason Instagram went for what was considered a very high price. When growth looks that good, the VCs will fund you indefinitely, so the acquirer has to pay a massive premium. In the post Flickr era you can't buy Instagrams for $50m.
- nradov 8y agoYou mean competitors like WhatsApp? The price can go from 0 to $1B awfully fast.
- subsaharancoder 8y agoMight be in Google's best interests to keep Snapchat running, for the simple fact that Snapchat is Google's largest customer (>50% of App Engine annual revenue) of App Engine.