Skip to main content

Snap Chat at 25 (update)

Ok

I don't use SnapChat -- to be perfectly honest I don't really know what SnapChat is about considering that the whole thing is that you seem to be able to send inappropriate pictures that will disappear into the ether immediately (really).  Honestly, what's to stop a person who receives a snapchat from taking a picture and then posting it on...

Maybe the new generation has figures out that your Facebook pictures of you snogging some girl could come to haunt you many years later.  A suggestion, if you think the picture is inappropriate maybe it's best not to send it all!

Anyway, this morning SnapChat was launched on the NYSE with a price of about $17 per share, a nice one day boost of 47% to $25.16 this afternoon made everyone that got allocation in the IPO- happy.

Also this morning the market gave a target price of $10...mmmmh.

I've not looked at the annual report but something tells me that with a company that was valued at US$ 29 billion and is now worth US$42 billion is somewhat overpriced.  I am curious as to their revenue model.  I got Google and Facebook wrong, Google's prime money maker Google Adsense didn't exist at the time of the IPO -- so again it was a leap of faith on the part of the investors.

Apparently in 2016 Snapchat made revenues of US$ 400 million -- so a company with revenues of 400 million (and I would guess expenses greater than that-- Turns out that net income was -514 million) has a US$ 42 billion market cap.

I just found out that the company raised US$ 3.4 billion -- on a launch market cap of 29 billion.  I don't know if that includes the greenshoe option -- my guess is that it does since that would explain the nearly 12% of shares issues.

Not that the market gives a damn about my views -- after all even with a 29 billion market cap, and 400 million in revenues -- this is all about the future revenue growth.

No position (or appetite) for Facebook, Google or Snapchat


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trucker shortage? No a plan to allow driverless rigs

There are still articles on how America is running out of truckers -- and that its a huge problem, except its not a problem, if it was a problem salaries would rise to so that demand would clear. Trucking is one of those industry where the vast majority of participants are owner/operators and therefore free agents.

Salaries and cost are extremely well know, "industry" complains that there are not enough truckers, yet wages continue to fall... Therefore there are still too many truckers around, for if there was a shortage of supply prices would rise, and they don't.

What there is though is something different; there is a push to allow automatic rigs to "operate across the US", so to encourage the various authorities to allow self driving rigs you talk shortage and hope that politicians decided that "Well if people don't want to work, lets get robots to do the work" or words to that effect.

This has nothing to do with shortage of drivers, but every…

Every punter says oil prices are on the rise: Oil hits $48/bbl -- lowest since September 2016

What the hell?

How could this be, punters, advisors, investment bankers all agreed commodity prices  in general and oil prices in particular are on the rise...its a brave new era for producers and exporters -- finally the world is back and demand is going through the roof, except not so much!

What happened?  Well energy is complicated, the world operates in a balance -- 30 days of physical reserves is about all we've got (seriously) this is a just in time business.  So the long term trend always gets hit by short term variations.

Global production over the past 12 months has risen by somewhat less than 1.5% per annum.  As the world market changes production becomes less energy intensive (maybe), but the reality is that the world is growing more slowly -- America Q4 GDP growth was around 1.9% (annualized) Europe is going nowhere fast (the GDP growth in Germany is overshadowed by the lack of growth in France, Italy, Spain (lets say 27 Euro members generated a total GDP growth of 1.2…

Paying for research

This morning I was reading that CLSA -- since 2013 proudly owned by CITIC -- was shutting down its American equity research department -- 90 people will be affected!

Now the value of a lot of research is limited, that is not to say that all research is bad. In fact, I remember that GS's Asia Aerospace research was considered the bible for the sector.  Granted, there was little you could do with the research since the "buy" was for Chinese airlines...that were state owned.  Still it was a vey valuable tool in understanding the local dynamics.  It seems that the US has introduced new legislation that forces brokers to "sell" their research services!  Figures of $10,000 an hour have been mentioned...

Now, research can be sold many times; if GS has 5000/6000 clients they may sell the same research 300x or 400x (I exaggerate) but this is the key -- Those who buy the research are, I presume, prohibited from giving it away or selling it, at the same time the same rese…