Apple vs. Spotify – Duck lines

Reply to this post

 

 

 

 

 

Two lines of ducks are forming.

  • With a new alliance between Spotify and Tencent and the acquisition of Shazam by Apple, the big players are getting their ducks in a row to dominate the global music industry.

Spotify and Tencent

  • Following on from Tencent’s failure to acquire the company (see here), a compromise has been reached where the two companies will acquire a cross holding in each other and “explore collaboration opportunities”.
  • To me this means two things:
    • First: Tencent will be able to integrate the Spotify service into the ecosystem experience that it assembles to enable it to address developed markets.
    • This could form part of an offering that also has a gaming offering using Supercell and an instant messaging offering using Snapchat.
    • Second: I expect that Tencent will get access to Spotify’s best in class music categorisation and recommendation system for use in making its Chinese service better.
    • For this I expect that Spotify will receive a revenue share from Tencent as I think it very unlikely that Spotify has any real chance of succeeding in China on its own.
    • This is because Tencent’s QQ music is already the leader with 41% share and because like everything else, China’s music market is predominantly about Chinese music for Chinese users.
    • The Chinese music market has been tiny historically, but this is beginning to change as the more affluent end of the market is beginning to pay for streaming services.
    • Consequently, the Chinese market is almost all digital with only a tiny physical presence.
    • It is this change that I think has interested Tencent in Spotify’s technology as technology is what I have long believed underpins Spotify’s superior performance relative to Apple Music enabling it to keep Apple at bay.
  • A close collaboration between Spotify and Tencent could mean a fully global offering with the exception of India which would probably require an acquisition to get a foothold.

Apple

  • At the same time, it seems likely that Apple has reached a deal to acquire Shazam, the music recognition company, for $400m.
  • This is well below the $1bn valuation at which Shazam raised money in 2015 but in 2015, there was a much greater supply of belief.
  • The issue that Shazam has had is that it has had great difficulty in making money as 2016 revenues appear to have been around $50m with the company hovering around break-even.
  • I suspect that the company has not grown nearly as quickly as it expected which has meant that profits expected by investors have not materialised making them willing to consider a lower offer.
  • From Apple’s perspective, I do not see this as an acquisition of a service but much more a technology.
  • Shazam has been analysing and recognising music for nearly 20 years and as a result is pretty good at characterising, recognising and understanding music.
  • This is one of the traits that makes Spotify’s service so good as it is able to take that and match it to users’ tastes.
  • Consequently, I see Apple taking Shazam’s technology and incorporating it into Apple Music in a bid to improve its service and compete more aggressively with Spotify.
  • I continue to believe that the best way for Apple to do that would be to introduce a free tier, but that is a whole other discussion (see here).
  • This is great news for SoundHound as the loss of independence of its major rival will make it far more appealing to anyone who competes with Apple at any level.

Take Home Message

  • Streaming has reversed a long decline in music industry revenues and consequently is widely considered likely to become the standard way to distribute music.
  • I still think that the market is big enough for two players to thrive and Apple and Spotify remain at the top and look unlikely to be seriously challenged.
  • Hence, these recent moves look to be aimed at cementing the position of the two leaders ensuring that streaming remains a duopoly outside of China and India.

Sonos – Sounds of sameness pt. III.

Reply to this post

 

 

 

 

 

Sonos is now just another speaker maker.

  • Sonos has finally enabled Alexa voice control and Spotify support in its speaker systems thereby ensuring that it will now be competing purely on the quality of its hardware.
  • The Sonos One is Sonos’ first voice-activated speaker which has received rave reviews for its sound quality, but very little else.
  • This is because this device uses Amazon’s Alexa to control its functions and is adding support for streaming services like Spotify and Tidal with increasing regularity.
  • While this is exactly what is required to sell speakers in this day and age, it is confirmation to me that Sonos has completely lost its mojo.
  • Sonos was very early into digital music streaming around the house and developed a suite of software that made multiroom music possible.
  • While this was a novelty, Sonos achieved differentiation and was able to charge a premium price for its high-quality audio products with this functionality.
  • Unfortunately, Sonos has squandered the lead that it had and instead of using its lead to maintain its differentiation, it focused on trying to lock users into its products.
  • It tried to do this by only allowing users to access popular services such as Spotify, Amazon and so on via its own app.
  • The idea was to create a compelling user experience such that users would choose a Sonos even if something of equivalent quality was available at the same price point.
  • Unfortunately, this is where it has all come unstuck as Sonos’ ecosystem delivers a frustrating, buggy and substandard user experience that I think users would not use if they had a choice.
  • By enabling both Spotify Connect and Amazon Echo, Sonos has removed the requirement for users to use its software which I think is a sign that it is giving up on trying to create user preference around an ecosystem.
  • Because Amazon Echo and Spotify Connect are keen to work with any speaker on the market, Sonos’ differentiation now becomes: audio quality and design.
  • Multiroom functionality is now table stakes in the home speaker game.
  • Hence, I see Sonos’ only chance is to either
    • First: invest in cool new hardware features and stay ahead of its competition to maintain its price premium or
    • Second: to go for volume and gain scale advantages by significantly outselling its rivals.
  • Both of these will be extremely difficult to achieve as much bigger and stronger rivals are all investing in producing great audio quality in a small package and the market is rapidly fragmenting given the low barriers to entry.
  • Given Sonos’ current position, I think that both of these options would have required a bold strategic move from Sonos that would probably have had the most chance of success if it had appointed an outsider as CEO rather than its COO.
  • Hence, I think Sonos now has nothing to differentiate it from Apple HomePod, Google Home Max and so on meaning that its only weapon will become price.
  • I think that this is big problem because its larger and more powerful rivals are more than capable of subsidising these products in order to push their ecosystems deeper into the home.
  • The net result of this is likely to be a weakening of Sonos’ financial position to the point where one of the larger players is able to buy it at a discounted valuation.
  • I see Samsung, Apple, Sony, Tencent and Amazon as potential acquirers.

Google vs. Facebook – AI dividend.

Reply to this post

 

 

 

 

 

Google’s AI already paying dividends

  • Both Google and Facebook have a fake news problem but Google’s leadership in AI means that it is likely to have a better solution and will not have to materially impact the financial performance of the company to fix it.
  • Over the last 2 years, Google, Facebook, Twitter and so on have become far more important when it comes to delivering current events to users.
  • This is particularly relevant when certain events occur that result in regular citizens present at these events uploading videos and commentary long before the more established media outlets can arrive on the scene.
  • As a result, important information often appears on Google, Facebook and Twitter first, meaning that the accuracy and veracity of this information is of paramount importance.
  • Unfortunately, during these sorts of events, there is often a scarcity of information available making it the easiest time to successfully propagate fake news.
  • This is the problem with which both Facebook and Google are wrestling, but from looking at how both are dealing with it I think there is a huge gap between these two players.
    • Facebook: To combat this problem, Facebook has announced that the total number of employees working on safety and security will be doubled from 10,000 to 20,000.
    • Given that the total number of employees at the end of June 2017 was 20,658, this implies that 50% – 60% of all Facebook employees will be working in non-revenue producing positions.
    • This will mean that costs will meaningfully outstrip revenues leading to a “significant” decline in profitability.
    • These humans are being shipped in to deal with the problem because Facebook’s AI is not even close to being good enough to deal with it
    • Furthermore, I think that this is a problem that humans cannot really solve given the velocity that is required.
    • Google: to be fair to Facebook, Google’s data tends to be somewhat more structured than Facebook’s making it easier to analyse but this does not come close to explaining the difference in AI ability.
    • Although Google remains reluctant to discuss the methods it is using to combat this problem, this is something that it has been dealing with for many years and there has been no sudden increase in current for forecasted headcount.
    • There has also been no sudden decline in gross margins (current or forecasted) which would indicate that Google had taken on contractors to help fix the problem.
    • While Google does use fact checking services to ascertain the veracity of some of the content that appears in its searches, I think that almost all of its efforts are going into closing the loopholes in its algorithms that allow fake news to surface.
    • This is why there is no financial impact on Google from this problem compared to Facebook.
  • Furthermore, I think that using humans to combat fake news will end in failure.
  • This is because it takes the human system around 2-3 days to reliably label an article or item as fake by which time is has trended and already been seen by millions of users.
  • Consequently, I do not think that having tens of thousands of humans scouring Facebook for fake news will actually solve the problem.
  • Hence, I think that this will result in $1bn+ of shareholders money being wasted in every year that humans are being used.
  • This highlights the gravity of the AI problem that Facebook is trying to deal with and think it is one that Google is much closer to solving.
  • Hence, I see Google being able to far more effectively manage this problem and at a fraction of the cost.
  • From a shareholder value perspective, perhaps it is time to consider switching from Facebook to Google.

Tencent Q3 17 – Time purchase

Reply to this post

 

 

 

 

 

Mighty core business buys time.

  • Tencent reported strong results driven mostly by its content offerings which gives the company time to work out how to fully monetise the vast the community it has created.
  • Q3 17 revenues / net income RMB65.2bn ($9.8bn) / RMB18.0bn ($2.7bn) nicely ahead of estimates of RMB61.0bn / RMB15.8bn.
  • Tencent called out smartphone games (especially Honour of Kings) and its online video platform (which it now believes has overtaken Alibaba and Baidu to become China’s No. 1 place for video streaming) as top performers during the quarter.
  • Most revenue streams grew between 45% and 50% YoY but it was the contribution from other businesses such as first-time monetisation of WeChat Pay and cloud services that really drove the numbers above expectations.
  • Overall, these revenues grew by 143% to RMB12.0bn which pushed the corporate average revenue growth rate to a 7 year high of 61% YoY.
  • While the core businesses continue to defy the slowdown I have been expecting, the laggard in the company remains the monetisation of the ecosystem that it has created.
  • This is what Baidu and Google are really good at and what Alibaba has been showing increasing signs of getting to grips with.
  • The vast majority of Tencent’s revenues come from selling content like games, in app purchases or streaming subscriptions making it more like Netflix and Amazon rather than Google or Facebook.
  • Tencent has created a community of 980m users at least half of whom regularly interact with Tencent in multiple Digital Life segments.
  • This creates a substantial revenue opportunity for Tencent but one I think that it has struggled to really get to grips with.
  • Online advertising is still just 18% of revenues which I calculate is between one third to one half of what it should be for an ecosystem with 980m active users.
  • It is here that I still see the real upside for Tencent as it has done little in the last 15 months to address this opportunity.
  • To be fair to the company, management time has been very successfully invested in growing the existing businesses but the time will come when it will need to monetise this opportunity to keep growth going.
  • Here, I think that Tencent has a lot of work to do as its score on RFM’s 8 Laws of Robotics is pretty low, particularly against Laws 5 and 6 which focus on the integration of services and user data.
  • To monetise the ecosystem effectively, I think a good score against these measures is required and Tencent has so far shown little sign of grasping the importance of integration.
  • However, while the core business continues to defy expectations, this is not a problem from a share price perspective and buys management time to get to grips with integrating its assets into a single place where users can live their Digital Lives.
  • This is how I can continue to like Tencent as an investment despite its apparent slowness to move onto the next stage of its development.
  • While the core business continues to deliver, the valuation remains underpinned with the potential further upside coming from monetisation of the ecosystem.
  • This is why Tencent remains my preferred pick globally.

Broadcast TV – Sword of Damocles pt. III.

Reply to this post

 

 

 

 

 

OTA broadcast given a second chance.

  • While Netflix and Amazon continue to make inroads into the cable TV subscribing population, the old dinosaur of over-the-air (OTA) broadcast seems to be winning a second lease of life.
  • Over the last 4 years I have been very negative on the outlook for broadcast (OTA and cable) as I have viewed the convenience and lower cost of on-demand viewing as a much better proposition for users (see here and here).
  • However, while this prediction has been largely accurate, what I failed to take into account was the fact the OTA is free (ad supported) which I think is largely what lies behind its renaissance.
  • A standard Cable TV subscription in 2016 cost on average $103.10 per month (Leichtman research group) for which a large number of channels come as a prepaid package.
  • However, in reality, most users watch only a few of those channels meaning that it if they could subscribe to those channels individually, they would be in a position to save a lot of money.
  • This is now becoming a reality as some of the most prized content now belongs to the streaming companies as well as other content creators making their content available as a subscription through the Internet.
  • The most obvious response has been the well documented and accelerating cord cutting by US households unless the cable TV industry takes immediate and drastic action.
  • The other effect appears to have been a substantial recovery in the number of households making use of OTA rather than cable.
  • According to a Nielsen study commissioned by Ion Media, OTA only households has grown by 41% over the last five years to 15.8m households although this may have slowed significantly since 2015.
  • Furthermore, this is not limited to older generations as the median age of households using OTA and not cable is lower at 34.5 years than the total households using TV at 39.6 years.
  • Although the total number of households switching back to OTA-only may have slowed, there has been real growth in households that also have a fast broadband connection (nScreenMedia).
  • This leads me to believe that users (young and old) are increasingly switching off cable and replacing it with a combination of premium streaming services and OTA TV.
  • This allows the user to have access to a wide range of channels, almost all the content he was watching on cable at a much lower price.
  • Consequently, while commentators are cautious on the outlook for TV advertising revenues in 2018 and beyond, I think that they could easily witness a recovery having been stalled for some time.
  • While this gives OTA a reprieve, I still think it needs to act to prevent itself from becoming obsolete in the long-term.
  • The obvious move is to make the entire selection of channels available on a single, free, ad-supported streaming service.
  • That way the valuable spectrum can be re-farmed for a more economically productive use and OTA can ensure that it has a place in the future of the media industry.
  • If it is really sharp, OTA will also seek ways to make its offering available in emerging markets which are highly price sensitive and willing to consume advertising in lieu of paying a subscription.
  • I still think cable TV is going the way of the Dodo but OTA looks like it has been given some time to reinvent itself.

Broadcast TV – Sword of Damocles pt. II.

Reply to this post

 

 

 

 

 

The sword has slipped its moorings.  

  • With all of the indicators now starting to turn against the TV broadcast industry even live sports no longer offers any real hope.
  • In 2013 (see here) the shoe was on the other foot where Netflix was trying to do deals with the cable companies to put its app on their set top boxes and be a part of their overall service.
  • What a difference 4 years makes, as Netflix no longer needs the cable companies to improve its reach and combined with Amazon Prime, YouTube, ESPN, NFL, Hulu and so on look set to render them obsolete.
  • The most recent indicators are deeply troubling:
    • First, the Emmy nominations: Netflix increased its nominations from 54 in 2016 to 91 in 2017 putting it in second place behind HBO (111 nominations).
    • Hulu and Amazon were way behind on 18 and 16 respectively but importantly these are orders of magnitude greater than last year.
    • Second, cord cutters: 2m adults in USA will have cut the cable this year up 33% YoY which combined with the younger generation that see no need to use cable brings the total to 56.6m users in the US market.
    • E-marketer forecasts that this will grow to 81.1m or close to 30% of the US population by 2021.
    • Only the over-55 segment is growing in terms of cable subscriptions with all other segments in decline.
    • Third, TV advertising: This has stalled at $71.7bn (e-marketer) after resisting this trend for several years and is expected to decline from next year.
  • These figures make grim reading but I suspect that there is worse to come.
  • These sorts of trends rarely occur in straight lines and the trend over the last 12 months has been one of acceleration which shows no sign of abating.
  • The one survivor is likely to live sports as this is the only media type that loses almost all its value when time shifted.
  • However, there is no reason why this cannot be broadcast over the Internet which is something that ESPN and the NFL have already cottoned on to.
  • Their apps are already No. 3 and No. 8 in terms of MaU on US smartphones for video streaming apps, further undermining what little appeal broadcast has left.
  • These statistics are turning against broadcast much more quickly than I thought they would back in 2013 and I see a real possibility that broadcast is no more in less than 10 years.
  • The broadcasters had an opportunity to deal with the OTT players.
  • Clearly, they should have taken it.

Facebook vs. Snap Inc. – Own goal

Reply to this post

 

 

 

 

 

Some of Snap’s woes look self-inflicted.

  • Snap appears to be losing key influencers to Facebook not because of a copied service from Facebook, but because Snap is not making it very easy for them to make money.
  • Influencers are social media personalities with large numbers of followers that are paid by companies to feature their products in their videos.
  • Influencers are incredibly important for marketing to millennials and generation Z meaning that this is something that Snap needs to be all over in order to keep advertisers using its platform.
  • Unfortunately, data from Captiv8, the audience tracking service, indicates that influencers are leaving Snap and are finding their way to Instagram.
  • During Q2 17, Snap saw a 20% decline in influencers while Instagram saw an 11% jump.
  • Influencers are not leaving Snap because there is something better on Instagram but because Facebook and Instagram make it much easier for them to make money.
  • Being an influencer is surprisingly hard work and many influencers are struggling to make a good return on their time and investment on Snapchat because Snap does not provide any real support for influencers.
  • In many ways influencers are a bit like developers which in order to get going need lots of love and support.
  • Facebook and Instagram have understood this and acted upon it while Snap’s management does not seem to care that much.
  • Snap seems to be more focused on user to user engagement but this is much harder to monetise.
  • The financial results of this stance are clear with the first two sets of results from Snap being a huge disappointment while Facebook is having one of its best years ever.
  • Snap badly needs to address this situation as influencers are key for marketing to its key user base but while management favours funky animations and camera-enabled spectacles, I can’t see the financials improving.
  • Consequently, I think that Q3 17 and Q4 17 will continue to see the user numbers and the engagement disappoint leading to more pressure on the share price.
  • I continue to think that while Twitter is also stagnating, it is in a much better strategic position as it remains unopposed in its space.
  • Snap by contrast is under colossal pressure from Facebook which I think could lead to the shares dipping well below my fair value of $12.40 a share.
  • If they were to hit $10 or below, I could see acquirors coming out of the woodwork.
  • until then there is only pain to had with Snap.

Spotify – Free foundation

Reply to this post

 

 

 

 

 

Apple Music still making no dent.

  • Spotify has crossed 60m paid users and while its absolute level of growth is slowing due to the law of large numbers, it is still adding paying subscribers at the very healthy rate of 2m per month.
  • In September 2016 Spotify hit 40m, passed 50m in March 2017 and hit 60m at the end of July 2017.
  • For the last 18 months, Spotify has been steadily adding subscribers at around 2m per month which is showing no signs of slowing down.
  • This has held steady for the last 5 months indicating that Apple Music is having very little impact on Spotify despite the substantial advantage Apple has in owning the App Store and having complete control over the iPhone.
  • I continue to believe that this is for two reasons
    • First:  Spotify remains fundamentally a better service.
    • This is driven by the fact that the music is now incidental in that anyone can create a service with 40m tracks and a search box.
    • Where Spotify is different is that it uses the data that it collects from all of its users in order to make its service better.
    • Apple also does this but Spotify’s AI in music continues to meaningfully outperform Apple’s.
    • By understanding the characteristics of the music offered by its service and the preferences of its listeners, it can accurately match the two together.
    • This also allows it to come up with innovative services that keeps its service fresh and one step ahead of the competition.
    • Second: Spotify has a large and engaged free tier of users that serve as the funnel for conversion into paid users.
    • Free users get to spend time with the service without paying for it, making it much easier to make these users understand why the service is better than anything else available.
    • This meaningfully offsets the disadvantage that Spotify has compared to Apple when it comes to marketing.
    • These free users generate data which Spotify can use to train its algorithms which can in turn be used to make the service better.
    • Apple also has a lot of data but has not been nearly as good at turning raw data into actionable intelligence with which it can improve its service.
  • The net result is that Spotify’s position is strengthening with every new user that it adds and between them, Apple and Spotify account for almost all of the growth in the recorded music industry.
  • Consequently, I remain unconcerned that Apple will be able to put real pressure on Spotify and think that its path to better profitability remains clear as the labels increasingly need Spotify more than Spotify needs the labels.
  • This position is becoming clearer as Spotify was able to strike a better deal with Universal (see here) and the outlook is that the rest of the industry will be signed on similar terms.
  • I still think that the key issue for Spotify going forward is to maintain momentum of growth of its free users.
  • It is the free user pool that has been the foundation of its outperformance of Apple, meaning that the free tier will be critical to keep the paid tier (where the real money will be made) increasing at this very healthy rate.
  • I continue to think that there is enough space in this market for 2 big players and with those spots filled, it is the fortunes of Pandora, Tidal, Deezer and so on that trouble me now.

SoundCloud – Clouds of red

Reply to this post

 

 

 

 

 

Management does not have the luxury of choice.

  • Poor monetisation strategy and a lack of fiscal discipline is likely to ensure that SoundCloud ends up being forcibly acquired by one of its rivals when it finally runs out of money.
  • From looking at the contenders, I think Google Music looks like the best fit.
  • Despite raising $70m in debt in March 2017, the company is in dire financial straits and it was forced to close offices and lay off 40% of its workforce last week saving an estimated €16.7m.
  • Given that the company lost around €50m in 2016, this looks set to only prolong the stay of execution until sometime in Q4 2017.
  • The company has said that it wants to take back control of its destiny (from its venture investors presumably) but with no money coming in and great difficulty in raising more, management does not have the luxury of choice.
  • The big question is the user base.
  • SoundCloud last updated this figure 3 years ago when it said that it had 175m MaU but there is concern that the success of Spotify’s free tier and YouTube have taken a big bite out that number.
  • This will have a material impact on any potential acquisition later in the year, but for the moment the main concern remains cash flow or the lack thereof.
  • I see two problems:
    • First: monetisation. Assuming that SoundCloud still has 175m users, it is currently generating $0.02 per user per month in revenues.
    • This compares very poorly to Spotify which I estimate generates $2.54 per user per month despite the majority of its users being on its free tier.
    • The fact that Spotify is 127x better at monetising its users than SoundCloud is, more than accounts for differences in catalogue and user base and shines the light squarely on SoundCloud’s lack of execution.
    • Anecdotally, as a regular SoundCloud listener on its free tier, I have never heard or seen a single advertisement, further reinforcing my opinion on execution.
    • Second: fiscal discipline: SoundCloud has had nice offices in Berlin and elsewhere, has offered free catered lunches twice a week and gifted new employees MacBooks and headphones as well as other freebies.
    • What is more, I think management has had its head in the sand with regard to the financial car crash that has brought it to its current predicament which potentially could have been avoided if it had been faced head-on.
    • The net result of the sudden layoffs is that morale has come crashing down and I understand that the people that SoundCloud badly needs to keep if it is to fix its monetisation problem, are now looking to leave.
  • The biggest problem I see is that the financial problems will absorb much of management’s time in trying to raise more money, meaning that the real problems of the business go unaddressed.
  • Consequently, I think the company will run out of money in Q4 17, as predicted, and be forcibly acquired for just enough to pay down the debt ($70m) leaving the assets unencumbered.
  • Of all the potential suitors, I think Google makes the most sense.
  • This is because SoundCloud is most like YouTube as a repository of user generated content and in that regard, Google will probably be most able to monetise what SoundCloud cannot.
  • I can see it being slotted into the YouTube infrastructure and being rebranded YouTube Audio or something similar.
  • The future is very bleak for SoundCloud but I think that management has only itself to blame for spending too much time feathering its nest and not enough time on grinding out hard cold cash.

 

Snap – Valuation snaps pt. II.

Reply to this post

 

 

 

 

 

Twitter remains by far the better choice

  • Reality is beginning to set in for Snap Inc. but I think that the shares still have some distance to go before there is an opportunity to snap up a bargain.
  • A major downgrade by one of its underwriters taking the target price from $28 to just $16 caused the shares to dip to $15.44 which combined with the possibility that Snap Spectacles are not selling that well and savage competition does not bode well.
  • A very informal survey found that the target group (millennials) were not that interested in Snap Spectacles, have not seen them in public and do not know anyone else who is interested in the product.
  • However, there was some interest in Snap’s new functions such as Snap Maps and World Lenses but this is where the competition problem comes to the fore.
  • The minute Snap hits on an innovation that resonates with its user base, Facebook will copy it and offer it to its 1.2bn Messenger users or 600m Instagram users which, in my opinion, pretty much neuters the appeal of Snap.
  • This is because both of these companies are network based businesses where Facebook’s network is orders of magnitude larger and therefore offers its users exponentially more utility.
  • Consequently, I really struggle to see how Snap is going to increase its user base as its differentiation is flagging and the same services on Facebook are more useful.
  • It is on this basis that I value the company.
  • The peer group of Facebook, Twitter and LINE Corp is trading on a forward EV/Sales multiple of 6.6x for 2017E and 5.5x for 2018E.
  • Given, Snap Inc.’s current growth rate and its medium-term potential (see here), I think that the company could conceivably generate revenues of $800m in 2017E and $1.2bn in 2018E.
  • Being generous to Snap Inc. and because it is growing faster than the peer group I can give it a 200% premium to its peers giving an EV valuation of $10.5bn based on 2017E and $13.2bn based on 2018E.
  • The average of these two is $11.9bn with which I can be comfortable assuming flawless execution, continued rapid growth and a move into generating profits.
  • This translates into $12.40 per share which is still some 20% below where the share price is today despite recent falls.
  • Hence, I think that unless Snap Inc. can get its user base really growing again, it is going to have difficulty in justifying it’s still lofty valuation and I see further downside.
  • If Snap were to go below $10 per share ($9.6bn), there could be significant acquisition interest.
  • Until then, I would stay away.
  • Twitter (see here) remains in a much better position than Snap Inc. and if I was forced to choose between the two, I would have Twitter any day of the week.