Slashdot Mirror
Snapchat Files For a $3 Billion IPO (theverge.com)
Snapchat has filed for an initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange today, picking the ticker symbol "SNAP." The company hopes to raise $3 billion and says it has 158 million daily active users. The IPO would reportedly value the company above $20 billion. The Verge reports: The filing comes at an exciting but challenging time for Snap. The company -- originally named Snapchat -- has declared its intentions to become -- a camera company -- rather than just an app developer. And it's already found some success with Spectacles, its fun pair of video-recording sunglasses. The company says its advertising business is growing quickly. It reported $58.7 million in revenue for 2015, and grew that to $404.5 million in 2016. Along with that strong revenue growth, however, its losses also swelled. Snapchat lost $372.9 million in 2015 and $514.6 million this past year, more than its total revenue. Twitter was also struggling to generate a profit when it went public, while Facebook was not. Here's a gem from the S-1 filing. "We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability." Sounds like a great investment!
the bubble hasn't burst yet.
"We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability." Sounds like a great investment!
I'm seeing a lot of the same attitude that I saw in the late 90s in the stock market. People buying stocks based upon hype and nothing else - even when the company is in horrible financial shape.
And then there's the greater fool theory - "I know this is a shitty investment, but there are really dumb people out there that will buy it and make it go higher because it's a 'tech' company!"
Fitbit is an example of when it fails and Tesla is an example of when it works.
first!
I'm just curious what percentage of the costs are server/bandwidth/storage and what percentage are marketing and what percentage are development. Do the filings tell us?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Original punctuation style. Shit and wrong, but original.
At the bottom of the
The IPO would reportedly value the company above $20 billion.
"We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability."
We had CAPM drilled into us when I was in business school back in the 80's. I guess no one on Wall Street uses it anymore. :-(
Apps guy where are you?
50 cents per person on the planet ... for a company that doesn't make (or make anything that can make) anything you can drive, eat or wear.
Does anyone know Sean Hannigan's phone number, 'cos I'm calling him.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability."
Has the ENTIRE concept of profitability gone out the fucking window when it comes to running a company? I don't even know what we legally define as a scam anymore when companies that project running in the red forever file for IPOs.
Not even in the era of the dot-bomb were vaporware pimps arrogant enough to blatantly admit the proposed company would be a failure from a financial standpoint. In fact, stupidity has reached a level where investors have apparently forgotten why we refer to it as the dot bomb. It's as if the S-1 filing statement is some kind of troll test.
When your losses exceed your revenue, you're already bankrupt. I'll do simple math below to understand.
100 Revenue
250 Expenses
------
150 Loss.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability."
I don't even know what we legally define as a scam anymore when companies that project running in the red forever file for IPOs.
A scam is when you try to hoodwink someone. This is more like the Pet Rock. It's very clear what you're buying if you decide to take that leap. It's actually a little refreshing to have someone say, "we have absolutely zero chance of ever turning a profit. Can we have some money, please?"
Now that Facebook has incorporated a clone of Snapchat into its messenger, complete with ephemeral text and video messaging, Snapchat figured it had better do its IPO before everyone figures out it's about to die a more horrible death than Yik Yak did...
there's nothing scammy about a pet rock. they're just like regular pets without the hairballs on your pillow or shit in the yard.
Sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before?
Exodus Communication circa 2000*: "It is possible that we may never achieve profitability on a quarterly or an annual basis."
Exodus Communications history:
* See https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e...
Janie took my gun...
Ok so the Stock started at $178.42.
The Stock Ended the day at: $169.90 (Low of $133.00)
The Snap IPO filing also discloses a lot of elements of the Snapchat company that may scare investors off, or at least they should.
For one thing, there's the shareholder-unfriendly corporate governance structure that gives 26-year-old CEO Evan Spiegel near absolute control,
or the fact that Snap says it doesn't have any intention of paying cash dividends, possibly ever.
or how absurdly expensive it will be, Snapchat has reportedly been seeking a $25 billion valuation.
Snapchat's parent company is asking for a valuation of nearly 62 times its revenue. (Snap lost $515 million last year, or 38% more than it lost in 2015. )
Snap warns in its IPO filing that its expenses are also increasing rapidly, and could outpace revenue growth for a long time. The number of Snapchat employees for one, more than tripled to 1,859 in 2016.
Investors are betting on a future dream of earnings that is still so far away, it may disappear before that day ever comes.
So where is the growth?
Snap's sales are growing fastest in other parts of the world besides the U.S. and Europe, increasing 53% in the fourth quarter year over year there, but only 39% in North America. Still, the U.S. and North America account for about 90% of Snap's overall revenue.
Probably best to wait a bit on this to see what happens.
The niche occupied by Snap makes them an attractive target for acquisition but doesn't bode well for them to produce enough revenue to keep a public company afloat. I'll skip this IPO, let them bleed red ink for a few quarters and then pick up some shares on the cheap in the hopes of a buyout. YMMV.
This is categorically incorrect.
First, all that "social" has to run somehow....and it is people with "skills" that do the "relevant" programming.
The idea that what people call "social" is somehow supplanting the need for software devs and coders is actually ridiculous. All that "social" is coded and hosted and maintained by software devs and coders!
2nd, the whole contextualization of text and pictures sent over the internet to a logged-in user is this new thing in human experience called "social" is absolutely incorrect. Snapchat, facebook, twitter, etc...it's all just text and images.
What you and idiot marketing buzzword people call "social" is inherent human behavior. Things like facebook, snapchat, etc are simply mediators when humans choose to do it using internet.
Post cards are just as much "social" as snapchat.
this makes me think you are being sarcastic...honestly...
the coding skill to make every function a one-liner isn't all that is necessary to make a successful app...no one ever said it was!
good coding skills are certainly useful, but just like good concrete laying or whatever skill, you either work for a company or for yourself...if you work for yourself you have to have skills, like business skills, other than the skill you are marketing...**it's the same for all skills not just code**
Thank you Dave Raggett
That's one way to get punched in the face.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
"We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability."
I don't even know what we legally define as a scam anymore when companies that project running in the red forever file for IPOs.
A scam is when you try to hoodwink someone. This is more like the Pet Rock. It's very clear what you're buying if you decide to take that leap. It's actually a little refreshing to have someone say, "we have absolutely zero chance of ever turning a profit. Can we have some money, please?"
Watching anyone come forth with a pre-IPO valuation of 3 billion dollars for a company that labels perpetual losses as some kind of corporate motto is about as refreshing as the concept of Donald Trump starring in one of those slow-motion Pantene shampoo commercials.
Why even bother making a product anymore when we can just go back to the vaporware days of selling hype and bullshit.
When your losses exceed your revenue, you're already bankrupt. I'll do simple math below to understand.
100 Revenue
250 Expenses
------
billion-dollar company.
There you go, FTFY.
You seem to confused regarding the "new" math written by the infamous Millennial scholar, Hype N. Bullshyt.
I have short positions in FB, TWTR and LNKD.
I will be shorting SNAP as well.
I plan on retiring in 15 years a wealthy man.
the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!