/biz/ - Business & Finance

Possibly one of the worst ICO's ever and you are shilling it. Nobody watches ads on Snapchat so how is he gonna generate revenue you cuck

>>2004111
Because it's a branded hardware company and not a social network you failed abortion.

>>2004102
>>2004111
Snap Inc is so overvalued it's retarded. Anyone investing in Snap IPO at this point deserves to lose their money.

Bitbean on the other hand...

This could be it actually. The Pivx/Snapchat info I've seen in multiple places. Any anon care to elaborate or confirm?

Fucken retards and their beans

>>2004134
>disregard pure innovation
>shills shitbean

Enjoy being poor.

Sorry living under a rock the past couple weeks what's everyone talking about

>>2004151
Its camouflaged as another social media outlet, and while that might be an interesting angle to pitch for consumers, the real money will be made when they release specs for AI and AR plans in their production design.

Literally cap this.

>>2004111
its not a ICO you clueless fuckwit newfag poor bastard

>>2004102
This is a mean troll OP.

>>2004219
No troll anon.
It will be at $30 next week.

>>2004102
>branded hardware
>AI and AR
AI and AR=Artificial Intelligence Assault Rifle?
is this about those faggy glasses they have? do you really think anybody is interested in buying gay products that don't have the Apple
logo on them?
i'm short Snapchat, dog. is this for real? should I cut my losses?

I can see it happening, them releasing 1000% revenue up from last year but before anything moons it dips hard

>>2004111
IPO*

you have too much crypto on the mind

>>2004320
>Assault Rifle

I'm ashamed we're sharing the same thread.

>>2004102
This is a shit company.

>>2004390
Sweat I thought I said IPO.
Maybe my phone saw that I've said ICO so many times it just autocorrected it

Please, since everyone is suddenly so well educated in snap, can anyone explain to me what they actually plan to sell?

>app for puppy filters
>Facebook stories : the app
>MySpace 17'

Snap Inc. is a camera company.
They specialize in a social augmented reality pairing with artificial intelligence that Facebook/Twitter/Instagram physically cannot match with their business model. Not that i think those are not valuable stock options, it's just not their business to be in. It's consumer interests people are overlooking.
Ask yourself, Who will buy 'oculus for Facebook'?

Snap isn't Western Union, it's Kodak. Next week will underline that.

>>2004651
It's an advertising company. They sell placements and user info.

snap can't get a single person to walk into their huge Manhattan store to buy the plastic garbage spectacles, even after snap paid off many tech review sites to give the piles of garbage glasses a rating of 8 or 9 out of 10 (I've used em, they're terrible can't even take pictures and look horrible): http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/26/snapchat-nyc-spectacles-store-is-mostly-empty.html

More on spectacles, the case will actually melt if you charge it. What awesome build quality! Wonder id the melted plastic is great for your lungs and long-term health: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/01/30/galaxy-note-7-deja-vu-snapchat-spectacles-case-melts-during-charging.html
Spectacle sales are so bad they didn't disclose them in the s-1 or brag publically

>>2004651
>They specialize in a social augmented reality pairing with artificial intelligence
Why would anyone want this

>>2004661
>huge Manhattan store
Irrelevant; hurts your argument

>paid off
link proof

>cnbc
Fake news

>Wonder id the melted
Nice

>brag publically
'Publicly' as in 'Publicly Traded on the stock market where your daddy works.'


Pic related
We'll send you a snap from the moon anon.

>>2004651
>>MySpace 17'
this comparison will bolster investor confidence for sure. are you just trolling?

>>2004678
Because they already do.
As ridiculous as it seems, the filters are an extremely primative version of what's yet to come. Things Facebook not only wouldn't be able to market, but couldn't fully grasp from a designers perspective either.

>>2004692
>Because they already do.
But according to >>2004661 they don't

>>2004688
Examples of colorful names people call snap. You can learn to read any time you feel like it or stay unwoke.

>>2004684
see http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-lost-514-million-in-2016-warns-it-may-never-be-profitable-2017-2

how much is their spending going to grow though? successful businesses earn more money than they spend by the way.

>>2004696
That anon also couldn't form complete sentences. Take advice from who ever you would like.

>>2004706
>anon with bad spelling posts evidence-based arguments for SNAP being a shit company
>your rebuttals are "FAKE NEWS" and "LMAO U CANT SPELL"
>despite all this DAU growth they still had a NET LOSS larger than their revenue for 2016
>you actually believe this company is currently undervalued at TWENTY SIX BILLION DOLLARS

>>2004706
the rate of growth is slowing. i don't have a crystal ball, but it looks like their user base is topping off. everybody who wants Snapchat already has it. there is just not an infinite supply of mentally retarded faggots and bimbos with no life believe it or not.

>>2004710
>>2004709

>undervalued
Glad you said it first. Great argument.

Have fun on earth anons.

>>2004659
This is the misconception, but advertising is not their actual business.

Snapchat growth stopped after IG Stories launched and has been WORSE since by -82%-1! https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/02/slowchat/

-advertisers prefer instagram to snapchat http://venturebeat.com/2017/03/14/advertisers-prefer-instagram-to-snapchat/

-Quoted from an old article:

"....according to leaked email conversations between Spiegel and a cohort, only 60 percent of active monthly users log in per day."

>>2004732
how high do you need SNAP to go just to make your money back, anon? did you get in at $29.44, right after the IPO lol.

>>2004770
>Because when I need help, I come here

I'm not the usual neet/wagecuck that frequents this place. Offering my solid advice, which I rarely come here to do for obvious reasons. Most reading this will not have enough capital to actually see profit anyway. Cost of being poor.
Next week the whales feed.

SNAP's S-1, and (from page 7), they had $59 million in revenue in 2015, and $404 million in 2016. That's revenue growth BUT meaningless because in 2015, they had a net loss of $373 million, and in 2016, they had a net loss of $515 million.... So they are losing LOTS of money...
And to be valued at $25 billion???? That's ridiculous!!
but if you go to page 42, the S-1 states "If you purchase shares of our ClassA common stock in our initial public offering, you will experience substantial and immediate dilution."
Dilution is talked about more on page 54, where it also states what their tangible value is. "Our pro forma net tangible book value as of December 31, 2016 was $929.5 million, or $0.92 per share."
At $25 a share, this stock will be ridiculously overvalued... Not a company I will be investing in...

PwC and Snap identified a material weakness related to a lack of qualified accounting personnel back in fiscal 2014." the S-1 in regards to 2014 dismissal of PwC: "The material weaknesses were identified due to the lack of sufficient qualified accounting personnel, which led to incorrect application of generally accepted accounting principles, insufficiently designed segregation of duties and insufficiently designed controls over business processes, including the financial closing and reporting processes with respect to the development of accounting policies, procedures and estimates."
Not sure why anyone would be a company that has no plans or may not have the ability to make money. Not sure if that is a great long term strategy.
There is no stickiness or competitive advantage...as we've seen with GPRO, FIT, and TWTR. This is not a Facebook or Amazon.
Clearly, the private owners And banksters want out, do not give them your good money for a company known for a way to send dick pics. Hard pass. The only catalyst is some media company buys for the age group advertising...worked well for rupert buying MySpace...

>>2004946
>>2004942


Tl;dr

Guess you're not packing your bags anon. Oh well, we'll snap you from moon :>)

- Snapchat is losing all of its users to ig according to talent managers :
https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/01/30/attack-of-the-clone/amp/

>>2004963
>>2004946
>>2004942
>>2004763

Oh, are you still here? Anymore articles you wanna share while I pack for moon?

>>2004692
>>2004651
also consider that facebook is seriously uncool now that parents and grandparents are making accounts. I think facebook's mission to get as many users as possible might backfire becuase of this. Young people are starting to abandon facebook hard.

There's too many social media outlets competing for the same market right now. It looks like Instagram is going to eat up all the competition and lead to a Zuckerberg monopoly on social media. I wouldn't be surprised if Google retry the social media game.

Snap is too gimmicky to have a lasting impact. Zuckerberg outplayed them.

>>2004991
You don't know what's "cool"

Facebook, WhatsApp, instagram, and messenger serve billions of people of all ages in over 180 countries. Do you know kids in brazil think WhatsApp is cool and don't know nor care what snapchat is? Did you know Kids in Bosnia like facebook? Did you know teens in Uruguay love WhatsApp and facebook, never heard of snapchat and don't care? Knew kids in America love instagram?

You don't know shit.

>>2005025
Even if snap were to somehow not be a gimick, the stock price fully reflects that as its trading as if the company makes billions when it actually loses billions

>>2004942
a more than 6X revenue growth in one year is fucking phenomenal. Its not at all uncommon for companies to be unprofitable in the beginning, the most important thing to watch is the growth of revenue that they will be able to take advantage of one they get their expenses under control. These expenses are usually going to be things like purchasing all the necessities for running the company the way they really want to. One they get those things out of the way their losses should diminish.
The book value mention doesnt sound good, but compare that to other companies like amazon, whose book value is only 40 dollars, but stock price is up at 900. Therefore book value is mostly useful for finding companies that are undervalued.
Now becuase snapchat is a young company that just went public, the question isnt really "are they profitable?", but rather "what are they going to do with the money they're raising?" Another anon hinted at this in the thread, and snapchat themselves have been hinting at it also, I just realized. They keep saying they're a camera company.
This is getting me excited for next week. I think I'll buy some

>>2005044
well yeah, I meant facebook in America. Of course in the countries it just arrived in its going to be cool, just like it was for us some 8 years ago

>>2005049
Yeah of course you meant america. Even in America kids love instagram and even use Facebook they just don't brag or admit it. They use instagram more than snapchat. Instagram has 7 times the users of snapchat

>>2005046
6 times growth because the comp was nearly 0 dipshit

>>2005044
>lists a handful of genocidal socialist nations
>defines "cool" on an anime tentacle porn forum site
>you don't know shit.

>>2005109
I don't give a shit about those nations or what's cool. Was replying to a fag trying to tell me that everyone thinks snapchat is cooler than facebook. I demonstrably showed him that is false

>>2005118
you are demonstratively mad and should try to calm down, friendo :)

>>2004991
old people have money

>>2005148
fuck you actually got me there

>>2005148
He thinks that kids using snapchat will forever use it and not use anything

(even though they currently use instagram more and more as time goes on. even though kids are fickle as fuck and use new apps all the time. Even though kids continue to move to Facebook and even LinkedIn as they mature and grow older and get jobs)

>>2005155
I think its just as delusional to think that facebook is always going to be there, especially with the myriad examples of similar sites that faded into obscurity

>>2005164
So facebook,( the largest website in 190 countries and owner of #2 WhatsApp #3 messenger and #4 instagram), might be a fad But you don't question the flash in the pan snapchat whether it can be a fad or not.

Facebook is more popular than Amazon Google and snapchat by far. Facebook has the least chance of being a fad by comparison

>>2004102
snapchat is total garbage and anyone who still has money in it is a late retard

>>2005202
It's not about these companies being fads, it's about what is useful. History repeats itself, often when a useful idea is emerging it seems rediculous until it positions itself firmly into our culture. Snap is still finding itself.