Hated Moats Investor
Contrarian Quality-Stock Research, 25 Years in Markets, GOOGL Since 2011
Snap is a red flag that does not put shareholders' interests first. Its growth comes mainly from countries with low pricing power while it plateaus or declines in the West. It has long diluted shareholders in a way that enriches its founders, and the CEO and his co-founder control over 90% of voting rights, leaving shareholders powerless. It should have been acquired when it had the chance. @Ashton_1nvests sees a path from about $6 to $20 or more. x.comÂ
Snap may look undervalued, but management that doesn't prioritize shareholders makes it untouchable. With hundreds of millions of users and an iconic brand, it should be worth at least $20B, and many companies would gladly pay $8-10B for it. Yet the CEO and management have extracted wealth by diluting shareholders to oblivion, have no reason to sell while they keep extracting hundreds of millions, and shareholders cannot do anything about it. x.comÂ
Snap is one of the worst-run public companies relative to its potential, and CEO Evan has proved he is terrible at creating shareholder value. Stock-based awards to the board and over 5,000 employees dilute shareholders about 4% a year. Per @WOLF_Financial, Q1 EPS missed at -$0.05 versus $0.09 expected, the EBITDA guide fell short and Snap ended its Perplexity deal. It is not a dead company, but there are many better opportunities. x.com x.com x.com x.comÂ
Snap's problem is its management, which can't be replaced because founders hold super-voting shares. The business doesn't need reinventing, only better monetization of existing users and continued cost cuts, but that requires new leadership. x.comÂ
Snap's Spectacles cannot deliver meaningful commercial value within five years, making a funding partner essential to avoid years of cash burn. At best, they are a prototype, with zero chance of profitability in the next couple of years; the glasses will never sell at the scale needed to make a difference. Without a partner, Snap stock is dead money. Even so, Snap remains a good asymmetric bet on Evan Spiegel changing course, with little downside from here if he does not. x.com x.com x.com x.comÂ
Snap is a textbook case of shareholder value destruction through failed execution, massive stock-based compensation and super-voting shares. Per TechCrunch, it is now spinning off its AI video team into a new company, Dotmo, because of high costs. x.comÂ
Snap's stock-based compensation is the main problem, and its CEO is a further negative. x.comÂ
Snap's European monetization is improving even without user growth. Q2 revenue per daily user rose 36%, from $2.65 in 2025 to $3.62 in 2026, while daily users slipped from 100M to 98M. That leaves room to generate more revenue from the existing audience rather than relying on explosive user growth. x.comÂ
Snap has been treated like an ATM by CEO Evan Spiegel, with no operating income a decade after going public. Its Specs glasses are unlikely to sell at meaningful scale for $2,200 each, and Snap badly needs executives capable of saying no to clearly horrible ideas. x.com x.com x.comÂ
Snap is an eternal value trap: cheap on paper, but weighed down by regulatory headaches, TikTok eating its lunch and endless dilution. x.comÂ
Snap should work because CEO Evan Spiegel needs access to capital to get where he wants to go, which requires shareholder alignment; the plan does not work without either. A replier adds that getting Specs to market requires a high stock price. x.comÂ
Snap's share price looks set to be cut in half again, because more dilution is coming and CEO Evan Spiegel keeps selling billions of dollars of stock. Holding even 1,000 shares would take being paid to do it. x.comÂ
