Twitter shares need new lease of Digital Life

<p>What’s Jack Dorsey’s plan? Beyond somehow getting enough sleep whilst working simultaneously as CEO of two listed high-profile tech companies in trouble. (The other is […]</p>

What’s Jack Dorsey’s plan?

Beyond somehow getting enough sleep whilst working simultaneously as CEO of two listed high-profile tech companies in trouble. (The other is Square Inc.)

Investors have streamed out from the best-known company run by @Jack, Twitter, as it faced a seemingly relentless storm of troubles over the last year.

  • User growth – Q3 +11% to 320m, seen static in Q4
  • Ad revenue (90% of total) – Q3- $569m +58%, but slower vs. Q2
  • Management -  after the departure rate of senior executives quickened last month, the list of key hires required has been extended
  • Product: poor traction / user criticism of ‘moments’, Periscope, curated timeline algo
  • How to become a bigger piece of global Digital Life – move out of its narrow scope
  • Part-time CEO – does Dorsey sleep?
  • How can major decisions be made under pressure and whilst fire fighting?


Another main theme surrounding Twitter has been takeover talk.

This isn’t new.

But it has intensified as the shares have ground ever lower—(latest all time low was yesterday at $12.32).

Google is a mainstay for this type of uncorroborated speculation.

News Corp. is a relatively recent addition.


Our view remains that Twitter would be a whole bag of trouble for almost any acquirer due to its uniqueness and narrow scope for transference of its utilities.

Our discounted cash flow analysis on Twitter last summer suggested its true net asset value was just $5.5 a share.


As revenues and user growth ground to a halt, the stock fell as much as 50% since our piece, almost to the vicinity of our rather harsh call.

This suggests any buyer would be foolish to do so whilst the stock was above Twitter’s current net asset value.



 What to watch for Q4 results

 The main pivot point has to be monthly active users (MAU).

The crucial MAU metric has been becoming more and more concerning, since at least Q2 2015.

The count then was 316 million, 15% higher year-on-year, but stagnating vs. Q1 against which the rise was just 3%.

It was Twitter’s slowest MAU growth since its stock was floated.

MAUs rose a faster 11% in Q3 to 320m. But they’re again seen static in Q4.

Any sort of come-back by users or by Twitter in re-defining market expectations by presenting alternative possibilities for growth would work wonders for TWTR.


MAU must move (forward)

MAU leads directly to advertising revenue. This was 3% slower quarter-on-quarter last time.

However one glimmer of light here is monetisation. Twitter has been more aggressive in cashing in on users than Facebook has dared, though in absolute terms the net outcome has not of course boosted Twitter’s earnings faster.

Still monetisation remains an area Twitter execs might push tonight.

If they sound convincing, that could help the shares.


Hire orders

Senior management—see above. Twitter has a new CMO, but not much else.

There’s persistent talk of a ‘media star’ boardroom hire. Either way, it’s the elongated hiring process and lack of clarity thereof which has been damaging.

Again, Twitter needs to be seen bolstering its board and filling the empty VP seats.

These people are needed in perception and in fact.


Here are the main financials the market is expecting

  •  Q4 profit – 12 cents – flat Y/Y
  • Q4 rev – $709.9m -+48%
  • Q4 guidance was $695-$710m
  • FY 2016 – revenues  seen $3.1bn / adj. profit 55 cents




From a technical perspective, naturally the stock faces severe challenges.

It has formed a distinct channel since October last year which will constrain recovery unless broken.

Among similar(ish) technology companies—Yahoo!, LinkedIn, Amazon, Facebook, all of which are bigger than Twitter, TWTR’s 90-day volatility—AKA beta is actually quite average.

That in theory limits Twitter’s ability to jump or fall faster than the market, though it doesn’t limit how far it can rise, or fall in the longer term.

Therefore chances of the stock breaking out of its channel aggressively above probable resistance c. $21 look slim, even in the event of a positive surprise on Wednesday evening.

The price is close to the 50-day MA – red, 61.8% extension of fall from October at $20.98, and was 2015 low.




TWITTER DAILY PRE Q4 2015 10th feb 2016 2030GMT

Please click image to enlarge


This article will be updated after Twitter’s Q4 results have been released.


Build your confidence risk free
Join our live webinars for the latest analysis and trading ideas. Register now

StoneX Financial Ltd (trading as “City Index”) is an execution-only service provider. This material, whether or not it states any opinions, is for general information purposes only and it does not take into account your personal circumstances or objectives. This material has been prepared using the thoughts and opinions of the author and these may change. However, City Index does not plan to provide further updates to any material once published and it is not under any obligation to keep this material up to date. This material is short term in nature and may only relate to facts and circumstances existing at a specific time or day. Nothing in this material is (or should be considered to be) financial, investment, legal, tax or other advice and no reliance should be placed on it.

No opinion given in this material constitutes a recommendation by City Index or the author that any particular investment, security, transaction or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. The material has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research. Although City Index is not specifically prevented from dealing before providing this material, City Index does not seek to take advantage of the material prior to its dissemination. This material is not intended for distribution to, or use by, any person in any country or jurisdiction where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation.

For further details see our full non-independent research disclaimer and quarterly summary.