“The company’s reluctance to provide guidance is driving the Street to make unachievable forecasts. This is turning strong quarterly performances into disappointments,” Drexel Hamilton analyst Brian White wrote in a note.
The lack of playing the guidance game is the latest example of Snap wanting Wall Street’s money, but not wanting to play by Wall Street’s rules. Snap still remains at odds with index firms and investors over its multiple-class share structure that fails to give most shareholders a voting stake.
Jefferies analyst Brian Fitzgerald echoed White, saying that “even an overly conservative guidance would be appreciated” by shareholders, even if they don’t have any say.
“Snap’s unwillingness to provide Street guidance will continue to be a disservice to shareholders as estimates continue to fluctuate wildly and it introduces unneeded uncertainty into results,” Fitzgerald wrote in a note.
The self-designated camera company is the latest extreme example of a trend where companies list publicly with a multiple share class structure. Seen in other technology stocks like Facebook and Google, companies’ founders are able to retain a disproportionate level of control compared to how many shares they have.
Two index providers, the S&P Dow Jones and FTSE Russell, banned Snap shares from their indexes because Snap sells only shares that give investors no votes, meaning the index providers have zero control.
Snap’s co-founders, CEO Evan Spiegel and chief technology officer Bobby Murphy control “all stockholder decisions,” according to regulatory filings, while shares listed on the stock exchange are non-voting stock.
A few companies, like some large technology companies including Google-parent Alphabet, refuse to provide guidance to Wall Street. But after two rough quarters, analysts clearly believe the unproven Snap management needs to do more to avoid these kinds of post-earnings day blow-ups.
source : CNBC