20% per year is not impressing to be honest. Don't get me wrong, I admire them as a company, but the grow rate is too slow, to compete with top social platforms.
To pre-answer the common rebuttal I get, that VCs are taking moonshots at the chance of a VERY HIGH return; I'd ask why not look at VC investments in the sense of a more traditional portfolio, where you'd have your growth stocks, your value stocks, etc. If I could find a vehicle that reliably gave 20% YOY I'd throw fistfulls of money at it.
So can someone enlighten me as to why this isn't a viable way of looking at VC investment?
In ads, you want to be GOOG/FB, not TWTR.
Because it confuses revenues and earnings? It defends Snap chat for not having "negative billions" when, in fact, it is has negative billions.