Hims’ core operations may record negative subscriber growth for the first time in its history in Q2 2025. This leaves the company reliant on its GLP-1 segment—and exposed to the risk of legal action.
You know just enough about HIMS to reach conclusions, but not enough to know you're reaching the wrong conclusions.
You don't have to make so many assumptions - the company makes enough disclosures and provides enough data for you to be able to back into most of your assumptions.
One example - you reach the conclusions that CAC is the highest it's ever been but retention (on par of better than peers) is helping them.
The exact opposite is true--the cost of acquiring a customer has never been lower (improving brand awareness), but their churn has never been higher.
They could be more open in their communication. Q1 2025 was the first time they disclosed the GLP-1 revenue on a quarterly basis and they are still leaving investors guessing when it comes to CAC and churn.
If they disclosed their churn, one could put CAC into perspective by eliminating churn’s effect.
How can you be certain that the increased brand awareness is paying dividends? After all, it’s not mostly organic, but paid for from the marketing budget. Besides, if the improved brand awareness was helping, it should be visible in the subscriber growth especially outside GLPs, right?
The rising CAC raises the question whether Hims can ever become a compounder—a compounder should be able to reinvest the generated cashflow back to the business with the same or higher rate of return.
Even though the company told us that their marketing efficiency was the best ever, I validate. (" Despite this, we achieved record-level efficiency on our marketing spend.") I can be certain that CAC is lower than ever because I can calculate it all directly. I don't guess, I don't estimate. I verify.
You're guessing, you're estimating, and you're estimating incorrectly. As I mentioned, without getting into every single data point of yours that's incorrect, the company makes disclosures and provides other KPIs that allow us to back into a lot of the estimates you're guessing at.
2Q24 GLP1 revenue wasn't 25M, it was 12M. You guesstimated, I didn't.
3Q24 GLP1 revenue wasn't 50M, it was 73M. You guesstimated, I didn't.
4Q24 GLP1 revenue wasn't 150M, it was 144M. You guesstimated, I didn't.
Just like you do with revenue, you also do with subscriber counts. You're guessing.
Stop guessing - if you're going to analyze the company or worse - write about it - stop guessing. Analyze it, get back to the investor presentations, shareholder letters, 10Q/K and analyze the data they do provide us. It's all there, you can back into everyone of these numbers (revenue retention, subscriber retention/churn, payback periods, new sub morpas, existing sub morpas, etc.)
You know just enough about HIMS to reach conclusions, but not enough to know you're reaching the wrong conclusions.
You don't have to make so many assumptions - the company makes enough disclosures and provides enough data for you to be able to back into most of your assumptions.
One example - you reach the conclusions that CAC is the highest it's ever been but retention (on par of better than peers) is helping them.
The exact opposite is true--the cost of acquiring a customer has never been lower (improving brand awareness), but their churn has never been higher.
Back to the drawing board bud., you're close.
Hi Sagi,
Thanks for your input.
They could be more open in their communication. Q1 2025 was the first time they disclosed the GLP-1 revenue on a quarterly basis and they are still leaving investors guessing when it comes to CAC and churn.
If they disclosed their churn, one could put CAC into perspective by eliminating churn’s effect.
How can you be certain that the increased brand awareness is paying dividends? After all, it’s not mostly organic, but paid for from the marketing budget. Besides, if the improved brand awareness was helping, it should be visible in the subscriber growth especially outside GLPs, right?
The rising CAC raises the question whether Hims can ever become a compounder—a compounder should be able to reinvest the generated cashflow back to the business with the same or higher rate of return.
Even though the company told us that their marketing efficiency was the best ever, I validate. (" Despite this, we achieved record-level efficiency on our marketing spend.") I can be certain that CAC is lower than ever because I can calculate it all directly. I don't guess, I don't estimate. I verify.
You're guessing, you're estimating, and you're estimating incorrectly. As I mentioned, without getting into every single data point of yours that's incorrect, the company makes disclosures and provides other KPIs that allow us to back into a lot of the estimates you're guessing at.
2Q24 GLP1 revenue wasn't 25M, it was 12M. You guesstimated, I didn't.
3Q24 GLP1 revenue wasn't 50M, it was 73M. You guesstimated, I didn't.
4Q24 GLP1 revenue wasn't 150M, it was 144M. You guesstimated, I didn't.
Just like you do with revenue, you also do with subscriber counts. You're guessing.
Stop guessing - if you're going to analyze the company or worse - write about it - stop guessing. Analyze it, get back to the investor presentations, shareholder letters, 10Q/K and analyze the data they do provide us. It's all there, you can back into everyone of these numbers (revenue retention, subscriber retention/churn, payback periods, new sub morpas, existing sub morpas, etc.)
Everything is more or less guesswork as long as they do not disclose the exact numbers. However, more important than the exact numbers is the trend.
$73M in GLP-1 revenue in Q3 seems very high. Are you sure of that number?