When the Covid pandemic had many Americans declining to go to the grocery store in 2020, sales at online grocery startup Instacart rose 590%, and its venture capital valuation soared to $39 billion. As the San Francisco company prepares to go public this week, the world has changed. And so has Instacart and its deal.
In a twist for an internet-oriented retailer, Instacart’s enterprise valuation in its initial public offering isn’t outlandish: It’s as little as 15 times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization charges for the 12 months that ended in June. At the top of the latest IPO price range, the enterprise value would be 16x EBITDA. And in another twist for a sector where the most-common IPO candidates are newly or barely profitable, but growing so rapidly that large profits look imminent, the company will need to rekindle sales growth after a lull in the first half of this year, its first slowdown since the Covid pandemic, Renaissance Capital analyst Matt Einhorn said, whose firm focuses on IPO research and runs an IPO-focused exchange-traded fund.
“They haven’t done anything wrong,” Einhorn said. “That was just a different time.”
For investors, the good news is that Instacart got much bigger during the pandemic, and its profitability is inflecting higher now. The better news may be that its valuation skyrocketed before a private financing that valued the company at a reported $39 billion in 2021 – and then sank as Covid fever waned.
There is some sign that Instacart’s IPO pitch may be working. On Friday, the company raised the price target for its deal by $2 a share, or 7.4% at the midpoint of the old and new price ranges, with Instacart now seeking a value up to $10 billion, according to its latest IPO prospectus update, and a plan to sell shares at $28 to $30 apiece, giving public investors a better shot at a profit. With roughly $2 billion in cash on the balance sheet, the company’s enterprise value would be as high as $8 billion at the top of its IPO range.
Low valuation defuses the risk that burned investors in DoorDash, a different Web-fueled food delivery business that went public in December 2020. DoorDash shares closed at $189.51 on their first day of trading, surged to nearly $250, and are now a bit above $80.
Doordash is a good place to start in evaluating Instacart, according to Einhorn.
Indeed, the numbers say Instacart is a lot like DoorDash, but at a fraction of the price.
DoorDash, which mostly delivers restaurant meals, posted a net loss in the first half of this year on sales of $4.17 billion, but made $687 million in EBITDA over the prior 12 months, according to its second-quarter report. At today’s stock price, Doordash is worth about $32 billion, about 37 times its EBITDA for the 12 months that ended in June and 21 times its 2024 EBITDA, as estimated by ISI Evercore analyst Mark Mahaney.
Instacart, on the other hand, has generated $486 million in EBITDA in the last year, including $279 million in the last six months, reversing a $20 million EBITDA loss in early 2022 as economies of scale kick in. Almost three-fourths of revenue comes from transaction fees of about $16 an order, split between the store and the customer, and about 28% comes from advertising. And the company is asking for a valuation less than one-third as high as DoorDash’s, and about a tenth of what DoorDash commanded at its peak.
Instacart’s pitch is that online sales are only 12% of the $1.1 trillion Americans spend on groceries, mostly at stores like Walmart, Kroger and Aldi that are partners with Instacart. The company thinks that share can double, though its roadshow presentation doesn’t say exactly how soon. And, in a nod to growth worries, Instacart is also selling itself as a cash-conscious business that invests carefully, with an eye toward short-term returns, while building up its advertising business to keep building profit even as sales growth slows.
That reflects a hard-won skepticism about Web business models that had been powered by Covid-driven hypergrowth, Einhorn said.
“They won’t do 2020 growth again and probably will grow less than in 2021 and 2022,” he said.
Industry sources are split on how fast Instacart will grow now, said Third Bridge analyst Nicholas Cauley. More aggressive experts consulted by the New York research firm think Instacart can boost gross sales by almost 20% this year and next, helped by market share gains that can be achieved with higher marketing spending after the IPO, he said. Relative pessimists think sales will grow by a high single-digit percentage.
“They have industry leading selection and the app is good for the user,” Cauley said.
Indeed, the waning of Covid has tapped the brakes on Instacart’s growth The company told analysts on its roadshow that the early part of this year was the first period when it did not think sales were inflated by Covid fears, either the original version or the less-intense recurrence driven by the Omicron variant in late 2021 and early 2022.
Gross sales grew just 3% in the first quarter and 6% in the second three months of 2023, down from the 18% average the company posted in 2021 and 2022. Instacart’s revenue grew 31% in the first half of 2023, however, as it added high-margin advertising sales and other income.
The right valuation for Instacart depends on where the ultimate rate of sales growth falls, Einhorn said.
In its roadshow presentation, which the company has made public, Instacart projects that its long-term business model will capture between 6.5% and 7.5% of each dollar a consumer spends in service charges and other revenue to Instacart (the rest is passed through to grocery stores who sell on the platform). Another 4% to 5% of gross sales will flow to Instacart in the form of advertising revenue, mostly from consumer products companies.
The company’s plans turn on getting loyal customers who belong to the company’s Instacart+ program, a $99 a year subscription plan that gives free grocery delivery and cash back on some orders, Instacart chief financial officer Nick Giovanni said in the investor presentation. He acknowledges that customers who began shopping at Instacart during Covid have been less loyal than earlier adopters, but said sales to new customers this year are 60% higher than in pre-Covid 2019.
“We expect to see some headwinds,” he said.
Instacart+ may be the key to the future, according to Cauley. Members shop more often and spend more each time, and larger orders are more profitable because they use workers’ time more efficiently and require less marketing spend.
“Once customers get on the platform, they tend to be sticky,” he said.
The company’s pitch turns on its ability to boost profits by containing costs as sales grow more slowly. Since its store partners buy and sell the food themselves, Instagram’s cost of goods is about the cost of running its Instacart.com platform, which is essentially a locally tailored marketplace of supermarkets that are its partners, and private-label store sites; and of delivering packages to consumers.
The company says those costs will dip to just 22% of revenue, from 28% last year and 25% early this year, as it moves toward its “long-term target” levels. Its capital spending is very low, and its corporate overhead and marketing were 53% of revenue in early 2023. The company believes it can double its EBITDA as a percentage of sales to 39%, according to its presentation.
“When a customer orders more than 20 items, everything about the process is different,” Giovanni said.
Instacart’s prospectus cites market research firm Incisiv as saying the online grocery market will grow between 10% and 18% annually through 2025. If Instacart regains sales growth of 18%, that would work out to 2025 revenue of $5.9 billion, gross profit of $4.63 billion, and EBITDA of $2.3 billion. Including the cash on the company’s balance sheet, that values Instacart at about three times EBITDA – way below DoorDash’s valuation.
At 10% growth in merchandise sales, which Einhorn thinks is closer to the mark, Instacart’s share of that revenue climbs to as much as $2.88 billion in 2025, with EBITDA of about $1.12 billion. Even that would value the company at only seven times 2025 EBITDA, and about 14 times EBITDA from the last four quarters, still a sharp discount to DoorDash. Grocery giant Kroger trades at 13 times net income.
So in a twist few would have predicted in 2020 or 2021, Instacart is trying to go public as a value stock, carefully managed to wring the best results from potentially modest growth. Investors will soon show whether they are buying.
Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX.
Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.
Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit.
“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.
To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.
Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform.
The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much.
The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms.
“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.
“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”
It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.
Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively.
X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.
Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.
Artificial intelligence training
X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.
“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.
Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually.
X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.
“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.
Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different.
The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center.
Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.
Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training.
“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.
Liquidated damages
Another unusual aspect of X’s new terms is its “liquidated damages” clause. The terms state that if users request, view or access more than 1 million posts – including replies, videos, images and others – in any 24-hour period they are liable for damages of $15,000.
While most individual users won’t easily approach that threshold, the clause is concerning for some, including digital researchers. They rely on the analysis of larger numbers of public posts from services like X to do their work.
X’s new terms of service are a “disturbing move that the company should reverse,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in an October statement.
“The public relies on journalists and researchers to understand whether and how the platforms are shaping public discourse, affecting our elections, and warping our relationships,” Abdo wrote. “One effect of X Corp.’s new terms of service will be to stifle that research when we need it most.”
Neither Threads nor Bluesky have anything similar to X’s liquidated damages clause.
Meta and X did not respond to requests for comment.
A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”
The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.
“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.
The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.
Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.
Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.
Concern with Congress and a changing White House
The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.
As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.
Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.
Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.
Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military
John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.
Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.
In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.
Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.
Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.
Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.
Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.
“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.
He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.
Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.