2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
1 päivä sitten
‧10 min
Tarjoustasot
First North Sweden
Määrä
Osto
2 500
Myynti
Määrä
6 677
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | - | - | ||
| 2 705 | - | - | ||
| 3 391 | - | - | ||
| 1 295 | - | - | ||
| 11 204 | - | - |
Ylin
4,79VWAP
Alin
3,71VaihtoMäärä
0,1 30 621
VWAP
Ylin
4,79Alin
3,71VaihtoMäärä
0,1 30 621
Välittäjätilasto
Ostaneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 30 621 | 30 621 | 0 | 0 |
Myyneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 30 621 | 30 621 | 0 | 0 |
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 30.4. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 12.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 14.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 27.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 8.5.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 13.2.2025 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Shareville
Liity keskusteluun SharevillessäShareville on aktiivisten yksityissijoittajien yhteisö, jossa voit seurata muiden asiakkaiden kaupankäyntiä ja omistuksia.
Kirjaudu
·1 päivä sitten · MuokattuI have read and reviewed the report, entered data into my semi-finished cash flow model but found really good values around scalability etc. Scalability: Q4 shows clear EBITDA improvement in combination with margin expansion, indicating that the model is starting to show operating leverage. The cost base has not increased in line with revenue, suggesting that the platform absorbs fixed costs rather than growing linearly with personnel. I see that the fall-through level ((ΔEBITDA / ΔRevenue) indicates that scalability is now visible operationally, even if it is still the first clear data point. But, this is the first data point that supports the platform thesis. Quality of profitability: The EBITDA improvement appears to be operational rather than driven by larger one-off items, which strengthens the credibility of the turnaround. Cash flow is improved and financing risk thereby decreases compared to previous years. The risk of NE/RE is practically zero. Profitability looks structural in Q4, but needs to be confirmed even outside of seasonal tailwinds. Q1 implications: Q4 proves that the model can deliver in a strong quarter, but Q1 will be the test of resilience in a weaker period. For the case to be further strengthened, continued positive EBITDA, a stable cost base, and reasonable fall-through are required even at lower volume. If Q1 maintains profitability, the narrative shifts from turnaround to scalable platform. Q1 is seasonally weaker. The ultimate test will be: Does EBITDA hold up even when volume normalizes? Confidence & Stress: In my model, I have also calculated a confidence and stress index. Confidence shows how strong and scalable the case is right now based on operational key figures, while stress probability measures the risk of the case breaking. Together, they guide how large a position is rational to take. Confidence is clearly raised after Q4, as structural margin improvement is now visible in the figures. Stress probability decreases in line with improved cash flow and operational discipline, but is not eliminated until Q1 confirms the trend. Overall, the risk is lower than before, but the case requires continued delivery to justify a full re-rating. The model has made a confidence adjustment to the case. Before Q4: Transitional (~60) and after Q4: 70–75. This means that the Case is moved up towards “Scaling confirmed but needs Q1 for full validation.” Stress probability was previously ~30–35 % and was characterized BY SCARCE CASH. Now it is approximately 20–25 %. The financing risk has simply decreased. For the case to be cemented, Q1 needs to deliver a continued positive EBITDA (even if lower than Q4), Fall-through still >40 % and the cost base is stable. No emission If Q1 holds, Confidence increases >80 and Re-rating is probable. The platform narrative becomes fully accepted (and not hybrid/agency). But, if Q1 falls back to negative EBITDA, then the case falls back to the transformation phase. The result after financial items in Q4 is driven by one-off items, but what determines if it is cosmetic is actual operating leverage. In Tourn's case, Q4 seems to contain accounting effects linked to restructuring (Baud/JV etc.), which is logical given the transformation. But since EBITDA also improves and operational cash flow is positive in Q4, it suggests that it is not solely accounting but that the transformation of the business has actually started to yield operational effect. Here is my take: In Q4, EBITDA is positive and the improvement vs Q3 is greater than the revenue increase, which implies a high fall-through which is difficult to “account for” such an effect. The operational cost base is actually more scalable. If the improvement had only been cosmetic, we would have seen positive net result but low or negative fall-through, alternatively rising OPEX in line with revenue. Okay, I 100% agree that the real test is Q1 and if fall-through continues to be over 40–50 % even in a weaker quarter, then the probability that Q4 was just cosmetic significantly decreases. If, however, EBITDA falls back to negative and fall-through collapses, then Q4 was more timing and one-off effects than structural scaling. Right now, the figures, in my opinion, point more towards nascent operating leverage than pure accounting. But, again, the point is that one data point is not enough to eliminate the risk. Q1 and possibly even Q2 need to show the way. My base case is that the company should be able to maintain cash flow neutrality 1H26 if Q4 was not a one-off event. For the company to maintain cash flow neutrality during 1H26, growth is not required, but that the operating leverage from Q4 persists. There are actually several data points that suggest this scenario is possible. Q4 shows that EBITDA can be positive without a sharp increase in costs. This indicates that the break-even level is now lower than before. This is by far the most important factor.- ·5.2.The closer we get to Q4, the more buy volume. Can buyers continue to hope to step in at around 4kr or will it be a FOMO effect? Right now around 3x higher buy volume than sell volume.·5.2.Oh, look… the buyers are starting to get fomo. Still more buy volume than sell volume.
- ·26.1.There is an article in Di about this spring's 18 "Launch companies" from KTH's accelerator program, where Arify is included. The company is an AI-driven performance marketing company that automates the creation, testing, and optimization of video advertising and practically functions as an AI-based replacement for traditional performance agencies. Arify does not compete directly with Tourn, as Arify focuses on paid ads while Tourn focuses on creator-driven influencer marketing, relationships, and networks. Both are asset-light and AI-driven, but Arify's scalability is more linear and typically valued as adtech, while Tourn has the potential for non-linear scaling and multiple expansion if the platform and network effects break through. The truly interesting thing is that a hypothetical merger would create an end-to-end platform where creator content is identified, optimized, and scaled globally via AI-driven advertising – a business logic strongly reminiscent of AppLovin. In such a case, a flywheel emerges where data drives scale, which elevates the valuation potential far beyond what Arify or Tourn can achieve individually. https://arify.ai/ My educated guess is that we will see M&A activities within the industry in the coming years. The structural growth in influencer marketing and AI-driven martech, according to industry analyses with 20–30 %+ annual market growth and even higher growth in the AI layer (see links to industry analyses below), suggests that the industry in the coming years will be characterized by consolidation, vertical integration, and platform building rather than standalone tools and agencies. For Tourn, this means that the company's current strategy is well-positioned: focus on an asset-light model, AI-driven workflows, scalable creator infrastructure, and clear performance logic allows Tourn to grow both organically and potentially via partnerships or M&A-driven ecosystem logic. If Tourn reaches approximately 70–80 MSEK in revenue in 2025 and has a financial target of 500 MSEK in revenue with at least 10 % operating margin in 2028, this implies a requirement for very high growth (in the order of ~80–90 % annual growth (CAGR) during the period). This is undeniably ambitious but absolutely not unreasonable in a scenario where the company, from 2025, through the transformation towards AI platforms, has succeeded in moving from project- and campaign-driven inflow to platform revenues, recurring customer relationships (ARR), and better scaling per creator via AI and standardized processes. In such a situation, Tourn can clearly, in the coming years, both benefit from the structural market growth and simultaneously position itself as part of the consolidation that is now shaping the industry's future structure, either as a natural platform builder or as an attractive node in a larger, integrated ecosystem. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/influencer-marketing-platform-markethttps://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/influencer-marketing-platform-market-size?utm_source=chatgpt.com·26.1.If Tourn wants to reach the 500/10% target in 2028, the tailwind is that the agency world is pressured by AI and that budgets are shifting towards more measurable, integrated solutions. But that also sets the bar: Tourn needs to prove that it is moving towards platform/infrastructure (workflow + data + scalable distribution), not just an effective influencer agency, because that is exactly where both the growth rate and multiple expansion are found. The market is not waiting for 500 MSEK. It is waiting for the signals. The first signals are already there. The clear, undeniable signals should start to appear within 12–18 months if the case holds.
- ·21.1.Good volume yesterday. I thought I saw at yesterday's closing call that the largest selling volumes are at the over 5kr level. We'll see if we make our way up there today. Difficult to build a position in an illiquid stock and at the same time not drive up the price.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Sharevillen käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
1 päivä sitten
‧10 min
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Shareville
Liity keskusteluun SharevillessäShareville on aktiivisten yksityissijoittajien yhteisö, jossa voit seurata muiden asiakkaiden kaupankäyntiä ja omistuksia.
Kirjaudu
- ·1 päivä sitten · MuokattuI have read and reviewed the report, entered data into my semi-finished cash flow model but found really good values around scalability etc. Scalability: Q4 shows clear EBITDA improvement in combination with margin expansion, indicating that the model is starting to show operating leverage. The cost base has not increased in line with revenue, suggesting that the platform absorbs fixed costs rather than growing linearly with personnel. I see that the fall-through level ((ΔEBITDA / ΔRevenue) indicates that scalability is now visible operationally, even if it is still the first clear data point. But, this is the first data point that supports the platform thesis. Quality of profitability: The EBITDA improvement appears to be operational rather than driven by larger one-off items, which strengthens the credibility of the turnaround. Cash flow is improved and financing risk thereby decreases compared to previous years. The risk of NE/RE is practically zero. Profitability looks structural in Q4, but needs to be confirmed even outside of seasonal tailwinds. Q1 implications: Q4 proves that the model can deliver in a strong quarter, but Q1 will be the test of resilience in a weaker period. For the case to be further strengthened, continued positive EBITDA, a stable cost base, and reasonable fall-through are required even at lower volume. If Q1 maintains profitability, the narrative shifts from turnaround to scalable platform. Q1 is seasonally weaker. The ultimate test will be: Does EBITDA hold up even when volume normalizes? Confidence & Stress: In my model, I have also calculated a confidence and stress index. Confidence shows how strong and scalable the case is right now based on operational key figures, while stress probability measures the risk of the case breaking. Together, they guide how large a position is rational to take. Confidence is clearly raised after Q4, as structural margin improvement is now visible in the figures. Stress probability decreases in line with improved cash flow and operational discipline, but is not eliminated until Q1 confirms the trend. Overall, the risk is lower than before, but the case requires continued delivery to justify a full re-rating. The model has made a confidence adjustment to the case. Before Q4: Transitional (~60) and after Q4: 70–75. This means that the Case is moved up towards “Scaling confirmed but needs Q1 for full validation.” Stress probability was previously ~30–35 % and was characterized BY SCARCE CASH. Now it is approximately 20–25 %. The financing risk has simply decreased. For the case to be cemented, Q1 needs to deliver a continued positive EBITDA (even if lower than Q4), Fall-through still >40 % and the cost base is stable. No emission If Q1 holds, Confidence increases >80 and Re-rating is probable. The platform narrative becomes fully accepted (and not hybrid/agency). But, if Q1 falls back to negative EBITDA, then the case falls back to the transformation phase. The result after financial items in Q4 is driven by one-off items, but what determines if it is cosmetic is actual operating leverage. In Tourn's case, Q4 seems to contain accounting effects linked to restructuring (Baud/JV etc.), which is logical given the transformation. But since EBITDA also improves and operational cash flow is positive in Q4, it suggests that it is not solely accounting but that the transformation of the business has actually started to yield operational effect. Here is my take: In Q4, EBITDA is positive and the improvement vs Q3 is greater than the revenue increase, which implies a high fall-through which is difficult to “account for” such an effect. The operational cost base is actually more scalable. If the improvement had only been cosmetic, we would have seen positive net result but low or negative fall-through, alternatively rising OPEX in line with revenue. Okay, I 100% agree that the real test is Q1 and if fall-through continues to be over 40–50 % even in a weaker quarter, then the probability that Q4 was just cosmetic significantly decreases. If, however, EBITDA falls back to negative and fall-through collapses, then Q4 was more timing and one-off effects than structural scaling. Right now, the figures, in my opinion, point more towards nascent operating leverage than pure accounting. But, again, the point is that one data point is not enough to eliminate the risk. Q1 and possibly even Q2 need to show the way. My base case is that the company should be able to maintain cash flow neutrality 1H26 if Q4 was not a one-off event. For the company to maintain cash flow neutrality during 1H26, growth is not required, but that the operating leverage from Q4 persists. There are actually several data points that suggest this scenario is possible. Q4 shows that EBITDA can be positive without a sharp increase in costs. This indicates that the break-even level is now lower than before. This is by far the most important factor.
- ·5.2.The closer we get to Q4, the more buy volume. Can buyers continue to hope to step in at around 4kr or will it be a FOMO effect? Right now around 3x higher buy volume than sell volume.·5.2.Oh, look… the buyers are starting to get fomo. Still more buy volume than sell volume.
- ·26.1.There is an article in Di about this spring's 18 "Launch companies" from KTH's accelerator program, where Arify is included. The company is an AI-driven performance marketing company that automates the creation, testing, and optimization of video advertising and practically functions as an AI-based replacement for traditional performance agencies. Arify does not compete directly with Tourn, as Arify focuses on paid ads while Tourn focuses on creator-driven influencer marketing, relationships, and networks. Both are asset-light and AI-driven, but Arify's scalability is more linear and typically valued as adtech, while Tourn has the potential for non-linear scaling and multiple expansion if the platform and network effects break through. The truly interesting thing is that a hypothetical merger would create an end-to-end platform where creator content is identified, optimized, and scaled globally via AI-driven advertising – a business logic strongly reminiscent of AppLovin. In such a case, a flywheel emerges where data drives scale, which elevates the valuation potential far beyond what Arify or Tourn can achieve individually. https://arify.ai/ My educated guess is that we will see M&A activities within the industry in the coming years. The structural growth in influencer marketing and AI-driven martech, according to industry analyses with 20–30 %+ annual market growth and even higher growth in the AI layer (see links to industry analyses below), suggests that the industry in the coming years will be characterized by consolidation, vertical integration, and platform building rather than standalone tools and agencies. For Tourn, this means that the company's current strategy is well-positioned: focus on an asset-light model, AI-driven workflows, scalable creator infrastructure, and clear performance logic allows Tourn to grow both organically and potentially via partnerships or M&A-driven ecosystem logic. If Tourn reaches approximately 70–80 MSEK in revenue in 2025 and has a financial target of 500 MSEK in revenue with at least 10 % operating margin in 2028, this implies a requirement for very high growth (in the order of ~80–90 % annual growth (CAGR) during the period). This is undeniably ambitious but absolutely not unreasonable in a scenario where the company, from 2025, through the transformation towards AI platforms, has succeeded in moving from project- and campaign-driven inflow to platform revenues, recurring customer relationships (ARR), and better scaling per creator via AI and standardized processes. In such a situation, Tourn can clearly, in the coming years, both benefit from the structural market growth and simultaneously position itself as part of the consolidation that is now shaping the industry's future structure, either as a natural platform builder or as an attractive node in a larger, integrated ecosystem. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/influencer-marketing-platform-markethttps://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/influencer-marketing-platform-market-size?utm_source=chatgpt.com·26.1.If Tourn wants to reach the 500/10% target in 2028, the tailwind is that the agency world is pressured by AI and that budgets are shifting towards more measurable, integrated solutions. But that also sets the bar: Tourn needs to prove that it is moving towards platform/infrastructure (workflow + data + scalable distribution), not just an effective influencer agency, because that is exactly where both the growth rate and multiple expansion are found. The market is not waiting for 500 MSEK. It is waiting for the signals. The first signals are already there. The clear, undeniable signals should start to appear within 12–18 months if the case holds.
- ·21.1.Good volume yesterday. I thought I saw at yesterday's closing call that the largest selling volumes are at the over 5kr level. We'll see if we make our way up there today. Difficult to build a position in an illiquid stock and at the same time not drive up the price.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Sharevillen käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
First North Sweden
Määrä
Osto
2 500
Myynti
Määrä
6 677
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | - | - | ||
| 2 705 | - | - | ||
| 3 391 | - | - | ||
| 1 295 | - | - | ||
| 11 204 | - | - |
Ylin
4,79VWAP
Alin
3,71VaihtoMäärä
0,1 30 621
VWAP
Ylin
4,79Alin
3,71VaihtoMäärä
0,1 30 621
Välittäjätilasto
Ostaneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 30 621 | 30 621 | 0 | 0 |
Myyneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 30 621 | 30 621 | 0 | 0 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 30.4. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 12.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 14.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 27.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 8.5.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 13.2.2025 |
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
1 päivä sitten
‧10 min
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 30.4. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 12.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 14.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 27.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 8.5.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 13.2.2025 |
Shareville
Liity keskusteluun SharevillessäShareville on aktiivisten yksityissijoittajien yhteisö, jossa voit seurata muiden asiakkaiden kaupankäyntiä ja omistuksia.
Kirjaudu
- ·1 päivä sitten · MuokattuI have read and reviewed the report, entered data into my semi-finished cash flow model but found really good values around scalability etc. Scalability: Q4 shows clear EBITDA improvement in combination with margin expansion, indicating that the model is starting to show operating leverage. The cost base has not increased in line with revenue, suggesting that the platform absorbs fixed costs rather than growing linearly with personnel. I see that the fall-through level ((ΔEBITDA / ΔRevenue) indicates that scalability is now visible operationally, even if it is still the first clear data point. But, this is the first data point that supports the platform thesis. Quality of profitability: The EBITDA improvement appears to be operational rather than driven by larger one-off items, which strengthens the credibility of the turnaround. Cash flow is improved and financing risk thereby decreases compared to previous years. The risk of NE/RE is practically zero. Profitability looks structural in Q4, but needs to be confirmed even outside of seasonal tailwinds. Q1 implications: Q4 proves that the model can deliver in a strong quarter, but Q1 will be the test of resilience in a weaker period. For the case to be further strengthened, continued positive EBITDA, a stable cost base, and reasonable fall-through are required even at lower volume. If Q1 maintains profitability, the narrative shifts from turnaround to scalable platform. Q1 is seasonally weaker. The ultimate test will be: Does EBITDA hold up even when volume normalizes? Confidence & Stress: In my model, I have also calculated a confidence and stress index. Confidence shows how strong and scalable the case is right now based on operational key figures, while stress probability measures the risk of the case breaking. Together, they guide how large a position is rational to take. Confidence is clearly raised after Q4, as structural margin improvement is now visible in the figures. Stress probability decreases in line with improved cash flow and operational discipline, but is not eliminated until Q1 confirms the trend. Overall, the risk is lower than before, but the case requires continued delivery to justify a full re-rating. The model has made a confidence adjustment to the case. Before Q4: Transitional (~60) and after Q4: 70–75. This means that the Case is moved up towards “Scaling confirmed but needs Q1 for full validation.” Stress probability was previously ~30–35 % and was characterized BY SCARCE CASH. Now it is approximately 20–25 %. The financing risk has simply decreased. For the case to be cemented, Q1 needs to deliver a continued positive EBITDA (even if lower than Q4), Fall-through still >40 % and the cost base is stable. No emission If Q1 holds, Confidence increases >80 and Re-rating is probable. The platform narrative becomes fully accepted (and not hybrid/agency). But, if Q1 falls back to negative EBITDA, then the case falls back to the transformation phase. The result after financial items in Q4 is driven by one-off items, but what determines if it is cosmetic is actual operating leverage. In Tourn's case, Q4 seems to contain accounting effects linked to restructuring (Baud/JV etc.), which is logical given the transformation. But since EBITDA also improves and operational cash flow is positive in Q4, it suggests that it is not solely accounting but that the transformation of the business has actually started to yield operational effect. Here is my take: In Q4, EBITDA is positive and the improvement vs Q3 is greater than the revenue increase, which implies a high fall-through which is difficult to “account for” such an effect. The operational cost base is actually more scalable. If the improvement had only been cosmetic, we would have seen positive net result but low or negative fall-through, alternatively rising OPEX in line with revenue. Okay, I 100% agree that the real test is Q1 and if fall-through continues to be over 40–50 % even in a weaker quarter, then the probability that Q4 was just cosmetic significantly decreases. If, however, EBITDA falls back to negative and fall-through collapses, then Q4 was more timing and one-off effects than structural scaling. Right now, the figures, in my opinion, point more towards nascent operating leverage than pure accounting. But, again, the point is that one data point is not enough to eliminate the risk. Q1 and possibly even Q2 need to show the way. My base case is that the company should be able to maintain cash flow neutrality 1H26 if Q4 was not a one-off event. For the company to maintain cash flow neutrality during 1H26, growth is not required, but that the operating leverage from Q4 persists. There are actually several data points that suggest this scenario is possible. Q4 shows that EBITDA can be positive without a sharp increase in costs. This indicates that the break-even level is now lower than before. This is by far the most important factor.
- ·5.2.The closer we get to Q4, the more buy volume. Can buyers continue to hope to step in at around 4kr or will it be a FOMO effect? Right now around 3x higher buy volume than sell volume.·5.2.Oh, look… the buyers are starting to get fomo. Still more buy volume than sell volume.
- ·26.1.There is an article in Di about this spring's 18 "Launch companies" from KTH's accelerator program, where Arify is included. The company is an AI-driven performance marketing company that automates the creation, testing, and optimization of video advertising and practically functions as an AI-based replacement for traditional performance agencies. Arify does not compete directly with Tourn, as Arify focuses on paid ads while Tourn focuses on creator-driven influencer marketing, relationships, and networks. Both are asset-light and AI-driven, but Arify's scalability is more linear and typically valued as adtech, while Tourn has the potential for non-linear scaling and multiple expansion if the platform and network effects break through. The truly interesting thing is that a hypothetical merger would create an end-to-end platform where creator content is identified, optimized, and scaled globally via AI-driven advertising – a business logic strongly reminiscent of AppLovin. In such a case, a flywheel emerges where data drives scale, which elevates the valuation potential far beyond what Arify or Tourn can achieve individually. https://arify.ai/ My educated guess is that we will see M&A activities within the industry in the coming years. The structural growth in influencer marketing and AI-driven martech, according to industry analyses with 20–30 %+ annual market growth and even higher growth in the AI layer (see links to industry analyses below), suggests that the industry in the coming years will be characterized by consolidation, vertical integration, and platform building rather than standalone tools and agencies. For Tourn, this means that the company's current strategy is well-positioned: focus on an asset-light model, AI-driven workflows, scalable creator infrastructure, and clear performance logic allows Tourn to grow both organically and potentially via partnerships or M&A-driven ecosystem logic. If Tourn reaches approximately 70–80 MSEK in revenue in 2025 and has a financial target of 500 MSEK in revenue with at least 10 % operating margin in 2028, this implies a requirement for very high growth (in the order of ~80–90 % annual growth (CAGR) during the period). This is undeniably ambitious but absolutely not unreasonable in a scenario where the company, from 2025, through the transformation towards AI platforms, has succeeded in moving from project- and campaign-driven inflow to platform revenues, recurring customer relationships (ARR), and better scaling per creator via AI and standardized processes. In such a situation, Tourn can clearly, in the coming years, both benefit from the structural market growth and simultaneously position itself as part of the consolidation that is now shaping the industry's future structure, either as a natural platform builder or as an attractive node in a larger, integrated ecosystem. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/influencer-marketing-platform-markethttps://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/influencer-marketing-platform-market-size?utm_source=chatgpt.com·26.1.If Tourn wants to reach the 500/10% target in 2028, the tailwind is that the agency world is pressured by AI and that budgets are shifting towards more measurable, integrated solutions. But that also sets the bar: Tourn needs to prove that it is moving towards platform/infrastructure (workflow + data + scalable distribution), not just an effective influencer agency, because that is exactly where both the growth rate and multiple expansion are found. The market is not waiting for 500 MSEK. It is waiting for the signals. The first signals are already there. The clear, undeniable signals should start to appear within 12–18 months if the case holds.
- ·21.1.Good volume yesterday. I thought I saw at yesterday's closing call that the largest selling volumes are at the over 5kr level. We'll see if we make our way up there today. Difficult to build a position in an illiquid stock and at the same time not drive up the price.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Sharevillen käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
First North Sweden
Määrä
Osto
2 500
Myynti
Määrä
6 677
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | - | - | ||
| 2 705 | - | - | ||
| 3 391 | - | - | ||
| 1 295 | - | - | ||
| 11 204 | - | - |
Ylin
4,79VWAP
Alin
3,71VaihtoMäärä
0,1 30 621
VWAP
Ylin
4,79Alin
3,71VaihtoMäärä
0,1 30 621
Välittäjätilasto
Ostaneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 30 621 | 30 621 | 0 | 0 |
Myyneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 30 621 | 30 621 | 0 | 0 |