Spruce Point Capital · activist-deck
2U, Inc. (TWOU)
50 pages · 3 arc beats · 3 loops
2U, Inc. (TWOU)
Spruce Point Capital · 2018-07 arc beats above · slides in the middle · loops below · scroll → 3 LOOPS
12468101214161820222426283032343638404244464850
Deck intelligence map
3 coverage by narrative range · generated from this deck JSON
Narrative range 30 total
Metadata
Components
Metrics
Tools
Frameworks
Beats
Loops
Problem (Identify pain) 3 slides 100% 3/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides · 19 hits — 0/3 slides
— 0/3 slides
66.7% 2/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides — 0/3 slides
Agitate (Make it worse) 19 slides 100% 19/19 slides 100% 19/19 slides · 140 hits — 0/19 slides
— 0/19 slides
68.4% 13/19 slides 100% 19/19 slides 100% 19/19 slides Solution (Provide relief) 8 slides 100% 8/8 slides 100% 8/8 slides · 49 hits — 0/8 slides
50% 4/8 slides 62.5% 5/8 slides 100% 8/8 slides 100% 8/8 slides Slide inventory
50 every slide · same image gating as the playbook
01
The slide uses a satirical 'School of Hard Knox' diploma to mock the company's business model.front_matter
04
Includes multiple hyperlinks to FOIA requests and competitive contracts as evidence.frame_problem
Open slide detailBeat · Problem (Identify pain)
05
This is a dense text-heavy slide typical of activist short-seller reports, using bold headers to structure the argument.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Problem (Identify pain)
06
This is a classic activist short thesis summary slide, structured as a list of key arguments.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Problem (Identify pain)
07
The slide uses a standard activist investor format to present a bearish thesis based on valuation.analyze_data
08
The slide uses a piggy bank icon to visually reinforce the 'insider enrichment' narrative.expose_contradiction
09
Includes Spruce Point Capital Management logo/branding element (pine tree).front_matter
10
Uses a before-and-after visual comparison of market maps to demonstrate industry saturation.compare_peers
11
Uses a series of external citations to build a negative case against the subject company's business model.expose_contradiction
12
Uses a side-by-side comparison of a corporate presentation slide and a legal contract to expose a discrepancy.expose_contradiction
13
The slide uses a 'scorecard' summary to highlight the bifurcation between successful and underperforming programs across different launch years.expose_gap
14
Uses red circles and arrows to highlight negative trends in the data tables.expose_contradiction
15
The slide uses red text to highlight the specific programs that are the focus of the argument.expose_contradiction
16
Uses callout boxes to annotate tables and highlight the cessation of specific metrics in 2016.expose_contradiction
17
Uses a comparison of two text blocks to highlight a change in corporate strategy language.expose_contradiction
18
The slide uses a comparison table to highlight operational and accounting differences, specifically calling out 'Aggressive' revenue recognition in the short cocompare_peers
20
Includes a quote from Noodle Partners to reinforce the argument that traditional OPMs are desperate to maintain their high-margin contracts.expose_contradiction
21
The slide uses a yellow callout box to highlight two main arguments regarding revenue decline.diagnose_problem
22
Includes specific callouts highlighting the discrepancy between management's stated cash outflow expectations and the actual NPV calculations.expose_contradiction
23
The slide highlights a discrepancy between the 'typical' program metrics (300-500 students) and the metrics required to hit guidance (480-500 students).expose_contradiction
24
The slide uses a scenario table to illustrate the impact of market headwinds on EBITDA margins.analyze_data
25
Uses a primary source document (contract) to contradict management's public statements.expose_contradiction
26
Uses a FOIA email as primary evidence to validate competitive disruption.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Hypothesis Test
27
Uses a callout box to highlight the 40% drop in tuition costs for newer cohorts.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Hypothesis Test
28
The slide uses a table to contrast the cost structures of two different business models in the OPM space.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Hypothesis Test
29
The slide uses a 'villain' framing (2U) vs 'disruptor' (Noodle) to undermine the incumbent's steady-state narrative.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Hypothesis Test
30
Spruce Point Capital Management branding (pine tree logo).transition
Open slide detailLoop · Hypothesis Test
31
Uses a 'before-after' style framing to contrast corporate claims with empirical data.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Hypothesis Test
32
The slide uses a combination of financial tables and qualitative callouts to debunk the scalability of 2U's business model.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Hypothesis Test
33
The slide uses a red box to emphasize the specific risk factor related to 'Ineffective marketing efforts'.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Hypothesis Test
34
The slide uses a table to show the trend of marketing costs and FCEs, with callout boxes emphasizing the reversal of cost efficiency.preempt_rebuttal
Open slide detailLoop · Hypothesis Test
35
The slide uses data from semrush.com to demonstrate rising customer acquisition costs in the online education sector.analyze_data
Open slide detailLoop · Hypothesis Test
36
Spruce Point Capital Management branding (pine tree logo).frame_problem
37
The slide uses analyst consensus data to argue against the market's bullish sentiment.preempt_rebuttal
38
The slide uses an 'imputed consensus model' to break down revenue expectations, contrasting them with historical performance data.preempt_rebuttal
39
The slide uses a table to break down revenue by cohort year, highlighting the aggressive growth assumptions for newer cohorts compared to mature ones.expose_contradiction
40
The slide uses a 'bridge' logic to derive the residual value of future growth expectations.show_valuation_bridge
41
The slide uses a bar chart to visualize the multiple contraction risk, contrasting 2U's 12.6x multiple with 5.0x and 4.1x precedents.compare_peers
42
The slide highlights 2U's premium valuation relative to its peers, suggesting a potential re-rating.compare_peers
43
Includes a callout box explaining the rationale for the peer multiple selection (5.0x-7.0x) based on student acquisition costs and program churn.show_valuation_bridge
45
Includes specific methodology notes regarding 2U's MD&A disclosures and cohort revenue imputation.analyze_data
46
Contains two primary tables: '2015 Top Ten Programs Based On New Student Enrollment' and '2015 Revenues per Program Estimates'.analyze_data
47
Contains two primary tables: '2016 Top Ten Programs Based On New Student Enrollment' and '2016 Revenues per Program Estimates'.summarize
48
Includes two primary tables: Top 15 programs by enrollment and 2017 revenue estimates by program, plus a summary table of revenues by school.analyze_data
49
The table provides granular data across multiple years (2013-2017) for specific university programs.analyze_data