Gem

Doximity AKA "LinkedIn for Doctors" is a business in declining health with major risks not accounted for by Wall Street.

As discussed many times in the healthcare professional (HCP) and investment communities, the primary end use case of Doximity among its user base of HCPs is not its social media platform but its dialer or phone number masking service, even as Doximity's revenue largely comes from pharmaceutical companies advertising on its platform in the platform's scrollable Newsfeed.

Doximity's accounting shows peculiar growth. I am diagnosing this growth not as a benign but as malignant.

In a market that has seen significant recent pullback among ad names like Reddit (RDDT), The Trade Deck (TTD), and AppLovin (APP) Doximity is highly exposed.

1. Doximity's revenue accounting and reported business metrics have become a joke. It's very obvious that Doximity is pulling forward revenue on large accounts as their longer-tail customers churn. That their auditor for many years Deloitte seems to be failing to execute on basic account standards shows how out of control this revenue accounting has become under CFO Anna Bryson.
2. Doximity operates one of the most absurd "pre-populated" social networks in existence, in which doctors and other HCPs are bullied into signing up for Doximity to manage their professional profiles else they may have incorrect information about them syndicated to US News & World Report and other sources of medical information and rankings. There is major risk in Doximity losing California HCPs and HCPs in other states with laws regulating processes requiring HCPs to upload IDs and collect data off HCPs as a requirement for these professionals to "claim" a pre-populated profile about them. This process has for years boosted Doximity engagement and usage metrics.
3. Doximity CEO Jeff Tangney was previously cofounder and CEO at Epocrates, which went public and endured the same practices of shifting revenue forward as the actual sales of the business failed.

Doximity AKA "LinkedIn for Doctors" is a business in declining health with major risks not accounted for by Wall Street.

As discussed many times in the healthcare professional (HCP) and investment communities, the primary end use case of Doximity among its user base of HCPs is not its social media platform but its dialer or phone number masking service, even as Doximity's revenue largely comes from pharmaceutical companies advertising on its platform in the platform's scrollable Newsfeed.

Doximity's accounting shows peculiar growth. I am diagnosing this growth not as a benign but as malignant.

In a market that has seen significant recent pullback among ad names like Reddit (RDDT), The Trade Deck (TTD), and AppLovin (APP) Doximity is highly exposed.

1. Doximity's revenue accounting and reported business metrics have become a joke. It's very obvious that Doximity is pulling forward revenue on large accounts as their longer-tail customers churn. That their auditor for many years Deloitte seems to be failing to execute on basic account standards shows how out of control this revenue accounting has become under CFO Anna Bryson.
2. Doximity operates one of the most absurd "pre-populated" social networks in existence, in which doctors and other HCPs are bullied into signing up for Doximity to manage their professional profiles else they may have incorrect information about them syndicated to US News & World Report and other sources of medical information and rankings. There is major risk in Doximity losing California HCPs and HCPs in other states with laws regulating processes requiring HCPs to upload IDs and collect data off HCPs as a requirement for these professionals to "claim" a pre-populated profile about them. This process has for years boosted Doximity engagement and usage metrics.
3. Doximity CEO Jeff Tangney was previously cofounder and CEO at Epocrates, which went public and endured the same practices of shifting revenue forward as the actual sales of the business failed.

I have the self-control of a rock.

Source

37.1C is when I die.

Source.

Source.

Relevant:

Source.

I’ve known for quite a while that the main reason my book backlog is growing (other than “I keep buying books”) is the same device I draw my cartoons on.

The iPad’s always ready to offer me a quick distracting endorphin hit: check my feeds! watch a BSG video! play one more of the billion Wordle clones out there!

It’s especially bad when I’m reading an e-book on it, what with notifications popping up — few of them worthy of my attention, but all of them stealing it.

Still, I have a few in my queue that I’m really excited about. I just finished Mick Napier’s Improvise. Scene from the inside out, and started Tom Blank’s The Principles of Comedy Improv. Next up in fiction is Lake of Souls, a collection of Ann Leckie’s short stories, and then Samantha Harvey’s Orbital (which I think will be my first time reading a Booker Prize-winner — don’t judge me).

• Seafood distributors express concerns over tariffs at Seafood Expo North America
• Shrimp demand remains steady, no upside expected in short term
• China’s economic slowdown could impact US shrimp prices

For more than a decade, the conflict in Syria appeared too intense, too complex, and too intertwined in geopolitics to be resolved, with the international community choosing to prioritize managing and containing the symptoms rather than seeking to resolve their root causes. However, that all changed in late 2024, when armed opposition groups toppled the Assad regime in 10 days. Today, the country remains extraordinarily fragile and marked by the debilitating effects of a lengthy civil war. Despite a widespread national consensus on the need to reunify Syria, malign and destabilizing actors remain active, including ISIS, Iran, and pro-Assad loyalist insurgents. Nevertheless, there is now a historic opportunity to reshape Syria for the first time in more than half a century. And engagement by the international community will be critical to the country’s success.

The evidence from proprietary MyinTuition data is consistent with that obtained from net price calculators for the category of highly endowed private colleges. This correspondence suggests that data gathered from net price calculators is reasonably reliable as well. Collectively, these data indicate that the perception of rising college costs in the last five to ten years is not accurate.

But that does not mean that college is broadly affordable. Whether or not a student whose family earns $300,000 or more per year can afford a $90,000 price tag is an open question. But at many institutions, families earning $40,000 are still expected to come up with $15,000 to $20,000 per year. It seems clear that amount is not affordable. Only the highly endowed institutions charge a price that these low-income families can afford through, say, limited student employment. A large tax on the endowments of these institutions may imperil their ability to offer that level of financial aid.

It is not difficult to understand why there is such uncertainty regarding college pricing. The system is sufficiently complicated that it is difficult for a student or family to know how much it will cost them to attend college. Politicians and those in the media similarly face information constraints in setting policy and reporting on college costs. We need to improve the transparency of college pricing if we are to increase awareness of its true cost. Transparency and affordability in our college pricing system are critical issues. The emphasis on rising sticker prices should not be our focus.