"Not for us to say, really," he said. "We really look more at the mousetrap rather than the stock price. I mean, obviously the playbook that's being run here is very familiar from Facebook. "We hope there isn't a fumble in the after-market that Facebook had."
But Wallace said Twitter's business model actually was more similar to a different company. "The core U.S. advertising business looks a lot more like Pandora than Facebook, both from a scale and from a functionality perspective."
(Read more: Bull market has 5 years ahead of it: Pro)
"As far as its monetization is concerned, it really does look from a fingerprinting perspective almost exactly like Pandora as far as how much revenue a salesperson can produce, how much revenue there is per subscriber, but obviously Pandora pays 50 percent of revenue in content costs, and Twitter pays nothing," he said.
Those who believe in the future of mobile advertising should have Twitter on their radar, he added.
"Separate and apart from all the many things that happened in the after-market with Facebook, Twitter obviously is a mobile play. If you believe in mobile advertising, then Twitter is a place that you have to be, unlike some other companies."
(Read more: Momentum stocks were big in October: Survey)
Twitter's lack of competitors was a strong factor in its favor, as was its 100 million subscribers outside the United States, especially when compared to how 55 percent of Facebook's revenues come from outside the U.S., Wallace said.
"If Twitter can get to anything like that and maintain its sort of competitor-free zone, obviously, there are three good reasons that you would really like Twitter at $15 billion to value if you liked Pandora at $5 billion," he said.
— By CNBC's Bruno J. Navarro. Follow him on Twitter