MDB Revenue as a percentage of the DB market from $346.1MM with a TAM of $50B = 0.7% of the total market
The entire DB market may not the TAM for MDB, is that correct assumption? If yes, then what is the TAM for MDB?
I think that someday MDB will provide the mother of all earnings surprises, and I want to be holding when it does.…
well said…
I agree with concerns raised… however, MDB usage based model is very very attractive and it will be hard for any one to predict quarter to quarter variance…
MDB to me is chance to buy in equivalent of AWS or Azure or GCP… as pure play… yes it will have its own evolution but it is not something you want to step away from too much, specially in a taxable account…
Having said all these, I did reduce from my oversized position at ~20% down to ~15% but that’s just taking off 5% trading allocation…
I fully intend to hold somewhere between 12% to 18% position in MDB for a long time… and portion of that in taxable account to be not touched for 5+ years hopefully…
Another company similar to MDB is TWLO… you never know which quarter usage based bump will show up in a big way… you just have to hold sizable position to benefit when it does…
12 Likes
To be clear I was at about 19% MDB before I reduced my position, so it’s still near the top.
I listened to most of the call and read it. I think they have a playback available.
Listening to the call sounded not nearly as enthusiastic as reading it. The fact that a large Enterprise Advanced deal closed in Q2 that was expected in Q3 also has me tampering my expectations.
So I wanted to reduce my level of exposure. For now.
Darth
1 Like
They have been warning for 3 quarters in a row about the tough comp. coming in the next quarter. The CFO has been going out of his way to mention it specifically in each conference call.
Thus I think they come in under 50% growth this next quarter, and I don’t know how the market will take it. It could already be baked into the stock price.
More risk, so I sold about 1/3 of my position bringing from one of my top holding down to a normal position.
Still love MDB long term.
Jim
1 Like
Hi Kingran,
There would be no way that that DB market is 100% NoSQL, and I have no idea how much of it would be available for MDB. My point is that the TAM for MDB is probably much, much larger than O.7%.
Best,
bulwnkl
4 Likes
I have just pulled some reports, and in optimistic ones also project NoSQL market size by 2024 to be around $5 to $6B. The good news is NoSQL market is expected to grow (CAGR) 30% by 2024. So MDB, should continue to grow at the least at market growth rate, if not higher.
4 Likes
I hear you guys on the worries over the reduced guidance, and I fully appreciate the choppiness of MDB over the last 6 months. The weeks of 3/13 and 6/3 have given as all our appreciation. Other than that, MDB has pooped out on us.
If MDB is trading at the same price as six months ago, and if Mongo has had two good quarters these last six months, MDB is a lot cheaper now than six months ago.
I’ve been long MDB for 18 months, I got in at $39.85. Now it’s $140.63. That’s a 253% increase, a CAGR of 134%. With Atlas growing at triple digit rates, with six months of consolidation, this is not a stock to bet against, not even a stock to wait for until it drops (which it might well do). There is no limit to the growth of data, to the size of the market (TAM) beyond falling prices – technology deflation. In addition, databases tend to be winners take most, just look at Oracle. For reasons discussed often here, Oracle/SQL is not a treat to Mongo.
4. MDB Revenue as a percentage of the DB market from $346.1MM with a TAM of $50B = 0.7% of the total market.
SQL is being disrupted by Document storage. If MDB Revenue’ is 0.7% of the total market, that’s FANTASTIC news! A huge market to grow into. SQL is very good at what it does but it has lots of problems because it is a straitjacket when you need to make changes to the data structure. Document storage is based on the principles of OOP which, if properly implemented, is much easier to update. Even more important, I believe that data suitable for Document storage is growing much faster than data suitable for SQL. If I’m right, Document storage is at the bottom of its “S” curve while SQL is closer to the top of its “S” curve.
I think MDB is one of the safest SaaS stocks available these days.
Denny Schlesinger
63 Likes
If MDB Revenue’ is 0.7% of the total market, that’s FANTASTIC news!
See my other post on the TAM for NoSQL DB. Not all of RDBMS can be replaced by NoSQL, at least not in the near or medium term future. MDB has nothing to offer on RDBMS space. So when you look at MDB, you should look at NoSQL DB space and see MDB’s market share. That is certainly no 0.7%. But I am sure you know most of this. So bit surprised to see above comment from you.
I think MDB is one of the safest SaaS stocks available these days.
It is not clear how you define safe. In the last 3 months the stock has dropped 24% from its top. For many stocks that would be bear market territory. However, given the parabolic price raise, I guess it should be okay. I think the stock is vulnerable at here, if the price is not going to hold here, it could easily drop to $80 to $100 range. May be given your entry price, are you suggesting safe? If not that kind of drop would not be termed as safe. I know valuation and price are not discussed much here, and there is a reason for it. I appreciate that. Given the enormous move SaaS stocks made last year, I would be careful to assume anything as safe.
2 Likes
I’m of the same mindset as Denny on this. I’m not about to sell out on “concerns about tougher comps” in the next few quarters nor do I sit there and make calculations for next quarter anyways. All people are doing when doing that is expecting the same thing to keep happening when history shows things change. I want to see how big this market for handling unstructured data can get and will sell once I’m convinced MDB won’t be a key part of that or the market is smaller than I expected.
I don’t look at this as “.7% of the tam” or whatever. We have a new solution how to handle unstructured data so it’s an entirely new market/tam. Well see how big it gets.
MDB is my biggest position.
12 Likes
12X,
I was making the point that I think that it is best to hold on for the foreseeable future as well. My thought on the 0.7% market share was that I think MDB has a long, long way to run.
Best of luck to longs.
bulwnkl
We have a new solution how to handle unstructured data so it’s an entirely new market/tam. Well see how big it gets.
The market is expected to grow at 35% annually. Remember, the NoSQL is already multi-billion market and if it can grow at 35% for the next 5 years that’s a pretty good growth and I mentioned that MDB could grow slightly higher than the market. Now the forecast and reality could be different due to many factors but you have to start with somewhere and I take that as a pretty good place to start.
Now, if you are someone with an entry price of $40 and going to sit out the gyrations of the growth phase and not going to let that volatility shake you out of your position, I totally get that. Kudos to you.
On the other hand the current share price, which has over 250% gain over a very short term, and has the potential to see 40% decline because growth could slow couple of quarters is not a “safe” situation.
My point is about the safe stock and not about long-term prospects of Mongo.
3 Likes
My only concern with Mongo is how they continue to spend more on SG&A than their revenues, quarter after quarter.
Their SG&A increases as fast as sales. Is that an accounting trick? Or is it a profitable growth issue? Meaning, are they paying out too much to get a deal? Spending more than their staff can yield?
The funds that own it appear to have a growing concern.
Flying Circus, I’m not sure what you’re looking at? Year ended Jan 2019 their S&M expense was 55% of sales, typical of a SaaS company. In 2016 it was 88%.
Expenses continue to fall as a percent of sales.
3 Likes
See my other post on the TAM for NoSQL DB. Not all of RDBMS can be replaced by NoSQL, at least not in the near or medium term future. MDB has nothing to offer on RDBMS space. So when you look at MDB, you should look at NoSQL DB space and see MDB’s market share. That is certainly no 0.7%. But I am sure you know most of this. So bit surprised to see above comment from you.
Disruption does not mean going head to head. Mongo is currently going after a different market than the one currently dominated by SQL and the operative word is “currently.” By that I mean that some day SQL might be obsolete.
A bit of technology to explain my position. Before SQL there was Flat File, essentially IBM punched cards first stored on tape and later on disk. The problem with cards was that they only had 80 columns. Once tape appeared you could make the cards, now called “records” as long as you needed, big advance. The problem that was not solved was that if you needed the client’s name on three reports you had to store it in three places. To update the client’s data you had to update all the records on which it appeared. SQL to the rescue! By creating relations between tables you got rid of the duplication and facilitated updates. The downside is that if you don’t index these relational fields (keys) the system is as slow as molasses on a winter day. I once made the mistake of not indexing an application for a client and on my small test cases it was not a problem but as they accumulated data the system ground to a halt. And it was not a large database. When I added the indexes the system took off like greased lighting. SQL depends fundamentally on indexes.
When you create a Document storage (large capacity IBM cards) with a similar set of indexes you have all the data you need to make it relational. Relational was created to save storage space which was slow and costly. As storage becomes ample and inexpensive the driving force behind relational storage disappears.
It is not clear how you define safe. In the last 3 months the stock has dropped 24% from its top. For many stocks that would be bear market territory.
I learned a long time ago that stocks are not escalators to financial heaven, it’s a bumpy ride as you describe. But let’s look at how successful investors look at it: “Sell when the story has changed for the worse or if you discover you have made a mistake.” Are either of these applicable to Mongo DB? For a LTBH investor a 24% drop is just noise if neither of the two sell criteria apply.
Judged by the technical explanation and the investing strategy above, MDB is a very safe stock. Contrast this with the mindless holding of 3D printing stocks. Excepting some very specialized applications, 3DP has no moat, it was the market’s hula hoop and pet rock craze. That is not to say that Document storage cannot, in turn, be disrupted. But it won’t be SQL reborn.
One closing comment, I wouldn’t invest in MDB if they didn’t have Atlas-aaS. Have you noticed the triple digit growth rates of Atlas?
Denny Schlesinger
32 Likes
As storage becomes ample and inexpensive the driving force behind relational storage disappears.
As a minor quibble, I don’t know that I would agree with this. Having any given piece of data in only one place is still a major benefit. Speedy access from indexing is still a major benefit. And, while the benefit of document databases is the ability to handle lack of formal structure, for some applications, like ERP transaction processing, the formal structure is itself a benefit. Plus, relational databases have evolved to more than their original simple structure to include things like word indices and JSON, BLOB, and CLOB data types.
3 Likes
SQL is very good at what it does but it has lots of problems because it is a straitjacket when you need to make changes to the data structure. Document storage is based on the principles of OOP which, if properly implemented, is much easier to update.
I beg to differ. Any data you want to search by needs to be accounted for up front. If you forget something or requirements change, you’re in the same boat as SQL. I don’t have direct experience with Mongo, but with the Amazon equivalent, such changes were a much bigger headache than with a SQL database.
In fact, I didn’t see what Amazon offered in terms of data structure that SQL didn’t by just using a CLOB field. You still need to pull some data into individual fields to make it searchable. What it did offer was a way to more effectively distribute data across storage, but for a vast majority of the market, this is a non-issue.
SQL is being disrupted by Document storage. If MDB Revenue’ is 0.7% of the total market, that’s FANTASTIC news! A huge market to grow into.
Because of the above, this is misleading. Mongo solves new problems, or problems that SQL wasn’t good at solving. But it will not replace SQL, I’m not sure it will even erode SQL that much (except among IT trend followers who inevitably overreach). I think they are less disruptive than an engine that grows the entire database market.
I still think Mongo’s prospects for growth are good, so I’m still in.
5 Likes
By that I mean that some day SQL might be obsolete.
NoSQL databases in some form are in existence from 1970’s. So this is not a new technology as many would want to believe. However, many technologies had to wait for the right conditions or right challenges to thrive. With internet, came large number of transactions and it created the problem of storing these records quickly.
A key difference between RDBMS and NoSQL is, the data is organized, structured, classified and stored, that means there is lot of work before storing the data. Whereas NoSQL just stores the data and does classification when you need to access the data. This solved two issues, one very fast data recording, no need to organize the data, just store it, secondly because no need to organize data do not have to be similarly structured, you could have two customer documents in completely different format. It allowed different formats, rapidly changing data structures all grouped together.
There are more unstructured data than structured data. But, I do see RDBMS and SQL definitely have a place (you can enforce very fine grained security controls on who can create data or what data can be stored with RDBMS and today you cannot do that with NoSQL) and going to be there for sometime or even better the database technologies going to evolve such that it can handle both structured and unstructured data simultaneously.
With useless technical details aside, the growth for NoSQL is going to be good relative to RBDMS, yeah pun intended. But RDBMS is also growing and Mongo to gain a market share even in NoSQL market needs to be seen. There are other competitors who are gaining market share. This is a topic for some other day.
I wouldn’t invest in MDB if they didn’t have Atlas-aaS.
I hear you. While you talk about LTBH, often I get the opinion that this board and market in general is more focused “current” growth and could drop the stock and move on, if you slip two quarters in row. But that is a not the main point.
The fact is Atlas runs on others cloud platforms. I know the board has looked at some reinvent sessions and concluded Atlas is far superior to AWS and that essentially eliminates the competition. One thing I know about AWS is, that is not the end of the story, but the beginning. Now, Azure has a long database experience and they own the cloud platform. Eventually they will have a product that will be at par with MDB and they can invest far more than MDB. Now GCP, Mongo’s origin is Google and it surprises to see that GCP is not in the mix as much as AWS and Azure when people talk about cloud platform. In other words all the three main cloud platform vendors are serious competitors, and time is their friend. One should be careful to extrapolate current success into future (as in 3, 5, 10 years) market share.
Lastly, if the market falters and share price suffers serious decline, someone might takeout MDB. So don’t assume long-term is given.
5 Likes
Lastly, if the market falters and share price suffers serious decline, someone might takeout MDB. So don’t assume long-term is given.
As I said somewhere above, “Sell when the story has changed for the worse or if you discover you have made a mistake.” That also applies to AWS, Azure, or Google eating Mongo’s lunch. So NO, I don’t assume long-term is given. Right now I consider MDB one of the safest SaaS stocks. The story might change. 
https://discussion.fool.com/see-my-other-post-on-the-tam-for-nos…
Saul started this board because he became frustrated with strategies that didn’t allow for changing one’s mind. As I have stated more than once, one of Saul’s strengths is that he is nimble. Just because the story might change someday, or because one might be making a mistake today are not good reasons for paralysis. I presented my technical analysis only to support my argument. I’m happy to have people disagree with me. That’s what boards are for.
I have nothing more to contribute to “Thoughts on MDB” at his time.
Denny Schlesinger
8 Likes
Any data you want to search by needs to be accounted for up front.
I forgot that I meant to mention this in my “quibble” … at least some of the top relational databases are increasingly capable of a variety of changes while on-line, including schema changes and adding indices.
1 Like
are increasingly capable of a variety of changes while on-line
The key difference is such a change is “administered”. In NoSQL, if the income data changes, it has no impact, and the subsequent query or report can utilize the additional data without any “administration”.