He is shorting the stock.
So what? Are you questioning anyone posting when they declare they own the shares or long? No, so shorting is just a market activity. No need to view it with negatively.
There are 60 million shares and 5 million shares outstanding and a market cap of $3B, in other words the stock price is not going to be moved by a post on this board.
On the other hand, if you shut all views that doesn’t agree then that is not healthy.
All I am saying no need to be too paranoid.
As for who needs a Ferrari, everyone who sees their rivals driving one. There’s no standing still in this competitive environment. If you’re competitors are driving Ferrari’s and you’re in VW you’ll be left in the dust.
It is true in some areas of business that small differences in productivity are perceived of as competitive advantage and drive changes.
With software, not so much. If the current system does what is being asked of it, then it can be hard to convince people to spend money on a system that gives more because there is no perception of more being better. Software is a very weird discipline where there are 1000 to 1 documented differences in productivity between shops and yet the shops at the bottom of that gradient don’t change. Admittedly, it is sometimes expensive to change, e.g., a massive COBOL system. But, one would think the motivations were huge, but the pace of change is slow.
If anyone would ever come up with a system that would read COBOL and spit out well engineered code in modern language, it would be an incredible product. I know some of the people who have tried and failed.
So what? Are you questioning anyone posting when they declare they own the shares or long? No, so shorting is just a market activity. No need to view it with negatively.
King:
I wont clutter this thread up after this but you seem rather defensive of this short. I am merely pointing out that Saul is correct…he is short AYX.
As regards his argument, I don’t see anything new that has not already been discussed ad nauseum at the NPI…I know because I have been round and round with Tinker on these exact issues.
But you cannot ignore a poster’s motivation to come here out of the blue who is clearly short AYX at a time when the stock is at risk from a TA perspective:
http://www.stockta.com/cgi-bin/analysis.pl?symb=AYX&cobr…
…and that happens to be trading at a P/S of 21.
Short sellers identify these type of stocks to sow doubt…it is a recipe used from the likes of Citron.
Yes, but the point is not that some of the issues might have been discussed on another board and the point is not that he might be short, the real point is that his point of view was perfectly reasonable and worthy of discussion.
Short sellers identify these type of stocks to sow doubt…it is a recipe used from the likes of Citron.
I agreed with some of the views raised by Citron on UBNT. There were red flags and what not. However, I have maintained my small position and glad to see it double.
I understand the FUD but the impact of greed is seems to be implicitly accepted (may be capital markets work because of greed 
) but fear is viewed negatively.
Tamhas,
Yeah, I think we’re both right to an extent. When I retired 8 years ago the company I worked at had spent an enormous amount of money overhauling all there mainline engineering and manufacturing systems. It was not by any means just a matter if bringing in modern code, it was process change on the floor and business practices as well. And even after all was said and done, there was still some serial batch and COBOL/IMS engineering applications that were left in place. They did what they needed to do, they had regulatory certification and there was no perceived benefit in replacing them.
But AYX is a different critter. It is a BI tool like no other. MountainDog posits that while that might have been true it is becoming less true due to competition. Maybe . . .
Business intelligence via data analysis offers a great deal more than small differences in productivity. It can provide the means for taking market share. It can provide the means for maximizing the rewards of laser focused capital allocation. And can help determine where to put R&D efforts. So on and so forth, we’re not just talking about small incremental productivity improvements and we’re most certainly not talking about replacing an antiquated yet functional COBOL application (or in this case more likely FORTRAN app) with something new, shiney and expensive.
I’ve been long AYX less than a year, I’ve bumped up my position four times and I’m up an average of 87%. And that’s after I sold my initial position due to a data spill which I thought might be devastating for this relatively young company. Saul was the voice of reason who helped me see that in fact it was not really a very serious issue. No one’s PI had been exposed, it was in fact a semi-public purchased data set that had been exposed due to human error. Not a good thing, but certainly nothing that would doom the company. Mia culpa, institute a process change, all’s well.
But as I said before, I’ve always been leery of AYX’s moat. And that is the essence of MountainDog’s post. It’s not that Ferrari is the only choice, there’s Aston Martin, Tesla, Lotus and so forth. There well might be cheaper very competitive vehicles. That’s the thing to watch for.
I don’t think declaring long or short or offering alternative viewpoints is the problem. We’ve seen several people jump on the board temporarily and try to convince others to sell with stories of doom and gloom for less than honorable reasons, I’m not saying this happened this time but it does put your guard up and lower your tolerance for similar events. Saul has been here a long time and just like a police officer that deals with the worst of society he probably groows less tolerant over time. I know I would.
Fear is not viewed as negativity, deliberately deceiving people for personal gain is viewed negatively. Not saying this was done this time but that is what is loathed.
deliberately deceiving people for personal gain is viewed negatively
Most CEO’s, long’s are doing that day in and day out. No questions, push-back. Just saying…
But as I said before, I’ve always been leery of AYX’s moat.
And, for me, this is composed of two parts, at least.
One of them is that “competitors”, like Tableau, will add features which cover part of what AYX does and, particularly existing Tableau users, will find that good enough. Current users of neither may also find it good enough because of the visualization features in Tableau. This is likely to occur in many products.
The other is that the latest feature additions to many of these products are often perceived to be of little value for many businesses. Look at something as mundane as Excel. For many companies, something like Excel 2010 does everything they want because the features which have been added since then are not compelling. The same is true of many other products where the new features added are for more edge cases that are not compelling for many businesses.
Tableau and Alteryx are clearly working together.
Alteryx has a conference, and one of the major sponsors is Tableau.
Tableau is having a conference at the end of this month, there are different levels of sponsors, but only one top level sponsor, Ayx.
Maybe they are splitting the market, Tableau is taking the low end and Alteryx is taking the high end. I don’t know.
What I do know is I trust this management team, they have earned it, and they clearly know Tableau very well, so the chance of Tableau taking market share from them is low. They clearly have a mutually beneficial relationship.
Also, as the amount of data is exploding, I think the need for more tools to analyze this data is growing with it.
They have stated in the conference call they aren’t running into much, if any, competition right now.
There will be competitors, and most likely the major ones will come out of left field.
This reminds me of NVDA, where there is constant talk of competitors, but no proof of any taking market share.
Jim
“Most CEO’s, long’s are doing that day in and day out. No questions, push-back. Just saying…”
First of all I don’t believe most CEOs and longs do this day in nd day out. Secondly, just because someone else does something we should tolerate it from everybody is ridiculous. What a world we would live in if everyone felt that way.
First of all I don’t believe most CEOs and longs do this day in nd day out
Believe what you want. When an analyst raises price target it is hailed and discussed in a positive note. No one is questioning his motives. On the other hand if an analyst cuts a price target, he is accused of manipulating the stock price, he is short, etc. The confirmation bias is strong. So if you are long, any negative opinion is not tolerated and if you are short, any positive news is unacceptable.
If you look for it, you can find it in this board.
Anyways, this is my last post on this topic.
Saul has been here a long time and just like a police officer that deals with the worst of society he probably groows less tolerant over time. I know I would.
I’m a 6 month retired police officer after doing the job for 20 years. In the past 5 years or so, I saw more drugs, stealing and violence than I did in the previous 15. And, I worked in small town America.
I have a relative who is a more than 20 year police officer in Baltimore. That city can almost compare to a war zone at times.
I give Saul and others my thanks for patrolling this board like they do.
Stay safe, everyone and Fool on,
mazske
The issue is not the price target but the rationale for the increase or decrease. When Nutanix is called “second source” to VMWare despite Nutanix being the actual market leader, and this coincides w fake Google news, there is reason to be suspect.
When Morgan Stanley kept a sell and puny price target on Nvidia that they wanted to value at a Intel multiple one does not need to take it seriously.
When the same firm downgraded ANET because of the “resurgent” Cisco, you know darn well it is a hit piece.
However, if the rationale is sound, it does not contain slogans or pointed language, then yes, then I pay attention as it may be worth my time. But once I read 214 going to zero - I know it is a hit piece because smarter actual money in the billions is continuing to invest in 214 so how can any reasonable analyst know so much more? Answer, they can’t. 214 is clearly not gong to zero. It may be worth less than the Street thinks, but it is not zero.
There is too much information out there. It pays to know what to skip over and what not to skip over. The proof is in the numbers in the end anyways. AYX is winning it’s market despite entrenched and better financed “competitors” and doing so while raising prices. Pretty good sign. The risk is will it co tinje to accelerate growth or is the Street too optimistic at present. Not that they are not winning their segment of the market and expanding their foot print wider as they do.
Tinker
Hit pieces by shorts have a recurring architecture. They are long and so full of references that one never finishes reading them all. Many links are irrelevant or misleading. There is enough sensible stuff in the hit piece to make it credible at first sight. And there is a certain insistence by the author…
captainccs
Some people choose to ignore Short reports. Some people denigrate them by calling them “Hit pieces”.
Choosing to ignore a Short sellers report would be in my opinion be a good time management tool. I personally don’t read Andrew Left or Carson Block’s reports on company’s that I own.
A majority of Block & Left’s reports would not be worth my time, however, that does not mean that I believe that everything that they write would be “wrong”.
I believe it was during the hey day of Global Gains https://discussion.fool.com/motley-fool-global-gains-10125.aspx when many experienced and respected Fools believed in the great Chinese Gold rush of Chinese small caps that I posted some articles about many Chinese Small caps being frauds. Some of those articles came from Carson Block of Muddy Waters. People that had a “Good Reputation” and were “Experienced investors” told me bluntly that he was a short seller writing “Hit pieces” and his information should be automatically rejected.
However, Muddy Waters was very right about most of the companies that he chose to write reports on and some of those companies got exposed as huge frauds like Sino-Forest Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Forest_Corporation
I remember one guy on Global Gains pumping Puda Coal and I openly questioned the business model because it didn’t ring true. I was one that was invested in Duoyuan Global Water and I believe Carson Block went after both companies and I sold Duoyuan Global Water and all my Chinese small caps before the whole investing category took a major dive into the abyss. So Carson Block and Muddy Waters have saved me losing money in the past which would be why I do not automatically reject information coming from Short sellers.
A major reason why I sold all my Chinese smallcaps before they took a major dive was because I noticed investors in Chinese Smallcaps began refusing to want to hear anything negative about those companies. Whenever I see a large amount of people automatically rejecting information without even reading it, while at the same time ONLY accepting information perceived positive, I tend to get nervous if I am invested in the company because I am aware that like-minded investors can form a type of group think and if that group think rejects all criticism of a company then the group can blind themselves to when true problems come along. I have seen groups of very intelligent investors remain blind to a company’s problems before and I was introduced to that very early in my Fool experience on Global Gains.
A little something on Duoyuan Global Water and Puda Coal in the following article, which by the way also mentions Global Gains recommendation China Green Agriculture: https://seekingalpha.com/article/262822-the-latest-chinese-s…
If people ever wonder why Global Gains went away, it was partially because the severe drop of Chinese smallcaps disenchanted many of the people who signed up for the service. The second reason was because Global Gains was a idea ahead of it’s time…the pool of international companies was too small to really support the service. There might one day be a day when it becomes easy to trade international companies from all nations, wherever one might live and on that day, I believe Global Gains might be resurrected in some form but a service in which subscribers were only interested in and encouraged the analyst to only recommend a narrow range of extremely high risk companies that wound up being frauds or borderline frauds did not work.
What annoyed me about the Global Gains experience was people automatically rejecting information without reading it. If people want to reject information then I want to see a point by point rejection of the opposing point of view that they reject. If one does not have the time to give a opposing point of view then one should simply say, “I don’t think the person has proven his credibility to me in the past but because I did not read the report, I have no idea if the allegations are correct or not”
I absolutely detest when people who claim to believe that “EVERYTHING” that noted short seller Andrew Left says would be irrelevant then choose to post his material whenever a stock that they might be invested in gets shorted by Left. Then after posting links to news articles about his report or direct links to the report itself, the very same people automatically reject the report and mention that they have not even bothered to read it. Duh, if a person didn’t read it then why bring the damn report up, I mentally say to myself!!!
There are some Fools that will intentionally post short reports or links to the reports with the simple intention of ridiculing the author of the reports, even though, they do not know the claims being made in the report.
My point of view would be that if a person believes a report to not be relevant then they should not post it or even engage in discussions about it because supposedly “It’s a waste of their time”.
I don’t read Andrew Left’s reports at all but the way I treat Andrew Left’s reports that I don’t read would be that they would be a unknown risk that might possibly be “Right” and when I do start paying attention to Andrew Left’s reports would be when the SEC, FTC, or DoJ launch a investigation based upon what he has written.
Contrary to popular belief not everything that Andrew Left puts out would be a fallacy. Andrew Left might be in my estimation “right” long term about a company anywhere from 10% to 30% of the time
Andrew Left’s most prolific example of being “right” was Valeant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Left#Valeant_Pharmaceut…
So, I will say it once again…I have seen people not just around the internet but here on the Fool itself, categorically reject a Short sellers information simply based upon the fact that they were short a company without even reading and understanding the short sellers objections to a company.
I continue to say that would be among the poorest ways to analyze things. If people want to reject information because they disbelieve a person because of reputation then that would be perfectly fine. However, if one has not examined the information and/or can not refute the information then that does not mean the short seller or person of “poor reputation” would automatically be “wrong”. Sometimes, short sellers, in hindsight, have their opinions prove to be valid.
I have seen more than a few investors around the Fool reject information based upon another person’s reputation and ultimately get proven wrong. That’s why I go out of my way to avoid saying that someone would be 100% wrong about a topic.
I tend to grade the reliability of a person by percentages. If someone says something that I tend to disbelieve strongly, I will tell myself that there’s a 80% chance that this person might be wrong but a 20% chance that they might be right. Even when I debate someone strenuously, when I sit back and reflect, I will go back and consider if their point of view might ultimately be "right’. In other words, I don’t automatically reject information based upon reputation. Reflecting and entertaining that others point of view might be correct, I call UNBIASED THINKING!!! I call automatic rejection of someone’s views based solely on “reputation” to be a sign of BIASED THINKING.
I think rejecting information before even examining it to be a poor way to analyze things and it makes a person develop a hubris that can be unhealthy to making good investing decisions. Of course, no one has the time to analyze everything, so in the interest of time management, some things probably should not be read or considered but just because one did not consider something, it does not mean that it is “wrong”.
Starrob
Saul said: I, on the other hand, as the host of the board, felt an obligation to point out to others who might not realize it, that this was this guy’s first post ever on the Motley Fool, and that it certainly was “suspicious,” at least.
And we sincerely thank you for this, Saul. I am newish and still learning. I greatly appreciate the heads-up to be more critical in my thinking. I am not saying that MountainDog18 has anything other than honorable intentions, because I have not enough data to say otherwise. However, I would not have thought to check his profile date, etc.
MountainDog18, it’s a good post. It’s informative. Thank you for posting.
I’m holding on to my AYX. (But would anyone like those PVTL shares that I’m still holding… :-)).
Hit pieces by shorts have a recurring architecture. They are long and so full of references that one never finishes reading them all. Many links are irrelevant or misleading. There is enough sensible stuff in the hit piece to make it credible at first sight. And there is a certain insistence by the author…
captainccs
Some people choose to ignore Short reports. Some people denigrate them by calling them “Hit pieces”.
What would you call a spade if not a spade? Reports are not physical objects but mental constructs much harder to qualify. My literature teacher in high school taught us a great lesson about authorship. A manuscript is the author’s only until it is published, then it becomes the reader’s to interpret as he sees fit. The same bible can be god’s or the devil’s word depending on who reads it. That is the huge challenge authors have to deal with.
Choosing to ignore a Short sellers report would be in my opinion be a good time management tool. I personally don’t read Andrew Left or Carson Block’s reports on company’s that I own.
How on earth did you decide not to read these two authors? Were their reports “hit pieces?” “Garbage?” “Intellectually hollow?” “Lacking in evidence?” Or maybe they had a “suspect architecture?” My point is that you came to a conclusion based on the content you read. Calling a hit piece a hit piece is calling a spade a spade.
A majority of Block & Left’s reports would not be worth my time, however, that does not mean that I believe that everything that they write would be “wrong”.
We agree but you seem to have missed it in my post. See in the above citation “There is enough sensible stuff in the hit piece to make it credible at first sight.” Additionally, not everything has to be right or wrong, it can also be irrelevant which has its own function in hit pieces, to seed doubt or simply to add bulk to highten discomfort.
I think rejecting information before even examining it to be a poor way to analyze things and it makes a person develop a hubris that can be unhealthy to making good investing decisions. Of course, no one has the time to analyze everything, so in the interest of time management, some things probably should not be read or considered but just because one did not consider something, it does not mean that it is “wrong”.
So you avoid potential hit pieces or garbage without reading them. How is that any different from what I posted? BTW, if you read my posts in this thread you have to realize that I did read what I qualify, in my opinion, as a hit piece.
I wasn’t going to post further in this overgrown thread but now I will add another red flag.
Note: The author of this post presently has a position in securities of this issuer and may trade in and out of any such positions at any time without notice. The author makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the data or opinions contained herein. Please do your own research.
How many of us non-professional investors would add such a disclaimer? We do say “YMMV” or “Please do your own research.” The above text makes me suspect that the author is a professional and the discaimer is a CYA aimed at the SEC. Just a feeling I get reading between the lines.
A Google search to see who uses this kind of language
The author makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the data or opinions contained herein.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q…
Denny Schlesinger
Maybe they are splitting the market, Tableau is taking the low end and Alteryx is taking the high end. I don’t know.
My understanding is that historical they do different things. Tableau visualizes the data and Alteryx prepares it. But, a while back Tableau added some preparation features. Thus far, much less capable that Alteryx, but maybe enough for some users? Especially those already using Tableau? And, how much is that part of Tableau going to grow?
Common Tinker… You are smart, you understand your companies, and your bias is positive one. If someone has a negative bias, you read more than what they have written.