Has Anyone Looked at Gigamon?

Thanks Brittlerock and Andy,

Myself I tend to lean a bit more towards Brittlerock’s point of view. In a recession, for instance, their customers could ALL just say, “I think I’ll skip adding more stuff this year”. Gigamon’s revenue could fall off the table.

That can’t happen to AWS; people who are on the cloud need to pay for it.
It can’t happen to Paycom; every customer who’s still in business needs to keep paying for his payroll services.
It can’t happen to Shopify; merchants need their websites, etc and will continue to pay for them.
It can’t happen to Square, or Splunk, or Talend, etc etc, for the same reasons.

I guess I was really badly burned by INFN and SWKS. Made me gun-shy.

Saul

7 Likes

Andy,

They are working with some of the more important companies in the space, Csco, Anet, Aws

I believe they are working with AWS. However, I believe the first two are competitors in their space. The space also seems to encroach a bit on another company, HDP in my opinion. Both companies seem to be involved in data management along with a security component. HDP is doing this via Hadoop which Gigamon is not. However, there seems to be a lot of overlap in what they are doing.

The above is formed from a completely non-technical point of view.

Regards,
A.J.

Brittlerock,
Thanks for responding and your arguments were well thought out. I appreciate the discussion and I hope you do not mind my rebuttal.

It is clear from the research presented that they have no recurring revenue built into their business model. For example, if they had a component of revenue tied to volume of traffic monitored this would produce ongoing and most likely growing revenue over time.

I can understand why you are not impressed with service contracts they can be cut after a customer starts to learn the equipment. Also this equipment on a maintenance level seems to be pretty simple. But on configuring all the flows and how to actually get the most out of it, I could see keeping the maintenance contract for that. Also to see the service part of the company holding at 31% of revenue tells me that they are selling maintenance contracts. But that is only for 2 years, but the companies we invest in usually do not have a long time line to look at. Also their partnership with Amazon(AWS) gives them recurring revenue. They sell their service to customers of AWS. They sell this for short durations of time so that they can see into their network at Amazon. I think this will become a bigger part of Revenue especially when they start this with Microsoft and Google.

Gigamon monitors network traffic flow and volume via their “visibility fabric”. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s IT gobbledygook. What do those buzz words mean? In my experience that’s a hard sell once you get beyond the IT middle management. Executive management of IT organizations may or may not actually have an IT background (does that seem ludicrous? Welcome to the real world of big corporate think).

I am a technician for a phone company. I used to work in a NOC at the phone company were I monitored a TDM network. In that network we had a dolch device that could inspect PRI calls and determine where problems where at. Whether it was the customer or the provider. It was very advantageous because sometimes the customer would be having a problem with their PBX and trying to blame the Phone company for their problems.

This is something like that but more sophisticated. It allows for deep inspection of packets and to allow other devices to see into the network, like security systems (FEYE). It can also determine bottlenecks in the network and detect malware crossing the network. There is a big change going on now Brittlerock. Everyone is going from the TDM world to Ethernet. So all of the providers, and customers are moving to Ethernet. This is all going to be one big World network. These devices will be needed to see the network and what it is doing. I can see a small company not needing this but any company of size will need this device, or one like it, to give them visibility. Not only for a security point but as a customer service point. Now some companies will allow customer service to slide but security is a very big selling point.

The information provided by SJO and Andy spoke a lot to their technology and how they provide the “visibility fabric,” but didn’t really address the problems they are trying to solve, and why do they do it better than anyone else. What’s the value proposition?

I guess we just come from two different worlds Brittlerock. I see a lot of value behind seeing what is in the packets flowing across my network in realtime. But as they say, that is what makes a market.

Happy investing and thanks for your thoughts. It gave me a lot to think over.

Andy
Long Gimo

4 Likes

Hi Aj,

I believe they are working with AWS. However, I believe the first two are competitors in their space. The space also seems to encroach a bit on another company, HDP in my opinion. Both companies seem to be involved in data management along with a security component. HDP is doing this via Hadoop which Gigamon is not. However, there seems to be a lot of overlap in what they are doing.

Thanks for the Correction. I misspoke. They do not work with Anet but they do work with Cisco and AWS. You can find the information on their 10K. Although they do list Cisco as competition along with Anet.

Andy

2 Likes

I understand Saul, it should make us all gun shy. I thought Infn would jump right into the local market, win some, lose some.

Myself I tend to lean a bit more towards Brittlerock’s point of view. In a recession, for instance, their customers could ALL just say, “I think I’ll skip adding more stuff this year”. Gigamon’s revenue could fall off the table

That is true, but I do not think a recession is coming anytime soon and the same reasoning could be said of ANET.

Andy

1 Like

I guess I was really badly burned by INFN and SWKS. Made me gun-shy.

I thought you made a boat load on SWKS Saul? If you got burnt in that I’d hate to hear you describe one of your catastrophic losses.
Ant
:wink:
Ps is it burned or burnt - I’m sure Denny will know.

Andy,
Actually, we’re in pretty close agreement, My last paragraph was:

My estimation is that they will do pretty well with IT and network oriented companies, and make some inroads elsewhere with security offerings, but mostly I see Gigamon as a sophisticated technology company in search of problems.

Seems your experience pretty well emphasizes my first point. And I pretty much agree that they actually do solve some security problems that heretofore have been unsolved (I admit, my experience is dated, maybe this isn’t an unsolved problem anymore). Their product does not rely on recognizing a software signature, frequently a security problem will show up as some kind of anomaly in network traffic. Though they don’t come out and say so anywhere in there “solutions” a simple alarm system based on traffic deviations from the “norm” (however that’s defined) is something that warrants investigation. Not necessarily a security problem, but may well be indicative of one.

Where I worked may not have been typical. I spoke with folks from other companies at conferences and so on, but never at great length and deep detail. We had a broad spectrum of IT issues. Our IT security folks were a separate organization. Our network team was another organization. Storage was a separate group. Application servers was separate. Applications was a separate group as were the DBAs. Enterprise Architecture (the group I worked for when I retired) was also a separate group. As an architect, I got a very broad view of the entire IT environment, I pretty much had to interface with folks from all the different parts of IT, industry representatives, as well as the internal IT consumers.

Our IT exposure ranged from a public facing web presence, secure customer portals, internal production systems (with varying access rights depending upon the user’s job role, nationality and physical location), to highly secure black projects.

My point is that to sell a product like Gigamon in this environment it would have to be represented in one way to the network folks and a very different way to the security folks. And I’m not sure if it even plays in the area of database performance, but if it does, it would require a yet a different sales approach. What I got from their website was mostly a technology pitch aimed pretty much at network performance monitoring, with an aside of “oh yeah, we do security as well. And some other stuff too.” Maybe they rely on their partners to pitch the product to special audiences, I don’t know, I’ve never participated in a Gigamon presentation. I can say that their website and the literature I looked at were pretty much focused on selling technology rather than solutions. Geeks love technology, management buys mission critical solutions, preferably with a short payback cycle and a high ROI.

2 Likes

Thanks for the discussion Brittlerock, you bring up some good points. You could be right that this will not be a big grower in Enterprise but according to the link that I have provided, so far that would be an incorrect assumption. At this time the service providers are a smaller amount of their revenue, but I think that will grow.

This company has grown Cagr from 2004 to 2016 at 41%. Right now they have Revenue of 311 million for the last year. Second year of more than 40% revenue growth, increasing margins YoY. Look at these slides.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4042299-gigamon-inc-2016-q4…

I think those slides say it all.

Andy
These discussions are what makes the site. Thank you.

GIMO’s revenue is primarily generated through sales by channel partners, which include distributors and resellers.

We rely on third-party channel partners for a substantial portion of our revenue. If our partners fail to perform, our ability to sell our products and services would be limited. Further, if we fail to optimize our channel partner model going forward, our operating results would be harmed .
We depend upon our channel partners to assist with the sales process through introduction to accounts and the distribution of our products. In North America we principally rely on two distributors, GCI and Arrow. GCI accounted for 33%, 40% and 47% of our revenue in fiscal years 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively. Arrow accounted for 26%, 21% and 16% of our revenue for in fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. To the extent our channel partners are unable to generate an increasing amount of our sales opportunities, are unsuccessful in selling our products, or we are unable to enter into arrangements with, and retain, a sufficient number of high quality channel partners in each of the regions in which we sell products, and keep them motivated to sell our products, our ability to sell our products and operating results would be harmed. The termination of our relationship with any significant channel partner may adversely impact our sales, operating results and revenue growth. If we fail to optimize our channel partner model or fail to manage existing sales channels, our business and operating results could be materially and adversely affected.

…We sell our products primarily to enterprise IT departments and service providers.

Additional considerations follow…
Lots of detail from 10-K follows including manufacturing in Mexico which could create concerns given current potential for turbulent US/Mexico trade relations. Caution, this gets quite lengthy.

We are dependent on a single product family comprised of a limited number of products.
Our product offering is limited to a single product family comprised of our GigaVUE, GigaSECURE, GigaSMART, Gigamon Visibility Platform for AWS and G-TAP products. Historically, we have derived a substantial portion of our revenue from sales of our GigaVUE appliances and related services, and we expect to continue to derive a significant portion of our revenue from sales of our GigaVUE appliances and related services for the foreseeable future. A decline in the price of these products and related services, whether due to competition or otherwise, or our inability to increase sales of these products, would harm our business and operating results more seriously than it would if we derived significant revenue from a variety of product lines and services. We expect that this concentration of revenue from a single product family comprised of a limited number of products will continue for the foreseeable future. As a result, our future growth and financial performance will depend heavily on our ability to develop and sell enhanced versions of our GigaVUE appliances and the related family of products and services. If we fail to deliver product enhancements, new releases or new products that end-user customers want, it will be more difficult for us to succeed.
Adverse economic conditions or reduced information technology and network infrastructure spending may adversely impact our business and operating results.
Our business depends on the overall demand for information technology, network infrastructure and the market for network security analysis, compliance and monitoring tools. In addition, the purchase of our products and services is often discretionary and may involve a significant commitment of capital and other resources. Weak global economic conditions, or a reduction in information technology and network infrastructure spending even if economic conditions improve, could adversely impact our business, financial condition and operating results in a number of ways, including longer sales cycles, lower prices for our products and services, higher default rates among our distributors, reduced unit sales and lower or no growth. As global or regional economic conditions continue to be volatile or economic uncertainty remains, trends in information technology and network infrastructure spending also remain unpredictable and subject to reductions due to credit constraints and uncertainties about the future. Unfavorable economic conditions may lead end-user customers to delay or reduce purchases of our solution. Demand for our solution may not reach our sales targets, or may decline, when there is an economic downturn or economic uncertainty. Our sensitivity to economic cycles and any related fluctuation in demand may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.
The market for cloud-based and cloud-focused solutions has been accelerating. If the market does not continue to develop or develops more slowly than we expect, or our cloud-focused solutions are not adopted or adopted more slowly than we anticipate, our business could be harmed.
We recently introduced our first Visibility Platform offering addressing the public cloud (Gigamon Visibility Platform for Amazon Web Services (AWS)) and expect to expand the range of our cloud-focused offerings in the future. Many factors may affect the market acceptance of cloud-based and cloud-focused solutions, including:
•perceived security capabilities and reliability;
•perceived concerns about the ability to scale operations for large enterprise customers;
•concerns with entrusting a third party to store and manage critical data; and
•the level of configurability or customizability of the solution.
If this market does not continue to accelerate as we anticipate, if organizations that establish a presence in the cloud do not perceive the benefits of our cloud-focused solutions, or if our competitors or new market entrants are able to develop cloud-focused solutions that are or are perceived to be more effective than ours, this portion of our business may not grow further or may develop more slowly than we expect, either of which would adversely affect our business and operating results.
The average selling price of our products has decreased from time to time, and may decrease in the future, which may negatively impact gross profits.

If our end-user customers do not continue to purchase our products or expand deployment of our technologies, our ability to grow our business and improve our operating results and financial condition may be adversely affected.
A significant portion of our revenues come from new or recurring purchases of products from our installed base of end-user customers. Our future success depends, in part, on our ability to increase the adoption of our products within and across our existing end-user customers and future end-user customers. If we fail to expand existing deployments or sell additional products to our customers, our ability to grow our business and improve our operating results and financial condition would be adversely affected.

Our sales cycles can be long and unpredictable, and our sales efforts require considerable time and expense.
We have experienced difficulty managing lengthening and increasingly unpredictable sales cycles in the past. Our sales efforts involve educating our end-user customers about the use and benefits of our solutions, including their technical capabilities. End-user customers often undertake an evaluation and testing process that can result in a lengthy sales cycle. Also, as our distribution strategy typically leverages a channel model, utilizing distributors, the level of variability in the length of sales cycle across transactions has increased and made it more difficult to predict the timing of many of our sales transactions. We spend substantial time and resources on our sales efforts without any assurance that our efforts will produce any sales or a material amount of revenue from such sales. In addition, product purchases are frequently subject to budget constraints, multiple approvals and unplanned administrative, processing and other delays. These factors, among others, have in the past led to, and could continue to result in, long and unpredictable sales cycles.
Our sales cycles typically range from three to six months and are generally longer for larger transactions. Often times, our larger transactions are part of larger data center projects or upgrades by our customers and we have little ability to influence the timing of these transactions. As a result, our sales cycles can often be more than six months, with sales cycles involving service providers taking significantly longer to complete. To the extent that the mix of our future sales shifts to include relatively more revenue from service providers, the average length of our sales cycles will likely increase. Furthermore, our sales to federal, state and local governmental agency end-user customers have increased in recent periods, and we may in the future increase sales to governmental entities. Selling to governmental entities can be highly competitive, expensive and time consuming, often requiring significant upfront time and expense without any assurance that some of these efforts will generate a sale. As a result of these lengthy and uncertain sales cycles and the increasing size of our transactions, it is difficult for us to predict when end-user customers may purchase solutions and accept products from us. If we are unable to effectively manage the sales cycle or if we fail to close a large transaction or multiple smaller transactions that we expect to close in a given period, our operating results may vary significantly from period to period and may be materially adversely affected.

Our limited operating history makes it difficult for you to evaluate our current business and future prospects, and may increase the risk of your investment.
We were founded in 2004 and sold our first products commercially in 2005. We have experienced rapid growth since our inception, and we have been increasing the breadth and scope of our product offerings. The majority of our revenue growth, however, has occurred over the past six years. This limited operating history, as well as the early stage of our relationships with many of our channel partners, makes financial forecasting and evaluation of our business difficult. Furthermore, because we depend in part on the market’s acceptance of our products, it is difficult to evaluate trends that may affect our business. We have encountered and will continue to encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by growing companies in rapidly changing industries. If we do not address these risks successfully, our business and operating results would be adversely affected, and our stock price could decline.
Some of the components and technologies used in our products are purchased and licensed from a single source or a limited number of sources. The loss of any of these suppliers might cause us to incur additional transition costs, result in delays in the manufacturing and delivery of our products, or cause us to carry excess or obsolete inventory and could require us to redesign our products.
Although supplies of our components are generally available from a variety of sources, we currently depend on a single source or a limited number of sources for some components included in our products. For example, processors that we use in our products are manufactured by Broadcom Corp., Freescale Semiconductor. Ltd., Intel Corporation and Cavium, Inc. and are currently available only from a limited number of sources, and neither we nor, to our knowledge our manufacturers have entered into supply agreements with such sources. As there are no other sources for identical components and technologies, if we lost any of these suppliers or were unable to acquire enough of these components or license these technologies, we would not be able to sell our products for a significant period of time, and we could incur significant costs to redesign our hardware and software to incorporate components or technologies from alternative sources or to qualify alternative suppliers. Our reliance on a single source or a limited number of suppliers involves a number of additional risks, including risks related to:


supplier capacity constraints;


price increases;


timely delivery;


component quality;


failure of a key supplier to remain in business and adjust to market conditions;


delays in, or the inability to execute on, a supplier roadmap for components and technologies; and


natural disasters.
In addition, for certain components for which there are multiple sources, we are subject to potential price increases and limited availability as a result of market demand for these components. In the past, unexpected demand for computer and network products has caused worldwide shortages of certain electronic parts. If similar shortages occur in the future, our business would be adversely affected. Although we carry some finished goods inventory of our products, we and our manufacturers rely on our suppliers to deliver necessary components in a timely manner. We and our manufacturers rely on purchase orders rather than long-term contracts with these suppliers. As a result, we or our manufacturers might not be able to secure sufficient components, even if they were available, at reasonable prices or of acceptable quality to build products in a timely manner and, therefore, might not be able to meet end-user customer demands for our products, which would have a material and adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.

We currently rely on third party contract manufacturers to our products, and our failure to manage our relationship with our contract manufacturers successfully could negatively impact our business.
We outsource the manufacturing, systems assembly, testing and order fulfillment of our hardware products to third-party contract manufacturers, original design manufacturers and third party logistics providers. Jabil and DNI manufacture and, through joint design arrangements with us, develop substantially all of our hardware products. We also contract with Expeditors International to provide warehousing, packaging, order fulfillment and light manufacturing services for our products. We rely on Jabil and, to a lesser extent, DNI to manufacture a substantial majority of our products.
Our reliance on these third parties reduces our control over the assembly and order fulfillment process, exposing us to risks, including reduced control over quality assurance, production costs and product supply. If we fail to effectively manage our relationship with our contract manufacturers, or if they experiences delays, disruptions, capacity constraints or quality control problems in their operations, our ability to ship products to our end-user customers could be impaired and our competitive position and reputation could be harmed. Furthermore, Jabil manufactures our products in their facility in Guadalajara, Mexico. As such, these manufacturing operations may be subject to changes in the economic, security and political conditions in Mexico, or to changes in Mexico’s trade relations with the United States, which might interrupt or impact manufacturing operations. For example, the political climate in the United States has created some uncertainty whether the United States might impose tariffs or other restrictions on foreign imports, including imports from Mexico. If any such tariffs are imposed on products or components that we import, including those manufactured by Jabil, our costs could increase or our gross margins could be negatively impacted. Furthermore, any adverse change in the financial or business condition or our third party contract manufacturers could disrupt our ability to supply quality products to our end-user customers. If we are required to change our contract manufacturers and cannot find a suitable alternative in a timely manner, we may lose revenue, incur increased costs and damage our relationships with our channel partners and end-user customers. In addition, qualifying a new contract manufacturer and commencing production can be an expensive and lengthy process. If we experience increased demand that our contract manufacturers are unable to fulfill, or if they are unable to provide us with an adequate supply of high-quality products for any reason, we could experience a delay in our order fulfillment, and our business, operating results and financial condition would be adversely affected.

From time to time, the average selling price of our products has decreased. In the future, it is possible that the average selling prices of our products will decrease in response to competitive pricing pressures, increased sales discounts, new product introductions by us or our competitors or other factors. Such pricing pressures may also be dependent upon the mix of products sold, the mix of revenue between products and services and the degree to which products and services are bundled and sold together for a package price. Therefore, in order to maintain our profitability, we must develop and introduce new products and product enhancements on a timely basis and continually reduce our product costs. Our failure to do so would likely cause our revenue and gross profits to decline, which would harm our business and operating results. In addition, we may experience substantial period-to-period fluctuations in future operating results in the event we experience an erosion of our average selling prices.
We rely on revenue from support services which may decline, and because we recognize revenue from support services over the term of the relevant service period, downturns or upturns in sales of support services are not immediately reflected in full in our operating results.
Our service revenue has become a more meaningful part of revenue in recent periods. Starting in the quarter ended September 26, 2015, we began to sell first year maintenance and support as an additional offering. Prior to that time, the first year of maintenance and support was bundled as part of the initial contract to purchase our products. Sales of new or renewal services contracts may decline and fluctuate as a result of a number of factors, including end-user customers’ level of satisfaction with our products and services, the prices of our products and services, the prices of products and services offered by our competitors or reductions in our end-user customers’ spending levels. If our sales of new or renewal services contracts decline, our revenue and revenue growth may decline and our business will suffer. In addition, we recognize service revenue over the term of the relevant service period, which is typically twelve months. As a result, some of the revenue we report each quarter is the recognition of deferred revenue from services contracts entered into during previous quarters. Consequently, a decline in new or renewed service contracts in any one quarter will not be fully reflected in revenue in that quarter but will negatively affect our revenue in future quarters. Accordingly, the effect of significant downturns in new or renewed sales of our services is not reflected in full in our operating results until future periods. Our service revenue also makes it difficult for us to rapidly increase our revenue through additional service sales in any period, as revenue from new and renewal service contracts must be recognized over the applicable service period. Furthermore, increases in the average term of services contracts would result in revenue for services contracts being recognized over longer periods of time.

4 Likes

Hi Andy. You wrote:

I understand Saul, it should make us all gun shy. I thought Infn would jump right into the local market, win some, lose some. You said:

“Myself I tend to lean a bit more towards Brittlerock’s point of view. In a recession, for instance, their customers could ALL just say, “I think I’ll skip adding more stuff this year”. Gigamon’s revenue could fall off the table”

That is true, but I do not think a recession is coming anytime soon and the same reasoning could be said of ANET.

But it’s happening to Gigaton right now, and it’s not happening to Arista at all.

According to the Conf Call, revenue for Gigamon in the 4th quarter missed estimates (that they were expected to beat handily) by 14%, that’s huge, and was up less than 2% sequentially in a quarter which is usually up a lot sequentially.

Now they are guiding to a further sequential decline in revenue of 14% for next quarter, up less than 9% year over year. Those great past 40% increases don’t mean much if they are up less than 10% NOW. Guidance for EPS for the quarter is only about 6 cents, DOWN from 22 cents last year. And they gave it when they were half way through the quarter, in mid-Feb.

On the Conference Call, management was like a deer in the headlights. They talked a good game, but they really didn’t have a clue what’s going on. Especially what is going on in this quarter. I’m sure they guided excessively low, but you have to wonder whether there is something structural going on. I’ll grant you there’s a 50-50 chance that this is a great opportunity to buy in, but that’s not my kind of purchase.

Arista, by contrast, had revenue up 34% and up 13% sequentially, and EPS up 30%, and up 25% sequentially, and they gave guidance good enough that they are up roughly 37% or 38% since earnings. A mirror image of Gigamon.

That’s how I see it: There’s a real chance that something is wrong at Gigamon. Not a sure thing by any means, but a real chance.

Saul

5 Likes

Thanks Saul,
Those are really good points. Next quarter is always their weakest quarter so it could be trouble. Even Bert stated that this was not going to be a one quarter problem but could be a couple of quarters. It’s possible this could blow up in my face but when they have been cut in half I am betting that all of those problems have been priced in and by the second half of the year they will start growing again. I like the technology and can see the need for it.

But all the warts that you and Brittlerock have shown are very real and I could be completely wrong about this. Thanks for pointing them out and I will keep them in mind going forward as I watch this company.

Andy

1 Like

Thank you all for the heavy lifting done on the best thread I’ve seen on TMF since HG was in its prime.

I think I’ll pass on GIMO for the moment, but it’s definitely been an interesting read

5 Likes