Invest In The Right SaaS

Kudos to Starrob, who posted this on the premium Investing Strategies board:
https://discussion.fool.com/4056/invest-in-the-right-saas-342259…

If you don’t have access to his post, he is summarizing and commenting on this article:
These 2 Charts Can Help You Invest In The Right SaaS
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4266650-2-charts-can-help-i…

It is similar to some of the analysis and charting done by contributors here. I’m interested in hearing the wise insights here on his conclusions.

Enjoy,
Brian

6 Likes

Isn’t Starrob a Saul follower? I think I read that some time ago. Anyway, harder to digest than Saul and I am too busy counting my profits as it is . . . :wink:

Respectfully, I would rather read “the Knowledgebase”. If you have not you should.

5 Likes

Respectfully, I would rather read “the Knowledgebase”. If you have not you should.

Hmmm… that implies that you think I haven’t. I’m curious, what led you to that conclusion?

Enjoy,
Brian

2 Likes

Isn’t Starrob a Saul follower? I think I read that some time ago. Anyway, harder to digest than Saul and I am too busy counting my profits as it is . . . :wink:

MoneySlob

I watch what Saul does Off & On but I do not strictly “Follow” any investor. I use a lot of different investing strategies, including what some people might call “value” investing and I make my own decisions rather than simply “follow” other investors into a stock buy or sell.

Saul’s method “works” in certain types of markets and the markets have been favorable for the way Saul invests over the past 8 to 10 years but it might not always be that way and today’s market darlings might be tomorrow’s most hated stocks.

When the Bear market eventually comes around some of the companies that some people think are “ideal” and will be around for decades might disappear forever.

I am not going to get into a extensive criticism of Saul’s methods but I will only say that no method works in all market conditions and I have seen Saul make mistakes before both on “recommending” something that did not do what he thought the company was going to do and “missing” on a company’s upside because he did not like a company for some reason that never really appeared while the company went on to beat the market for multiple years…which is why I do not buy all the companies Saul buys and I sometimes buy companies that Saul hates because I make my own independent assessment and sometimes my thoughts are the same as Saul and other times they are different…which as it should be…sometimes because of my background I have knowledge about some subject or company that Saul does not have and vice versa.

Starrob

34 Likes

Too bad the thread got derailed!

The 40% rule is interesting but it has a flaw. All my stocks are to the right of the 40% line or very close to it but they certainly exclude the highest earner, ADBE. Here is why: four of the stocks at the top of the 40% chart (highest earners) are the four lowest yielding stocks (to the right of the 40% line) in the market

http://softwaretimes.com/pics/40-pct.gif

Growth rate trumps earnings!

Denny Schlesinger

4 Likes

I have seen Saul make mistakes

Who hasn’t made mistakes? Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett have admitted to making mistakes. Even I have made miskates! :wink:

Denny Schlesinger

14 Likes

I was in a hurry to post, I should have added that one of the reasons Peter Lynch gives for selling is recognizing one has made a mistake. One mistake Saul made was not buying MDB but reading a thread about the database made him change his mind as he openly admitted. One tries not to make mistakes but inevitably one does, just like one can’t write software without bugs. It’s a fact of life.

What distinguishes Saul from many investors is his ability to spot his mistakes and act on them quickly. I have posted before that one trait that distinguishes good managers is their decision making ability, not to fret and linger but to act when they spot a problem and I found mathematical evidence why this works so well. Take a manager who gets half his decisions right but quickly spots the mistakes and does something about them, getting the correction right half the time. Here is the mathematical series

Decision 1: 50% right, 50% wrong
Fix if wrong: 75% right, 25% wrong (50% right + (25% right + 25% wrong))
Fix if wrong: 87.5% right, 12.5% wrong
Fix if wrong: 93.75% right, 6.25% wrong

See how quickly he becomes a star manager? And this is what Saul does!

When you decide to stay pat, ask yourself if you are anchoring. Get out of the habit of anchoring, it’s expensive!

Denny Schlesinger

42 Likes

Too bad the thread got derailed!

The 40% rule is interesting but it has a flaw. All my stocks are to the right of the 40% line or very close to it but they certainly exclude the highest earner, ADBE. Here is why: four of the stocks at the top of the 40% chart (highest earners) are the four lowest yielding stocks (to the right of the 40% line) in the market

Denny Schlesinger

Every rule has a flaw, including “Growth rate trumps earnings”. The “market” will generally give SaaS companies a pass on producing earnings and even cash flow for a relatively long period of time but that occurs only because of the belief that one day the company can one day achieve both positive cash flows and profitability but if the belief ever goes away that the company can eventually scale to profitability, then look out below!!!

There are some SaaS companies that some people might think could be around forever, that if a recession ever happened, well, they might disappear…gobbled up by the Google’s, Amazon’s, Oracle’s, Salesforce’s of the world, bought out at bargain basement prices precisely because such companies are not profitable or have low/no cash flows. While some people don’t believe a recession will happen, many people didn’t believe the Great Recession in 2008-2009 would happen either. I remember a lot of people buying on the dip at the beginning of the Great Recession until they ran out of money and the dip went straight down into Davey Jones locker.

I also remember when people recognized US stocks were doing horrible and to get “Alpha”, a lot of Fools piled into the gold rush of Chinese smallcap stocks which wound up being fools gold. It sounds ridiculous now but many Fools were enamored with a small cap Mongolian fertilizer company and was bidding up the stock like it was a company that cured cancer, while completely ignoring any and all risks of investing in the Chinese market. Some people were bragging about having virtually all their money in some Chinese small caps too: https://discussion.fool.com/ggs-yongye-international-yong-119653…

That is why I don’t simplistically only follow one investor or follow one rule. When I made the post of the Invest In The Right SaaS article on the Fool paid boards, one thing that BrianKnittel did not mention was that I said this at the bottom of the post:

I found the article pretty informative but I would not treat it as 100% Gospel. Some of the companies the author identified as laggards have actually been great stock performers for awhile and some of the companies identified as “overvalued” could possibly continue as “overvalued” for quite some time

https://discussion.fool.com/4056/invest-in-the-right-saas-342259…

The article should be used as a very rough guideline on how a investor can categorize SaaS stocks.

When it comes to “rules”, there is always exceptions to the rule and the wise investor learns to understand when and where the rules might apply and where they might not.

The rule of 40% came about as a general rule to understand the health of a SaaS stock and it mostly applies to the SaaS stocks that have not yet reached scale yet. Meaning that the rule of 40% applies less to companies that have already scaled like Salesforce and Adobe, while applying more to a company like Twilio, Paycom or Zendesk.

The SaaS companies that do not satisfy the rule of 40% might also be the types that could become very shaky in a recession too…shaky enough to disappear.

Starrob

Who hasn’t made mistakes? Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett have admitted to making mistakes. Even I have made miskates! :wink:

Denny Schlesinger

Which is why I don’t “follow” other investors. I want to be responsible for my own mistakes. On the paid Fool services, most new investors simply follow the Fool Analysts picks and then later become dismayed when the Fool Analyst get found to make a mistake. I have watched many a fool berate Fool Analysts for investing in a company that the “offended” investor, with the benefit of hindsight bias, claims that the Analyst should have known would fail.

That is why I believe everyone should investigate things for themselves and be responsible for their own mistakes and not place the responsibility on others.

Starrob

27 Likes

That is why I believe everyone should investigate things for themselves and be responsible for their own mistakes and not place the responsibility on others.

Starrob

Spot on, and the reason to point out the weakness of the 40% rule – don’t take it as gospel.

The rule of 40% came about as a general rule to understand the health of a SaaS stock and it mostly applies to the SaaS stocks that have not yet reached scale yet. Meaning that the rule of 40% applies less to companies that have already scaled like Salesforce and Adobe, while applying more to a company like Twilio, Paycom or Zendesk.

The rule of 40% shows the correlation but not the causation. For a deeper understanding of the SaaS business model I highly recommend watching the David Skok videos on the subject:

https://www.google.com/search?q=David+Skok+videos&newwin…

There is good reason for early stage SaaS businesses not to be profitable but one has to make sure they are not spending unreasonably, for example, spending too much on S&M when the problem is the complexity of the product which cannot be overcome by adding salespeople. For example, Nutanix is a case in point while SmartSheets totally redesigned their product.

Don’t get me wrong I like the rule of 40% but with caveats.

Denny Schlesinger

14 Likes

What I think is strange about the 40% rule, is you are adding a change in Revenue (growth rate) to cash flow % of revenue (sometimes operating income % of revenue), a set ratio. It’s like adding apples to oranges.

I think it’s more useful to add the revenue growth rate to the CHANGE in cash flow (or operating income) % of revenue. Here you are adding apples to apples, both rates of change.

Zendesk does this in a slide. The second to last slide of the deck.

https://s2.q4cdn.com/278771905/files/doc_presentations/2019/…

The trade off is investing in growth, or operating margin (and cash flow) improvement.

Jim

6 Likes

are you implying that with this change in metric, Zendesk would be more worthwhile to invest in as compared to the SaaS collection addressed in that article?
ZEN growth is re-accelerating and this will lead to improvement in any investment metric you use.

What about SPLK? They changing their mix more towards a subscription model. What would you make of SPLK when they complete that move? I think they may get better growth. They may be a laggard now but could jump to the front later in terms of this investment metric (rule of 40 or similar)?

OKTA has been richly valued even in the collection of stocks looked at here. But for some reason the stock is still climbing even if it is not ranked particularly high with the rule of 40. When will that end?

tj

I just posted this on the paid boards reminding people to also read the comments following the seekingalpha article:

I also forgot to mention that the comments following the article might be of interest to investors. For instance it was noted that Zscaler was missed in the orignal article to which the author said this:

App Economy Insights, Marketplace Contributor
Comments131 | + Follow

Author’s reply » Thanks @rbbdg43! Excellent pick with $ZS, the company should have been included.

1) ZS on the rule of 40 map:

With a sales growth of 65% yoy and operating margin of -7% in the most recent quarter, ZS is a winner of the rule of 40 and would be close to MDB on the map (I would consider it a “super-fast grower” in the categories mentioned above).

2) ZS on the efficiency vs. EV/Sales:

ZS has an EV/Sales ratio of 36 at the moment. That would put it at the extreme end of the valuation spectrum of all companies in the chart. MDB, a company with a fairly similar efficiency profile, has an EV/Sales of 27 (which is already quite high). That makes ZS appear overvalued based on this specific screening process.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4266650-2-charts-can-help-i…

Be aware that there are two ways to look at “valuation”.

A more “value” based mindset has more safety in mind when considering companies and from a “value” point of view, the most over-valued stocks have the least amount of room to run to the upside and will fall the hardest in a downturn. So, a value minded investor feels that a “Over-valued” stock has more risk that does not justify any potential reward.

A more “Rulebreaker” based mindset almost takes the complete opposite view. A “Rulebreaker” minded investor looks at high valuation as a sign of the market seeing things in a highly valued company that will allow that company to continue to outperform all the other choices to invest in within the market. A “Rulebreaker” believes that high valuations indicate the best and most innovative companies to invest in and undervalued companies would be a sign that the market believes that the undervalued companies will continue to underperform the higher valuation companies.

Which view is correct?

Both views!!!

Both “Rulebreaker” or “Value” based mindsets can be true depending on which company one looks at. Investors do not have to follow such simplistic rules as “I am a Rulebreaker” or “I am a value investor” in order to determine the best course of action.

I understand that some investors do follow such “rules” in order to simplify things in their mind but I believe that once a investors settles into that mindset that they are one or the other that such a investor cuts themselves off from possibly considering almost half the other companies in the market

I tend to look at all attributes of a individual company and then decide which mindset to apply to a company, whether that be a “Rulebreaker” or “Value” mindset or a some other way to categorize a company mindset.

That same thing applies with the “Rule of 40%”…whenever I see the word “Rule”, I always remember there are exceptions to the “Rule” and the best investors learn to determine which distinctions make a “Rule” applicable or not, instead of following a rule blindly.

Starrob

22 Likes

What I think is strange about the 40% rule, is you are adding a change in Revenue (growth rate) to cash flow % of revenue (sometimes operating income % of revenue), a set ratio. It’s like adding apples to oranges.

I think it’s more useful to add the revenue growth rate to the CHANGE in cash flow (or operating income) % of revenue. Here you are adding apples to apples, both rates of change.

Adding two growth rates might be what you want. But adding current income return to the growth rate has a theoretical basis. The dividend discount model (DDM) adds growth rate and current income, and the Rule of 40 is similar in that it adds a growth rate to current income return.

“The DDM equation can also be understood to state simply that a stock’s total return equals the sum of its income and capital gains.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_discount_model#Income…

1 Like