Nutanix story

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nutanix-envisions-what-it-…

Nutanix shares have not taken off at these levels since just after its IPO last year.

Longer term, though, the move should help change investors’ impressions of Nutanix, which Andrews said was seen more as a lower-margin hardware stock “rather than a next-generation data-center operating systems company.”

reinventing yourself is not easy. Either occupation wise or company wise.

This is more like an IBM (computers to consulting) than a Nokia(rubber boots to phones) but is fraught with problems.

2 Likes

reinventing yourself is not easy. Either occupation wise or company wise.

Hey Mauser:

Not sure if you had a chance to read this Bert Hochfield NTNX article from yesterday:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4129464-nutanix-rather-comp…

I think it corroborates what we have been saying at the NPI with our extensive posting on this planned transition.

IMO, the move to software predominate business model is not really a substantial change for the customer. As you may recall, NTNX has been loading their software on various servers from HP to DELL and the little known hardware vendors. So they were already hardware agnostic.

This is a nice contrast with VMWare that is exclusive to DELL only.

The real change is more from an investor perspective and how a software company should be valued.

However, the Saas model may be a new strategy and perhaps that may be more of a transition uncertainty from the customer perspective and one to watch closely.

But for sure, as argued in that article, their margins will dramatically improve, they are differentiated a bit further from the hardware lockin of a VMWare and should eventually achieve valuations more akin to software companies (having jettisoned the hardware part of their business).

As an aside and purely from a speculation perspective with NO information to support this, I would also think this may make them more attractive to an acquirer like GOOG, CSCO or other. They are completely free to roam…hope it doesn’t happen anytime soon but we shall see.

As another aside, I thought Saul made a wise strategic decision to buy more NTNX yesterday compared to all other options in his portfolio. It is up only 25% YTD (far lower than most his other stocks) and if this transition to software is successful (as it likely will be), NTNX should be undervalued at this level (that values it substantially as a hardware company).

www.stockta.com/cgi-bin/analysis.pl?symb=NTNX&cobrand=&a…

From a short term trading perspective, the “safest” time to buy would be on the retrace to that breakout which puts it around $30 and change.

Lastly, as you know from the NPI, I have argued that NTNX does NOT have to win this game against VMWare…even if they live a commensal relationship, both will eat well and grow business nicely since the overall market growth is so robust.

There are certainly issues with NTNX, but this move to software isn’t one of them IMO.

See you back at the NPI…

5 Likes

even if they live a commensal relationship

Not trying to be smart here, but just looking for clarification. Commensal would assume that one of the companies is feeding off of the other (generally larger) where the larger is unaffected but the commensal gains.

I think you were describing mutualism where both companies benefit. Is that correct or were you inferring that one would be attaching itself to the other?

Thanks,
A.J.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but making sure I understand the point…

1 Like

Commensal would assume that one of the companies is feeding off of the other (generally larger) where the larger is unaffected but the commensal gains.

Thanks AJ:

I was actually referring to commensal since, at least according to that Bert article and the other research we have done on the NPI, NTNX is taking from VMWare and yet VMWare is Still growing its revenues as reported in their last earnings of 11% growth.

VMWare is obviously bigger and doing more legacy work but I see your point as well that one could argue they are also mutualistic in that they both benefit from the existence of the expanding market that each is promoting…however, I am not seeing how either necessary needs to the other to survive.

But yes of course, perhaps my choice of words was imprecise.

1 Like

I was actually referring to commensal since, at least according to that Bert article and the other research we have done on the NPI, NTNX is taking from VMWare and yet VMWare is Still growing its revenues as reported in their last earnings of 11% growth.

Strange use of the word in English. I Spanish “comenal” means only someone who eats at the same table with someone else. In plural it means people who share a table or more broadly people who come to eat.

Denny Schlesinger

Sounds like we are on the same page, Duma.

To take the biological analogy a bit further, these companies simply seem to be true competitors feasting on the same bounty. It is just the bounty is large enough and growing to where they can both be viable. So it really isn’t mutualistic or commensal or symbiotic…just true competitors at the same level of the food chain.

Switching back to a more real analogy, NTNX is to VMware as ANET is to CSCO. In order for that analogy to work we need to forget fundamentals for the time being. The big flaw in that analogy is profitability while taking market share. ANET has been far superior in that regard.

However, from a pure market share perspective, the analogy seems right. NTNX has been outpacing the market and outpacing its primary competitor.

Regards,
A.J.

3 Likes

NTNX has been outpacing the market and outpacing its primary competitor.
To say the least - By about 4x!
A

4 Likes

IMO, the move to software predominate business model is not really a substantial change for the customer
good point because most people do not like to change. It may be genetically built in because cats and dogs seem to like old habits best. Especially cats who tend to freak out in a new home.

Did anyone discuss why NTNX changed their Oct16 quarter numbers? Acquisition?

I just noticed originally revenue was reported as 167M, but now it’s 189M. That makes the growth to 276M in Oct17 look like only 46% instead of 65%.

Just looking for clarification.

Bear

2 Likes

Did anyone discuss why NTNX changed their Oct 16 quarter numbers?

Hi Bear, I can’t remember exactly but I’m pretty sure they explained that, like everyone else, they were instituting the new GAAP rules for recognizing subscription revenue (or something like that) in 2017, and so they were recalculating the revenue numbers for 2016 as well, in order to give comparable results.

If anyone wants to correct me on the details, please go ahead.

Saul

Hi Bear, I can’t remember exactly but I’m pretty sure they explained that, like everyone else, they were instituting the new GAAP rules for recognizing subscription revenue (or something like that) in 2017, and so they were recalculating the revenue numbers for 2016 as well, in order to give comparable results.

Thanks Saul. I figured it was something like that. My concerns are similar to Jimbo’s, then: http://discussion.fool.com/i-sold-my-ntnx-after-the-last-earning…

Especially:

- Gross margin on this latest quarter, 61.9% vs 65.4% last year. With more software sales, and less hardware, ins’t the gross margin suppose to be better? [except I calcuated 60.5% and 63.0% respectively - Bear]

-last 5 quarters revenue growth:
90.1%
77.4%
67.2%
61.7%
46.2%

dropping fast

-selling less hardware will slow the revenue growth even quicker

I think those are some good points. I too have had trouble saying “hell yes” to NTNX. I’ve been dead wrong so far, of course.

Bear

2 Likes

Hi-

Saul, you are right on, the revenue revision was because of the new accounting rules. I think some of the deferred revenue is now recognized.

Bear, I had 60.5 last quarter vs 63 for the gaap gross margin also. My numbers of 61.9 last quarter vs 65.4 was for non-gaap gross margin. Kind of strange they have a non-gaap gross margin, but I’m guessing they issued options to some technical folks that do some of the service work.

Thanks,
Jimbo

Nutanix is a software company that is practically in a duopoly. That is an exceptional position to be in. VMWare and Nutanix and everyone else just an after thought. Switching costs high, risk is VMWare taking marketshare from Nutanix, or like Microsoft vs. Apple or SAP vs. Oracle or something, customers tend to focus on one enabling software platform.

So CAP is possibly exceptional.

What I dislike about Nutanix is (1) they seem to lack pricing power, (2) they are changing their business model to software only after only a quarter or two ago stating that hardware would be in the picture into the future because that is what clients want, (3) the company is too much of a promotion machine, (4) their future is based on products that are hardly rolled out as of yet, and (5) their primary application of these new products is a system back up program. Sure, it may be the best system back-up program on the market, but is hardly revolutionary. Thus the cloud integration software is currently being overhyped as to what it can do.

So despite its exceptional possible duopoly position, it remains to be seen if they can monetize it to the point that they can reach a position where they can begin and sustainably print money like VMWWare does, or Arista does.

I note VMWare is also quite the PR machine. It goes to the fact that this marketplace is more competitive than what Arista is facing. Arista spends nothing on marketing and you hardly hear from them until earnings, and yet they keep taking marketshare. Thus the marketplace Nutanix is in is much more competitive than what Arista has.

Long and short, if it were not for most of my money being in a cash account (if it were all in a tax deferred account like a SEP) I would have sold out and most likely bought a lot of NTNX back in the low $20s. However, with high taxation a very material part of what I need to deal with investing wise, it simply was not worthwhile to sell out what I already own, pay the taxes now, and buy Nutanix despite profits it might create short-term.

This is because not only the taxes, but I do not believe it is a better long-term holding than say Arista or Nvidia on a risk/reward basis. It certainly is/was a timely stock based upon its prior valuation that was not too difficult to ascertain.

As such I have a hard time buying anything that does not exceed my confidence in what I already hold because I need to hold things that I will not want to sell for many years if things work out. I am not comfortable with Nutanix in that category as of now, at least not on a risk/reward basis, nor on a CAP basis given its marketplace is clearly more competitive when you look at the marketing spend, its PR campaigns, its change in business model that was more of an all of a sudden thing, hyping up the change in accounting methodology that increases earnings as if that was a material thing (it was not, merely a change in GAAP rules, nothing changed in the business), and the fact that there is no proof that Nutanix can monetize its current products that have the highest customer satisfaction rating I have ever seen (and Burt has ever seen), much less its new products that have hardly rolled out to market and that are the future of the company. To add to this, VMWare has Amazon AWS as its partner, Nutanix, Google and perhaps IBM, AWS is far larger. Meaning, VMWare may have a further competitive advantage relative to Nutanix as it is a preferred AWS partner.

My spiel on it, and it is based largely on how I perceive because of the tax issues surrounding my investments that materially impact my ability to trade in and out, and based on my relative impression of the stocks I currently owe within these tax restrictions.

Others, without these factors may find Nutanix a better investment.

For me, if I was looking to own 5 to 10 stocks, I would certainly make Nutanix one that I owned but stay on top of the competitive environment closely.

Tinker

25 Likes

For me, if I was looking to own 5 to 10 stocks, I would certainly make Nutanix one that I owned but stay on top of the competitive environment closely.

Thanks Tinker, that’s a pretty good recommendation for the other 99.9% of us who do have 5 stocks or more. I don’t know how you have the guts to just carry one or two positions. It would scare the heck out of me.
Saul

1 Like

<<<I don’t know how you have the guts to just carry one or two positions. It would scare the heck out of me.>>>

You should see the rest of my life ;).

Holding SHOP at 50% of my port was actually not as scary as it seemed. On or around the time I invested in SHOP one of its peer companies, with slower sales growth and lower levels of sales with a platform that was lessor than SHOP was acquired for a price that was only slightly more (or less) I forget to the then valuation for SHOP, which was clearly the more valuable company. Thus there was a floor. So risk reduction.

I actually think I am “conservatively aggressive”. I do take calculated risks, but more in the entrepreneurial sense, where the risk/reward ratio is actually much better than people perceive it to be at the time. SHOP is a great example of this.

I also am over confident (as people will tell me), but doing something like this requires special circumstances, legitimate and real confidence in the long-term fundamentals and valuation on a market cap, enterprise valuation compared to its SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market), and finally not investing in “vision” but on real world evidence, with real world business, and not in some euphoric feeling in the future vision of a company that can be a lottery pick.

Currently I am just too busy and exhausted to stay on top of the market like I was back when I got back in the market in 2016, thus I just keep adding to what I currently hold (that were carefully selected in similar fashion as SHOP was) and just following the Foolish credo of long-term investing. I modify that (such as you do) because there is a time to sell. My time to sell is real and material disruptive innovation (like how mobile hurt Microsoft), end of rapid growth period in the company (almost always even the best stocks will take a dive once the prime of their growth period is over), or some other irresistible investment comes along and tax wise I am at least on long-term capital gains (meaning at least one year holding period) that I have to buy and I want it much more than I want what I hold (which is what happened with me a few weeks ago with SHOP). Appears that this turned out to be fortuitous timing.

What happens is that for the rest of my port I try on new stocks, like Twilio, because you cannot really know a stock unless you actually hold it, and generally make or lose a little while I try it on, while what I really want would have worked out much better. So when I find something I am comfortable holding for at least a year, it is tough for me to go back to trying things on.

As an example, I remember when I held only QCOM and ARMHY. Both crashed to ridiculous levels when I bought them, and I knew each company intimately. Both were clearly singular Gorilla like stocks. They both tripled in three years. The valuation vs. fundamentals were so low that although it seemed risky, it really was less risky than holding more stocks.

Now a stupid thing would be holding a biotech with that large a part of your portfolio, or a stock with less certain prospects. That is just being greedy and buying a lottery ticket. But sometimes you just find things that you have to have and there is real reason to understand that it is less risky than holding the market.

My reasoning anyways. Yes, like art (and great artists need great technical skills as well) it is part art and part science. Fro the most part I believe your portfolio strategy, or the Fools RB or Stock Advisor service portfolio strategy is the best way for most investors. Face it Saul and the Gardners have both kicked the markets butt with strategies that traditional portfolio managers find “risky” (and it is for the average person on the street), but is not for those who take the time to understand how investing works and stay the course, persevere, and keep a clear head.

What I found, is that despite great returns, that had I just bought and held great companies at great opportune times, and then only sold with the above rules, that my returns would have been the same or greater with far less effort and risk. The hard part is ignoring things as new investing opportunities constantly come up, and you have to pay attention to keep track of things, but only say YES when it is something you just have to say yes to.

Tinker

19 Likes

Switching costs high

can you elaborate on this?

<<<Switching costs high

can you elaborate on this?>>>

The core benefit of Nutanix software is that it creates software defined networking in the data center for enterprises. It enables the entire data center (at least those loaded with Nutanix software) to be controlled from one central PC, and adjusted, and all the relevant information managed therein.

For example, this enables each new server to be plug and played when you add hardware. It reduces the number of people needed per server, and you can imagine the efficiencies gained by having a product like this.

The product also enables seamless integration between cloud services and data enterprise so they become one and the same.

Since this software is basically an operating system for the entire data center, if you want to switch it out to another, you certainly can do this. In fact, Nutanix’s software itself enables this. As with Nutanix you can quickly and easily deploy software. So Nutanix enables its own replacement, if you wanted to replace it.

The only real option to Nutanix that is roughly equivalent is VMWare. There are reasons why some prefer VMWare and reasons why some prefer Nutanix, but between the two of them there are no other products with the features set, stability, support et al.

HP bought out the next largest competitor to Nutanix, and they have had little luck selling it. Cisco has nare an offering, etc.

That is why there are high switching costs, as you will be replacing the software that manages the entire data center (although it appears to me that most enterprise data centers are only partially running Nutanix or VMWare at this time. But that portion will probably grow to 100% as confidence builds in the product).

And if a customer did switch (from the highest rated product ever rated on customer satisfaction - that I can find anyways) it has really only one option, and that is VMWare. Further, Nutanix is hardware agnostic, but VMWare not so much. You buy it on EMC servers, or on DELL servers (and DELL also sells Nutanix). In fact Dell so much likes Nutanix that they appear at Nutanix events raving about Nutanix. Basically DELL is the one agnostic player in the industry that just wants to sell hardware, even though they own VMWare and EMC.

Given this, however, what concerns me is lack of cash flow and such heavy marketing and sales expensive for a product that should sell itself. That is inconsistent with the analysis. I think it more likely that I do not fully understand the Nutanix market than this indicates a weakness in Nutanix business, but I do find it incongruent.

Tinker

13 Likes

so NTNX is not a monopoly but part of a duopoly. I prefer the former but Coke and Pepsi , MasterCard and Visa have done well enough as duopolies.
heavy marketing and sales expensive for a product that should sell itself
duopolies usually don’t work that way, Coke and Pepsi had spend lot on advertising and promotions. GM and Ford on pick up trucks, BMW and MB on pricy German cars, etc.

<<<duopolies usually don’t work that way, Coke and Pepsi had spend lot on advertising and promotions. GM and Ford on pick up trucks, BMW and MB on pricy German cars, etc.>>.

My point was that with a product that has a 94 rating in satisfaction (by far the highest I have ever seen), and in the context of Arista (that has spoiled me, who spends less than 10% of sales on marketing) Nutanix is spending 100% of its gross profits on sales and marketing.

There is the land and expand strategy at work here. As previously discussed there are switching costs and companies tend to support one enabling software platform. So, if Microsoft were started today it would very well be worthwhile to spend 100% of gross margins on marketing to establish a dominant market share to enable the network effect.

With Nutanix, they are doing this to become embedded in each customer’s data center and then be there for decades to come. So one can understand this.

I am just spoiled because of Arista. Perhaps Arista has such low marketing costs because its largest customers are a few could titans and not enterprise customers. Arista’s marketing spend will increase going forward as they move into the enterprise and service provider markets, but nothing close to Nutanix.

Ah, who knows. That is why I don’t own Nutanix, but if I was more diversified I would own it despite my overthinking the issue.

Tinker

4 Likes

The core benefit of Nutanix software is that it creates software defined networking in the data center for enterprises.

OK. I lost you right off the bat. I thought Nutanix is a converged system. Are you suggesting it is a software that allows to create SDN’s?

or are you meant to say software defined infrastructure?