PVTL deeper dive or earnings

There has been a lot of good discussion on PVTL. Overall the reaction has been mostly negative with some positive perspective thrown in. I tend to agree that the earnings release was more negative than expected and certainly worse in comparison with Q1 earnings. In this post, I’ll take a deeper dive. First let’s focus on the most important aspect, which is revenue and revenue growth. This will be a longer section, as we will dive into the wonderful world of deferred revenue and RPO. I’m posting the updated table again that I borrowed from Saul and updated for Q2:

Total Revenue (in millions of dollars)

        Apr            Jul            Oct            Jan            Total
2017:   88             105            110            113            416
2018:   121            126            129            133            509
2019:   156            164                                         650 guidance

Subscription Revenue (in millions of dollars)

        Apr           Jul          Oct            Jan            Total
2017:   29            36            38             47            150
2018:   53            65            66             75            259
2019:   90            98                                         388 guidance

Service Revenue (in millions of dollars)

        Apr           Jul          Oct            Jan            Total
2017:   59            70            72             65            266
2018:   68            61            63             58            250
2019:   66            67                                         262 guidance

Percent Increase in Subscription  Revenue 

        Apr           Jul          Oct            Jan            Total
2018:   83            82            74             58            73%
2019:   69            51

Total revenue came in at $164.4 million, up 30% yoy. This compares to their guidance of $157 to $159 million and the analyst estimate of $158.2 million. Subscription revenue was $97.5 million, an increase of 51% yoy. This compares to guidance of $92 to $93 million. Great to see them beat revenue guidance, but for me the big disappointment is that subscription revenue decelerated from 69% growth in Q1 to only 51% growth. If you look at the trend in subscription growth above, the Q1 69% growth seems to be an outlier in the overall pattern. One reason I was so bullish on the company after Q1 is that it looked like subscription growth was starting to accelerate. Unfortunately, we are back to decelerating subscription growth. Overall revenue did accelerate from Q1 growth of 28% to Q2 growth of 30%. The reason that overall revenue growth is increasing is due to the subscription revenue being a higher % of total revenue at 59% (compared to 58% at Q1 and 51% last year). I think overall revenue growth will continue to increase as subscription revenue continues to grow as a total percentage of revenue.

Now let’s look at deferred revenue to get a better sense of how much of the Q2 revenue was made up of previous deferred revenue being recognized vs new revenue that was never deferred. From the 10Q:

During the three months ended August 3, 2018 and August 4, 2017 we recognized revenue of $104.8 million and $62.9 million, respectively, and during the six months ended August 3, 2018 and August 4, 2017 we recognized revenue of $176.5 million and $122.3 million, respectively, which was included in the corresponding deferred revenue balance at the beginning of the reporting periods presented.

So out of the Q2 revenue of $164.4M, $104.8M was previously billed and $59.6M (made up of both subscription and service revenue) was new. For the Q1 revenue of $155.7M, $71.7M was previously billed and $84.0M was new. This is concerning, but only gives us partial view of new revenue as other new revenue (not previously deferred) is deferred and will be recognized in future quarters.

Now let’s look at the deferred revenue on the balance sheet. The current deferred revenue is $244.7M and noncurrent (to be recognized in more than 12 months) is $61.8M. This compares to $260.3M current and $57.1M noncurrent in the prior year. Looking at Q1, current deferred revenue was$260.1M and $77.0M noncurrent deferred revenue. The expectations for deferred revenue for Q3 was actually addressed on the call. This is from the CFO:

In Q1, start dates and prepayments worked in our favor, while in Q2, we did not experience the same level of favorability. Looking ahead to Q3, we expect short term and total deferred revenue to be flat to slightly down compared to Q2, in line with historical seasonality.

Now let’s look at the dreaded RPO. This was discussed quite a bit on the call, but it’s important to understand what it is. Here’s the CFO describing what is it from the call:

Now turning to RPO or Remaining Performance Obligations - an indicator of our future revenue streams. RPO provides a comprehensive view and visibility, as it represents the estimated value of our billed and unbilled subscriptions and services, on and off the balance sheet. We finished the quarter with $790 million of RPO and we expect approximately 50% of these obligations to be realized in the next twelve months.

Now let’s look at the 10Q cover the RPO:

The typical contract term for subscription contracts is one to three years, while the contract term for professional services is generally less than twelve months. Our contracts are non-cancelable over the contractual term. As of August 3, 2018, the aggregate amount of the transaction price allocated to billed and unbilled remaining performance obligations for subscriptions and services for which revenue has not yet been recognized was approximately $790 million. We expect to recognize approximately 50% of the transaction price as subscription or services revenue over the next 12 months and the remainder thereafter. As of February 2, 2018, the aggregate amount of the transaction price allocated to billed and unbilled remaining performance obligations for subscriptions and services for which revenue had not yet been recognized was approximately $820 million.

Here’s more on contract billings:

We receive payments from customers based upon contractual billing schedules; accounts receivable are recorded when the right to consideration becomes unconditional. We generally bill our customers annually in advance, although for our multi-year contracts, some customers prefer to pay the full multi-year contract amount in advance.

RPO represents contracted future revenue that has not yet been recognized. This is mostly made up of longer-term contracts, which can be up to 3 years. The RPO that has been billed would equal the deferred revenue on the balance sheet and the amounts unbilled is the remaining part. Since the contracts are typically billed a year in advance, a large chunk shows up in current liabilities ($244.7M). Also knowing that subscriptions contracts are 1-3 years while service contracts are generally less than 12 months, it tells you that the majority of the RPO is related to subscription revenue (probably almost all of the 50% or $395M, which they will not recognize over the next 12 months. Based on the call it sounds like RPO peaks in Q4. See quote here:

we expect our RPO will be variable quarter-to-quarter and it will peak in Q4 just given the dynamic and the seasonality around Q4 and then the relative – relative to subsequent quarters Q1 to Q3 of the following year we would expect RPO to be slightly up to slightly down and so when you look at Q2 it performed in line with this

One explanation for this seasonality would be if they do most of the annual billing in Q4, and the revenue then gets recognized over the following quarters. It’s difficult to know since management won’t disclose what the RPO was last year. Although there is confusion about RPO and it may not be a good indicator, it is certainly a negative that it has been decreasing from $820M at Q4 to $800M to Q1 and now $790M at Q2. We may not be able to gather much information from the RPO, but the current deferred revenue being lower than both prior quarter and prior year cannot be explained away by timing and is certainly a negative.

The expansion rate is also slowing down from 156% at Q1 to 150% at Q2. They define it as follows:

Pivotal’s dollar-based net expansion rate compares its subscription revenue from a common group of customers across comparable periods. Pivotal calculates its dollar-based net expansion rate for all periods on a trailing four-quarter basis.

Since this is a 12 month calculation, Q2 must have been pretty bad to take it down from 156 to 150 as the quarter only had 25% impact on the calculation. It means that the comparison in Q2 last year to Q2 this year, this year was much lower to bring the annual rate down that much. For Q4 the rate was 158 going down slightly to 156 at Q1, but now the drop is accelerating with it now at 150.

As Ford and GE have investments in PVTL, it shows their spend on PVTL software/services in the 10Q as follows:

Revenue recognized from sales of subscriptions and services to General Electric Company was $2.9 million and $2.6 million for the three months ended August 3, 2018 and August 4, 2017, respectively, and was $5.9 million and $5.6 million for the six months ended August 3, 2018 and August 4, 2017, respectively.

Revenue recognized from sales of subscriptions and services to Ford Motor Company was $3.3 million and $12.2 million for the three months ended August 3, 2018 and August 4, 2017, respectively, and was $6.9 million and $23.0 million for the six months ended August 3, 2018 and August 4, 2017, respectively.

Ford and GE are both more mature customers, so it is interesting to note that GE related revenue increased only 11.5% and Ford related revenue declined 73%. Together their revenue represents 3.7% of total revenue and may not be representative of typical customers especially as both Ford and GE have been struggling.

Now, it’s certainly not all negative. Customers do seem to love the product. Here’s Rob Mee during the call:

We’ve done a deep dive with a cohort of our largest customers, and, on average, they release new software over 60% faster, are able to spend 35% more time writing code, and spend 90% less time provisioning new environments.

Time spent on common operational tasks, like operating system patching, is also reduced by over 90%. And, by reducing the OS patching burden, we found that these clients are much more likely to quickly apply security remediations.

During Q2, we added 15 new customers, including PepsiCo and Autozone, among others in the federal, supply chain management, medical equipment, office supply, and telecom sectors. We continue to have a leading customer net expansion rate of 150% as existing customers grow their usage of PCF, including companies such as Vanguard and TD Ameritrade.

That is a total of 35 customer additions, which is a nice increase from 44 during all of last year. Although it would have been nice to see them better their Q1 additions of 20. Also, adding 19% customers is not overly impressive for a high growth software company. They will need to add customers more quickly as their retention rate continues to slow.

Here’s more discussion on the customer additions:

So I think we are seeing traction, as we talked about on the Q1 call, last year was an expansion year. We wanted to make sure that our strategic customers in their kind of first or second big expansion were successful on the platform and expanded their footprint. We have the right sales structure in place and incentive structure for the field to start the flywheel or keep the flywheel going on new logos. You have to remember though on the customer count we use a very conservative definition, its revenue in quarter, and so it’s not a bookings or booking type of metric, it’s revenue metric. And so, we’re feeling very good about the number of new customers and new logos.

Also, here’s Rob talking about sales on the call:

On the sales and marketing front, we are investing to address strong and growing customer demand. We continue to expand our direct sales capacity and are focusing on field enablement and enhancing our technical sales talent.

Furthermore, our strategic partnerships with Dell Technologies and VMware complement our direct sales force. We work with both companies to market and sell our products and services through their direct and channel sales organizations. We are encouraged by the early traction we are seeing with PKS in our customer pipeline.

Dell, through vxRail, offers Pivotal Ready Architecture, a hyper-converged system built ready for PCF, which is attracting significant interest from customers building new private clouds.

Global systems integrator, HCL extended its partnership with Pivotal to build a global network of ‘Cloud Native Labs’ where enterprises will be able to build new applications as well as modernize existing applications for deployment to PCF. HCL lab advocates will be trained by Pivotal across these products and methodologies.

Here’s more about how they can continue to grow:

We are definitely seeing a lot of uptake in our pipeline for PKS and a lot of our existing customers jumping on the PKS quite quickly and in fact now getting into production which and its first year of delivery we’ve seen some pretty fast uptake. And as we continue to expand the abstractions that we support on the platform not just containers but soon to come function with PFS, we see that we’re going to attract not just additional workloads from existing customers, but new customers coming on who are attracted by those particular abstractions. We’re starting to see a lot of customers coming in wanting to buy PKS, wanting an enterprise Kubernetes solution and we’re seeing some momentum now coming from the VMware partnership and the pipeline there as well. So I think in term of new logos we’re going to see continued improvement.

I will say that definitely in term of the potential to expand the ecosystem because the Kubernetes ecosystem and the third-party services, data services, for example, are growing very rapidly. PKS expands our ecosystem quite a bit, but I think that’s going to be very helpful going forward.

I do like that PVTL is now very much cash flow positive and has improving margins. Operating cash flow was positive $18.4M compared to negative $56.5M last year and positive $4.5M last quarter. Here’s more on the margins from the call:

Our subscription gross margin was 93%. We expect subscription gross margin to remain in the low 90% range.

Services gross margin was 27%. We expect continued quarterly variability in services gross margin due to the timing of engagements and project seasonality.

Total gross margin improved 8 points year over year to 66% in Q2, primarily driven by the strong subscription revenue growth and the continuing shift of our revenue mix towards subscription.

Now let’s look at other costs. Sales and marketing expenses were $64 million or 39% of total revenue. This was a decrease from Q1 of $64.6 million. R&D expense was $41.6 million, or 25% of total revenue. This is exactly flat from Q1. G&A was $17.3 million, or 11% of total revenue. This is up from $14.2M in Q1. Keeping the expense growth minimal is great given the 30% increase in total revenue.

Let’s look again at valuation. At the current price of 20.21, the market cap is 5.22B minus 672M in cash gets you EV of $4.5B and with forecasted sales of $650M, you have an EV/sales of 6.86. This is certainly much cheaper than many of the software names we discuss with several over 20. Now if we ignore the service revenue and just use the forecasted subscription revenue of $390M, you now have an EV/sales of 11.7. That is not a bad valuation for subscription business growing at 51%. The question is, will they be able to maintain this growth. At 69% growth, this was a no brainer, but now with such deceleration, I am not so sure.

My thesis for investing in PVTL was that their subscription business is growing very quickly at very high margins. As this continues to grow quickly, overall revenue growth and margins improve. This was definitely the case after Q1 with subscription revenue growing at 69% with 92% margins and a 156 expansion rate. This did play out in Q2 with both total revenue growth accelerating from 28% in Q1 to 30% in Q2 and big improvement in margins. However, given the much lower valuation and the very high margin of the software revenue while keeping other expenses in check, this may be a good value if subscription revenue growth can be maintained at around 50%. I did sell some of my stake but am keeping the remainder as the current price of around 20 is just too cheap.

61 Likes

Great analysis wouter!

The tid bit on Ford / GE is VERY interesting. Will need to monitor this every quarter going forward. Not sure how to interpret… can be either:

(1) cause for concern / a sign that other large customers could have similar drops in the future

OR

(2) cause for excitement as they maintained these growth rates and dollar-based net expansion rate even with one of their largest customers being down -$9M Y/Y in Q2; if Ford was flat Y/Y that would add 8pts of growth to overall revenue. I assume the drop would be primarily in Services revenue as subscription revenue should be much more stable, but we have no idea. It would be awesome if they would break this out subscription vs services so we could calculate an adjusted subscription revenue growth rate.

Thanks for sharing.

Erik

2 Likes

Wouter,

Somewhere in the PVTL discussions, I recall reading that the initial Cohort of PVTL customers made up the majority of upsells.

Have you ran across anything related to this?

Just a FOol

That’s a great point Erik. Ford reduced their PVTL spend from $12M last year to $3M this year likely due to their own financial struggles. If Ford had kept their PVTL spend flat (assuming this is mostly subscription revenue), subscription growth would have been 65% growth instead of 51% and overall revenue growth would have been 37% instead of 30%. If that was the growth reported, the stock would have popped instead of this big decline. It does give PVTL hope though as most companies are doing well so this should be more of a one-off and not representative of overall growth. Just for fun, I updated the numbers to show what the revenue would have been assuming Ford’s spending was flat from last year and that this lost revenue was subscription revenue:

Total Revenue (in millions of dollars)

        Apr            Jul            Oct            Jan            Total
2017:   88            105            110            113            416
2018:  121            126            129            133            509
2019:  156            173     

Subscription Revenue (in millions of dollars)

        Apr          Jul            Oct            Jan            Total
2017:   29            36            38             47            150
2018:   53            65            66             75            259
2019:   90           107                                           388 guidance

Service Revenue (in millions of dollars)

        Apr          Jul            Oct            Jan            Total
2017:   59            70            72             65            266
2018:   68            61            63             58            250
2019:   66            67                                           262 guidance

Percent Increase in Subscription  Revenue 

        Apr          Jul           Oct            Jan            Total
2018:   83            82            74             58            73%
2019:   69            65

@JAFbrblev, I think that might be referring to the chart on the right side of slide 24 of the earnings presentation (https://investors.pivotal.io/events/presentations/default.as…). It’s tough to read and I’m not sure how accurate it is, so I would not interpret too much from it.

@Matt, there is definitely reason to be bullish given the lowered expectations. If the Ford impact was excluded, Q2 would have been an outstanding performance.

5 Likes

For the sake of those who are clinging to their PVTL shares, I just wanted to point out the danger in this thinking, and then as Saul said it is time to move on. http://discussion.fool.com/brittlerock-and-i-agree-on-something-…

That’s a great point Erik. Ford reduced their PVTL spend from $12M last year to $3M this year likely due to their own financial struggles. If Ford had kept their PVTL spend flat (assuming this is mostly subscription revenue), subscription growth would have been 65% growth instead of 51% and overall revenue growth would have been 37% instead of 30%. If that was the growth reported, the stock would have popped instead of this big decline. It does give PVTL hope though as most companies are doing well so this should be more of a one-off and not representative of overall growth.

Rather than give one any comfort about Pivotal, this should be the nail in the coffin. It is proof positive that Pivotal is extremely customer concentrated. Let’s say those 15 new customers spend not 50k but 10 times that – a whole $500k each this year. That would be 15 of their largest customers (of the 354 customers large enough to count). That’s 7.5m of new revenue. You’re saying that Ford reduced it’s spending more than that this QUARTER.

As Epictetus pointed out months ago, Pivotal is driven entirely by probably 20 or 30 or 40 existing customers. New customers below $50,000 (which they don’t even count as customers) matter none. New customers at $50,000 matter none. New customers 10 times larger matter none.

Literally the only customers that matter are the customers like Ford and Citi who spend many millions with Pivotal every year. That is a huge problem, because:

  1. Spending from these customers will eventually top out, or even decline like Ford did, whether temporarily or not
  2. It is very hard to find new customers that are large enough to matter. Many or all of the new 15, as low as that number is anyway, even matter at all.

Caveat emptor.

Bear

23 Likes

Literally the only customers that matter are the customers like Ford and Citi who spend many millions with Pivotal every year. That is a huge problem, because:
1) Spending from these customers will eventually top out, or even decline like Ford did, whether temporarily or not
2) It is very hard to find new customers that are large enough to matter. Many or all of the new 15, as low as that number is anyway, even matter at all.

To be fair this is B2B. It’s way less concentrated than semiconductor supply chains. This board has embraced other players with way more concentration e.g. Twilio and Ambarella.

Most MNCs have the ability to spend above 50k so the world is still Pivotal’s oyster. Right now they are starting with mega enterprises and frankly that’s where cloud foundry is at. If you want more distributed models look at Red Hat, ServiceNow, Zen Desk, Cloudera and Box.com. Any of those companies would kill to have Ford, Citi and DOD on their books.

Cloud foundry (PAAS) is several orders of magnitude larger in scale than Services (SAAS). If you don’t like that then stick to SAAS and Salesforce.com etc. There’s a reason IAAS, PAAS and SAAS are different and I don’t think Pivotal is being treated fairly in this respect.

A

5 Likes

Right now they are starting with mega enterprises and frankly that’s where cloud foundry is at.

Ant, a personal anecdote but relevant. When we set up our management consulting business the first thing we did was a marketing plan. We divided the market into government, multinationals, and local (Venezuelan) business. I think there was a fourth group but I don’t remember. We discarted government and multinationals. We set out to discover the largest local business groups and started our attack from the top down based on the idea that if we were good enough for them we were good enough for the whole market. After our initial successes our advertising campaign was based on name dropping, “Join the Happy Family of G&S Clients.” It worked beautifully!

We like to say that one slays the snake by the head. :wink:

BTW, snakes eat snakes head first! LOL

https://www.google.com/search?q=snakes+eat+snakes+head+first…

Denny Schlesinger

2 Likes

a partial list of Pivotal customers shows that many are far smaller than Ford and Citi
https://pivotal.io/customers
They go down in size to organizations like Core Logic and Sundance Institute.

2 Likes

The Ford and GE insight is interesting…

I am not sure if the Ford reduction is justified on Ford’s not doing well… there has to be something else.

FWIW - I had email exchange with Bert - Bert’s opinion is that Pivotal is “the leader / the best” (something to that effect) in DevOps and thats why he thinks revenue growth deceleration of last few quarters will not continue… in other words, he believe growth will sustain at current levels for a while.

I sold out of Pivotal assuming its dead money at-least for a quarter… and its cheap enough that i can get back in even at some level higher than current, if I see proof of revenue growth maintaining next quarter.

6 Likes

“Bert’s opinion is that Pivotal is “the leader / the best” (something to that effect) in DevOps”

Bert is definitely not correct. One good tool for seeing if someone is BSing you is Google Trends. Here is a comparison between Kubernetes, OpenShift, and Cloud Foundry over the past 5 years: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&am… and you can judge if it’s a leader.

I don’t see how it’s possible to explain simply how those are all similar and different, but here’s a reasonable discussion of the nuance between Kubernetes and Cloud Foundry if anyone has issue with the comparison: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32047563/kubernetes-vs-c…

It always seemed to me that Pivotal was a SDLC/Agile consultant shop that leveraged Cloud Foundry and Spring projects, neither of which it controls and both of which are Apache licensed (and if you investing this and you haven’t read the Apache 2.0 license, you should read it.

10 Likes

Thanks AJM… useful insight.

I am not sure if google trends mean anything…
I am also not techie enough to try to learn these nuances… for me, as Saul puts it so graciously, this one is “too hard to figure out”

Will keep an eye on for next quarter or two and then decide if its worth getting back, but for now, have better places for my money!

1 Like

Bert is definitely not correct. One good tool for seeing if someone is BSing you is Google Trends. Here is a comparison between Kubernetes, OpenShift, and Cloud Foundry over the past 5 years: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&am… and you can judge if it’s a leader.

What Google Trends shows is how often something is searched for. That needs not translate into quality or dollars spent on it. A lot of software is open source so popularity does not necessarily translate into revenue. Where I do see a correlation is that Cloud Foundry is a product for the bigger enterprises.

here’s a reasonable discussion of the nuance between Kubernetes and Cloud Foundry if anyone has issue with the comparison: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32047563/kubernetes-vs-c…

What that discussion tells me is that these products are so bloody complicated that they should not be in my portfolio. That’s useful information!

Denny Schlesinger

6 Likes

Bert’s opinion is that Pivotal is “the leader / the best” (something to that effect) in DevOps"

Bert is definitely not correct. One good tool for seeing if someone is BSing you is Google Trends. Here is a comparison between Kubernetes, OpenShift, and Cloud Foundry over the past 5 years: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&am…… and you can judge if it’s a leader.

AJM:

I don’t subscribe to Bert so not sure exactly what he said, but he may not referencing Cloud Foundry but rather the Pivitol Application Service as regards its leadership:

https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/pks-remains-a-cross…

Rhett Dillingham, vice president and senior analyst for cloud services at Moor Insights & Strategy, said Pivotal is better served to promote its Application Service (PAS) over PKS.

“Pivotal is fundamentally in the business of delivering cloud-enabled digital transformation to enterprise by training organizations in speeding up app development using cloud-native development practices,” Dillingham wrote in an email. “The orchestration platform customers choose to consume that value on is secondary, but since Pivotal is the clear leader of the Cloud Foundry project but not Kubernetes, its preference for maximizing its differentiation will be to focus customers on its PAS offering over PKS.”

3 Likes