This is what I can't figure out

I’ve been following Saul since the P/E days. I’m a terrible stock picker but I thought I would do this post as an exercise for myself and maybe others will be helped by the discussion.
This post should be completely ON TOPIC (love anything Saul writes including when he writes in ALL CAPS!)
Ok,
Here is what I understand:
We know our companies criteria are (Correct me if I’m wrong):

  1. SaaS. (non-hardware, recurring revenue etc. )
  2. y/y Growth somewhere above 40% (and as high as %80)
  3. High gross margins (above 50% and as high as 85-90%!)
  4. a groundbreaking new technology with a large TAM and a strong moat

Here is what is mildly perplexing to me:

  1. our companies are “losing” money.
    it is expected that losses are getting smaller in total AND smaller as a percentage of gross revenue y/y
    correct?
    Here is what is really perplexing to me:
  2. How do we value these companies fundamentally? (not EV/S because that’s Bert’s thing?) Is it mostly a P/S basis?
    When do we get to the point where its obvious that the stock is valued (P/S) too richly for its growth rate?
    Are we just winging it on this basis?
    what if one of our companies has a 70% growth rate and a 17 p/s
    compared to a company with a 40% growth rate and a similar p/s?
    do we have the same conviction and blind faith in both companies?
    Also 3. at which point do we see growth slowing and decide to get out? (or do we hold through that on blind faith?
    Thanks everybody
45 Likes

Geez, MusiCali, this is no mystery. I placed the answer to your questions in the side-bar ages ago, but since you didn’t bother to read them, here they are again:

Why have I “abandoned” PE as my most important indicator of desirability for a stock, and
Why am I willing to invest in companies that are losing money.

Those are good and valid questions and they deserve a response. Please take into account in reading my response that I’m not a techie and some of my details may not be accurate. And above all, remember that this is just my opinion, the opinion of a non-techie.

After some reflection, I think I’d say that it isn’t so much that I have changed, but that the world has changed, and that the business models of the companies I invest in have changed. Companies like the ones I am currently investing in simply didn’t exist before. They have only emerged in the past few years.

There has been a revolution in the world of business, and especially in the world of software. As recently as four or five years ago, with the exception of perhaps one or two companies, a company selling software would sell a customer a perpetual license to use it. Then they’d charge for updates that the customer might have to install, and they’d charge for service, and they’d try to sell the customer a new updated version of the software in two or three or four years. The customer might decide to skip the next version and just wait for the one after if he’s happy with the current one. Think Microsoft and all those Microsoft Office and Word versions you had to buy. It was the same for big companies with their software.

This procedure was bad for both of them. It was terribly inconvenient for the software customer, and there was no visibility into the future for the company selling the software.

There was little if any recurring revenue. For an investor, encountering a growth company that had even a small percentage of its revenue recurring was a major find. The only companies that had most of their revenue recurring were slow or no-growth utility type companies. Think: the electric company!

There was little or no recurring revenue because the customer who bought a perpetual license for a version of the software this year might not buy an updated version for 4 or 5 years. All you had that was recurring revenue were service contracts, and not every customer took a service contract.

It was the same with dollar-based net retention rate. There was simply no such thing. You were essentially making a one-time sale with the hope of making another sale in a few years.

As an investor, PE and profit was all you had to go on (besides hope).

Finding a company that was growing revenue at 20% per year was great. NO companies had revenue growth of 40% to 60% on a regular basis. It was unheard of. It was something you couldn’t even imagine, except perhaps for a tiny company growing off a very small base, or as a one-time occurrence.

But then an incredible new world came along in which data, and Internet usage, and Cloud usage, and software usage, have all hit an inflection point and taken off, literally exploded in their usage. What these software companies are selling is actually needed by every company currently, in every field, whether it’s a bank, a grocery chain, an insurance company or an auto manufacturer. It’s not going to go away. Every company needs software now, needs the internet, needs a website, needs ecommerce of some sort, needs security against hacking, needs to be able to analyze and visualize data, to analyze customer patterns, needs… well you get the idea.

And something amazing called SaaS was developed. It stands for Software as a Service: Instead of selling the software on a perpetual license, you, the software company, lease the customer your software, and the customer makes monthly payments “forever.” You have visibility for the first time in your company’s life, and your customer doesn’t have the large upfront outlay of cash. These monthly payments you are getting are recurring revenue.

You can update your software monthly, weekly, or even daily using the Internet, which keeps your customer very happy and very hooked, and keeps him renewing his lease contract every three or so years. Your software becomes an integral and essential part of your customer’s business. You can sell the customer additional programs, with new bells and whistles that your R&D department just perfected, or sell to additional departments in the same customer company, and your revenue from this customer will be higher next year than it was this year (dollar-based net expansion rate). This is referred to as land and expand.

Because of increasing spend by existing customers, and because of increasingly high demand for what you are selling from new customers, you may see revenue grow by 40%, 50%, or 60% each year. This means that your revenue will quadruple or even quintuple in four years, or five at most.

Your margins rise with time because your monthly S&M charges for the recurring part of your revenue are miniscule compared to what you paid for the initial sale. You could make all your updates in the Cloud and it would be even cheaper, and cheaper for the customer too, as the customer doesn’t need to buy all that computer hardware.

This is still early innings. All companies out there need what you are selling but most of them don’t have what you are selling yet. You want to go all out and sign up as many of these companies as possible before credible competitors emerge on the scene. This means increasing S&M expense now. You know that while a dollar of S&M expense spent today is mostly expensed against your current earnings, it will bring in (expanding) revenue almost forever in the future. This incredible opportunity also means spending on R&D so you continue to have the best products to sell. But this is all new and greenfield, and the imperative is to sign up as many customers as you can, as rapidly as you reasonably can while still providing good service, and not worry about current profits.

Just think about this revolution for a minute. Every good-sized company now uses more and more software every year. They all want to be part of the cloud, they all need what our companies are selling, and most of them don’t have it yet. The opportunities are enormous, and once the software is incorporated in the customers business it becomes harder and harder to change providers… really a pain for the customer and a risk of all kinds of disruptions to their business if they tear it out, so they will need a really, really, good reason to change.

So our software companies have mostly recurring revenue, and not only recurring, but expanding recurring revenue as the old customers increase their spend (dollar-based net retention rate), and new customers sign on. This means that each year our software companies add lots of new recurring revenue. And they are growing at rates that will quadruple their revenue in four years. (Actually 50% compounded for four years will quintuple their revenue in four years, but I’m being conservative :grinning:)

And that’s why I buy SaaS companies, that are growing revenue at rates I couldn’t have imagined a few years ago, and it’s why I don’t worry about them not making a profit now. My other criteria are still there: rapid revenue growth, recurring revenue, lack of debt, insider ownership, a moat, not capital intensive, not hardware, doing something really special, etc, etc, but I’m taking advantage of this new world.

People who are looking for conventional companies with PE’s of 15 or 20, and with 10% or 20% growth, are investing in the S&P and growing their portfolios at perhaps 12% per year, while we are growing at…. :grinning:…Well, I’m up 57.8% by the 13th of July this year.

I hope this helps.

Saul

We are investing in a new model of enterprise: year after year very high growth, very high gross margin companies, whose revenue is almost all recurring, and largely locked in, and whose dollar-based net retention rates are greater than one, meaning that last years customers buy more this year than last year instead of having an attrition rate. I’ve never seen companies like this before. Have you?

Of course a company like this is worth higher EV/S and higher PE than the old model of fairly low revenue growth, with little or no visibility into what revenue that you could absolutely count on for next year!

Of course companies without security of revenue had to show a profit (PE) before we’d invest in them. Of course we pay more for a company where revenue is recurring. Of course rapidly growing revenue which has very high gross margins is worth more per dollar of present revenue (EV/S) than slower growing, non-countable on, and lower gross margin, revenue.

And don’t bother telling me they are not making any profit. Any company with 75%, 85% or 95% gross margins can make a profit whenever they decide to! All they need to do is slow down spending on grabbing every new customer they can grab while the grabbing is good. Personally, I’d rather they keep grabbing all those customers now, from whom revenue will keep growing for the indefinite future.

81 Likes

I’m totally pilfering here, but these are the links I’ve saved that helped me answer these questions as I was trying to understand the SaaS model.

Here is what I understand:
We know our companies criteria are (Correct me if I’m wrong):
1. SaaS. (non-hardware, recurring revenue etc. )
2. y/y Growth somewhere above 40% (and as high as %80)
3. High gross margins (above 50% and as high as 85-90%!)
4. a groundbreaking new technology with a large TAM and a strong moat

Saul beat me to the punch on this one, as the link is already on the right hand side of this board. Here it is if you want to save it: https://discussion.fool.com/why-my-investing-criteria-have-chang…. You might just want to bookmark his last post though as he seemed to add some thoughts to the original.

1. our companies are “losing” money.
it is expected that losses are getting smaller in total AND smaller as a percentage of gross revenue y/y correct?

Decreasing losses are one thing you can track (I know I do). However, it’s important to understand why investors like these companies even though they aren’t yet profitable. The basic premise is the upfront cost of acquiring customers will be paid back multiple times over in the future since the maintenance cost for those customers is fairly negligible. In addition, many of these customers tend to increase their spend as they add more features and/or users to their initial purchase. Therefore, it makes sense for SaaS companies to spend as many resources as they can spare early on to grow their customers as quickly as possible before competition emerges. Below are a couple of links I’ve saved explaining why losing money isn’t necessarily a bad thing in the SaaS model. I know I stole the video link from Denny (he’s used it a few times, including recently). Chances are I stole the article link from him as well. The graphics are really helpful in seeing the bull argument for the SaaS model.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCBccKfG9U0

https://www.forentrepreneurs.com/saas-metrics/

Hope this helps.

24 Likes

Saul
Thank you so much for your response!
I have read that incredible post of yours multiple times!
You said you want us to be able to do this on our own
In which case I have one more question -

What if people bid up our companies to ridiculous valuations like the tech bubble
For example
What if ZS has a 110 billion market cap and a p/s of 100?
Would you still ignore those metrics?

12 Likes

What if people bid up our companies to ridiculous valuations like the tech bubble
For example
What if ZS has a 110 billion market cap and a p/s of 100?
Would you still ignore those metrics?

Sell.

Tinker

19 Likes

1. our companies are “losing” money.

That depends on how you value R&D. The accountants look on R&D as an expense. But for these startup companies, R&D is more like an investment. They could fire the engineers and make a profit. Or continue investing in R&D and book a paper loss.

           Ticker             average  AYX   ESTC   GH   MDB   OKTA  SMAR    SQ   TTD   TWLO    ZS
 Sales-Growth from Q5 to Q1     77     185    70    96    57    50    60     51    56     77    65   percent
 Sales-Growth from Q6 to Q2     63      59    72    90    62    58    59     51    50     68    59   percent
 Sales-Growth from Q7 to Q3     61      55    79    97    49    57    64     48    54     54    54   percent
 Sales-Growth from Q8 to Q4     59      50    82          68    60    68     45    61     48    49   percent
Research and development 12m            43    87          90   102    52    498    84    171    50   $million
       Net income 12m                   28   -89               -126  -46    -39    88   -122   -28   $million
          Sales 12m                    254   241         267   399   159   3298   477    650   243   $million
        Market Cap Q1                  4811  6229  7831  7538  9112  4506  32237  9065  16113  8431  $million
        Price/Sales             23      20    26          28    23    30     9     19     20    34
        R&D_pct_Sales           25%    17%   36%         34%   26%   33%    15%   18%    26%   20%
        R&D_plus_NI                     71    -2          90   -23     7    459   172     49    21   $million

2. How do we value these companies fundamentally?

Growth and Value do not mix well. The important metrics are different. But I agree, there has to be some limit on price. Maybe Price/Sales/Growth. Or maybe Price/[projected sales in 5 years]. Or calculate the 10-year growth rate needed to reach a mature company’s reasonable [Price/Sales] of 5.

10 Likes

What if people bid up our companies to ridiculous valuations like the tech bubble
For example
What if ZS has a 110 billion market cap and a p/s of 100?
Would you still ignore those metrics?

That would sure worry me, I suspect. It hasn’t happened though, so I can’t tell for sure, but as a guess I think I might reduce my position greatly. But that’s just a guess.
Saul

3 Likes

R&D is always an investment in every company or at least it is intended to be one. It is also a real expense many companies need to prosper.

Hi, I am relatively new to the board, having joined a few months ago (I’m also relatively new to investing having started only 2 years ago); so im still in the learning phase. Thank you to Saul, Muji, Bear,Gauchochris and stocknoice and others for all of the valuable posts - your posts have enabled me to greatly accelerate my learning. I have also learned a lot from reading Bert’s reports.

I have a question which is kind of a follow up on MusiCali’s question "2. How do we value these companies fundamentally? ".

I think its best to frame my question as an example:

I hold ZM,CWRD and DDOG (Precentagewise these are my 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest positions respectively - but moneywise they are only small amounts, as I am still trying to gain confidence in my investing skills).
I have some new money, and i’m trying to decide which of these three positions I should add to.
Logically I would assume that I should put my new money in the company that has the greatest upside potential from where it is today. But, the recent ER of all three companies were super; and all companies have tailwinds. So, in this case would it not make sense to rely on fundamentals like PS ratio, to decide which is the best position to add to?

From Yahoo, we can see that ZM has a PS ratio of 91; CRWD has a PS ratio of 37; and DDOG has a PS ratio of 18; so on this basis it would tell me that the best place to put my new money is into DDOG.

Just to be clear; I’m not asking for advice on which stocks I should add to; rather I want to understand the general process which you follow in order to decide which company, out of a group of companies which are all performing very well, to add to. (When all companies in the group are performing well, the only way I see to identify which position it would be most prudent to add to is through comparing fundamentals like PS ratio and/or EV/S)

Thank you.

Hi MoneySpin,
I think you need to put it in to future context as Saul keeps reminding us. Peter Thiel (apologies if I attribute wrongly) said something similar re paypal, ie. most of the money a company will make is in the future. It makes sense to recogise the difference in futures of businesses such as Saas and Oil majors as well as between DDOG and Zoom. I think Saul has layed out some breadcrumbs in the knowledge-base, clue it involves more than one metric.

However, please start to share your decision making when you make a call so that others can learn from you and vice verse…
Good luck,
Nik

1 Like

so im still in the learning phase.

We’re all “in the learning phase” until the day we die or the day we give up. LOL

So, in this case would it not make sense to rely on fundamentals like PS ratio, to decide which is the best position to add to?

From Yahoo, we can see that ZM has a PS ratio of 91; CRWD has a PS ratio of 37; and DDOG has a PS ratio of 18; so on this basis it would tell me that the best place to put my new money is into DDOG.

What’s “fundamental?” Value a la Graham and Dodd? Growth? Business model? Putting your money in the “cheapest P/S” ignores that cheap is cheap for a reason, that Mr. Market has less confidence in the stock’s growth potential. There is no magic bullet, you have to find your own comfort zone which to me means figuring out how the market really works, not an easy task but a fun adventure. Read all you can, specially about the most successful investors. With that, build your own model that fits you best.

Denny Schlesinger

PS: there is lots of good stuff right there in the sidebar ---->

6 Likes

Hi Nik

Thank you for your reply.

For sure it make sense to consider the future of each of the Companies. But I have a few difficulties with this:

The first is that my question is relating to a group of companies all of which appear to have a good future (ZM, DDOG, CRWD all seem to have good futures - I cant say that one of these companies definitely has a better future than any of the others - if I could easily do that then certainly it would be logical to add to the position which has the better future)

Also, a second issue is that if a company is expected to have a great future, and that great future is already baked into the stock price, then there will be little upside - hence my suggestion that fundamentals must be important to consider when comparing companies which are all doing well. For example, maybe you can argue that ZM has a better future than CRWD and DDOG, but on the other hand PS ratio from ZM is 91, so one could say on that basis that the “better future” of ZM is already baked into the price, so it has less upside for ZM compared to DDOG and CRWD.

(I am not saying that I am correct (remember that I am only learning); i’m just outlining my thoughts so that I can better understand things)

Thanks

“From Yahoo, we can see that ZM has a PS ratio of 91”

For me, it makes little sense to use trailing PS for a company like Zoom because their business has exponentially exploded since March.

I would venture a guess their sales per quarter looking out the next few Qs will be >$600M (conservatively). I view their PS closer to 30 if you are looking at their current business run-rate.

I try to avoid using sites like Yahoo Finance for metrics. If you read the last CC/quarterly, you can make much better assumptions about the current valuation and valuation looking out a few Qs.

6 Likes

I hold ZM,CWRD and DDOG (Precentagewise these are my 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest positions respectively - but moneywise they are only small amounts, as I am still trying to gain confidence in my investing skills)…

I want to understand the general process which you follow in order to decide which company, out of a group of companies which are all performing very well, to add to.

There is a million ways to skin a cat. Also, your question is really more about portfolio management and/or strategy than valuation.

But I’ll tell you what I would do:

I would take advantage of dollar cost averaging and just make my future contributions automatic.

This month you add your monthly contribution to DDOG, the next to CRWD, and the third month from now to ZM. Repeat until you have reached the dollar amount you have decided for each position (not the actual value of the position, but the dollar amount you have invested: The number of shares x average price).

Then — and only then — I would start building a new position if another shiny thing happens to catch my eye. Because I only care about positions I hold. I would also not trade in and out of my positions and try to micromanagement allocations. And I would forget everything about trying to sell high in order to buy back shares at an opportune time.

Too much activity is almost always a loser’s game (unless you are Saul, which you are not, and even Saul admittedly makes mistakes).

So, make your portfolio contributions automatic, don’t overthink everything (the fate of your investments is not decided by the day to day newsfeed and price fluctuations), and take advantage of dollar cost averaging. You have a lot of time, and time is on your side.

https://thereformedbroker.com/2016/02/17/how-to-make-volatil…
https://www.servowealth.com/blog/how-great-is-dollar-cost-av…

See my point? I don’t care about valuations. Like at all. But I diversify over time and different price points — and thanks to volatility I will probably end up with a good average price in each of my positions.

Yes, I know this was probably OT. Sorry :slight_smile:

Benjamin

4 Likes

I personally don’t use Yahoo’s financial data.

Here is what finviz.com has for PS ratios:

ZM 90
CRWD 44
DDOG 67

Big difference between 18 and 67 for DDOG. Based on the numbers from finviz, CRWD is the best choice.

Of course a stock selection shouldn’t be based on just one statistic.

I know this post is off-topic, but this PS ratio from two sources were so far apart I felt it should be pointed out.

1 Like

This month you add your monthly contribution to DDOG, the next to CRWD, and the third month from now to ZM. Repeat until you have reached the dollar amount you have decided for each position.

And MoneySpin,

Please understand that I am speaking in general non-specific terms here. No one on this board can give you investment advice. You have to make your own decisions.

Benjamin

and DDOG has a PS ratio of 18; so on this basis it would tell me that the best place to put my new money is into DDOG.

Moneyspin, That is an insane method of selecting a company to invest in! First of all the PS ratio you quote has to be way wrong! But you didn’t realize it because you hadn’t learned anything about the company!!! Second: Companies have higher and lower PS ratios usually based on what’s going on in the company. I’m sure you could find some companies with PS ratios that are 1 or 2. That would NOT make them good buys. Lists of stocks by PS ratios are a waste of time. Read over what Bear wrote a few posts back. You need to understand the company, not see where it is in a list !!!
Saul

13 Likes

Saul and Silverfox, I think there must be some misunderstanding, I just took the values from Yahoo quickly simply to demonstrate my point - whether the numbers in Yahoo were correct or not is not relevant at all to my question.

My point is that, after I have considered all the information which I have available to me (e.g. Earning reports and various write ups and posts on this board) and I still cannot decide that one company has a better future that the other, then I default to using fundamental values like EV/S to decide which position is most prudent to add to -I don’t know any other way to do it.
I was simply putting this out there to see what others do.

(I’m not saying that the numbers i used are correct; I’m not saying that one should make a list of stocks by PS ratio; and of course I am not saying that one should not consider what is going on in the company; and of course one could find companies with lower PS ratios and I would never in a million years make an investment solely on the basis that a company has low PS ratio. All I am simply saying is that when I have a choice between two companies which I have already established are good companies, have reported good earning and forecast, then I use fundamental values like EV/S to decide which position is most prudent to add to. )

Saul, I will take a look at Bear post, as you advised.

Benjamin, thank you for the useful feedback.

Best regards.

Thanks

Saul, I will take a look at Bear’s post, as you advised.

It’s under PaulBryant and is #69119.

Saul

1 Like