ZM under-appreciated

Hi folks,

I’ve been trying to figure out lately where I’d put new money, or rather, redistribute money that was in under-performing companies (I just sold out of ROKU at a minor loss immediately before it bounced back to my break-even price thanks to the Google rumors. Of course…)

My first thought was DDOG. I really like their long term prospects. But this article makes some great points about ZM:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4354093-zoom-still-underapp…

I had been thinking that maybe ZM had too much baked into it right now because of the unbelievable ER a couple weeks ago. But this author seems to make a good case that the market hasn’t yet realized what’s going on with ZM; despite the almost $100/share increase since earnings.

He does a great job of comparing ZM to other hyper-growth companies, all of which we’ve discussed at length here (I actually wonder if he’s a member of this community!)


Paul

10 Likes

He is a member with nickname Diablito :slight_smile:

Best,
V

4 Likes

I guess it depends on your time horizon. The way I look at it TTM based ratios will all look wrong since the latest quarter was so much stronger than historical ones. As the quarters progress, these backward-looking metrics will adjust and things will start to look cheaper.

Please check my math as this is my first time running a PS ratio.

Equation is: (shares * price) / Revenue TTM


price:*	            241.57 *(closing on 6/18/2020)*
shares:*         182106000 
Price*Shrs: 43,991,346,420

*From =GOOGLEFINANCE function in GoogleSheets

Scenario 1: TTM Today Versus End of FY Guidance

Relevant Revenue History and Projection (bold is last, italics is projected based on guidance):


	     q1	            Q2	            Q3              Q4
2020			145,826,000	166,593,000	167,000,000
2021	**328,167,000**	*500,000,000	500,000,000	500,000,000*

TTM PS Today

Rev TTM:  807,586,000.00
PS:	  54.5

TTM PS at end of FY’21 if share price stays the same

Rev FY21: 1,828,167,000.00
PS:	  24.1

Share price at end of FY’21 if PS stays the same: $550 (+125%)

Now, with any modeling there are assumptions. There are some big ones here. For example, ZM could fall out of the spotlight and see some of the price premium fall out. At the same time, the numbers above are based on actual guidance that is widely expected to be more than conservative. So, let me model it another way just to paint a different picture.

Now let’s also assume the market cools off a bit on the ZM subject and factor in a bit of PS compression and use a PS of 40 instead (most models have a number pulled out of thin air and this is mine!)
Share price at end of FY’21 if PS is 40: $400 (+66%)

…but again this is with ZM’s own conservative guidance! So…

Scenario 2: TTM Today Versus End of FY Projection Guess

Relevant Revenue History and Projection that assumes we get to $2.13B, which feels like the middle of various guesses I’ve read around the last few weeks:


	     q1	            Q2	            Q3              Q4
2020			145,826,000	166,593,000	167,000,000
2021	**328,167,000**	*550,000,000	600,000,000	650,000,000*

TTM PS Today

Rev TTM:  807,586,000.00
PS:	  54.5

TTM PS at end of FY’21 if share price stays the same

Rev FY21: 2,128,167,000.00
PS:	  20.7

Share price at end of FY’21 if PS stays the same: $635 (+163%)

Plugging in the PS compression at 40 again:
Share price at end of FY’21 if PS is 40: $470 (+95%)

Fudge the numbers around as you like but it seems pretty rosy to me. Based on this logic we have a share price of $400-$635 or 66%-163% higher than today, by the end of the year.

Check my math.

Thoughts?

26 Likes

First I want to say my point for the original post is that the PS ratio goes down as the company continues to grow. This is how fundamentals drive the share price up over the long term after all. All of the math here is just proving that intrinsic point.

Once I show how far down the PS will go through continuing fundamental growth, I then simply calculate what the price would be if the PS did not change and I get a future price, based on today’s valuation, that includes the growth in revenue from tomorrow (the rest of the year). Finally, I can play with the inputs to get a conservative view of this (the company guidance) versus a reasonable but slightly aggressive guess at where they could be.

This is the same exercise I used to do using PE ratios with Chipotle, for example, to decide if it was “cheap” or “expensive” to do a little medium-term trading on top of my “core position”. Not because the raw metric number was big or small compared to an industry or some other external comparison, but by taking the number relative to its own past, factoring in changes at the company, like this pandemic has changed Zoom, to arrive at something that helps me approach a decision to take action or not.

The reason I am posting numbers again is that pretty much everywhere, except the actual company reports, show the wrong share count! It is actually 295,184,958. So using the same revenue numbers and equations, here is a reworked version.

This time I’ll be reducing to a PS of 55, which looks like where it was roughly a year ago. It went down for a bit towards the end of last year but I wouldn’t expect a full reversion to that low now that Zoom is so well known. This new number is a little less arbitrary than my last guesstimate.

Scenario 1: TTM Today Versus End of FY Guidance

TTM PS Today


Rev TTM:  807,586,000.00
PS:	  88.3

TTM PS at end of FY’21 if share price stays the same


Rev FY21: 1,828,167,000.00
PS:	  39.0

Share price at end of FY’21 if PS stays the same: $545 (+126%)
Share price at end of FY’21 if PS is 55: $340 (+41%)

Scenario 2: TTM Today Versus End of FY Projection Guess

TTM PS Today


Rev TTM:  807,586,000.00
PS:	  88.3

TTM PS at end of FY’21 if share price stays the same


Rev FY21: 2,128,167,000.00
PS:	  33.5

Share price at end of FY’21 if PS stays the same: $635 (+163%)
Share price at end of FY’21 if PS is 55: $395 (+64%)

Based on this logic we have a share price of $340-$635 or 64%-163% higher than today, by the end of the year.

Check my math.

Thoughts?

38 Likes

Rafe, those are beautiful posts. They really help to understand the valuation and future valuation of Zoom. Thanks for posting them.
Best,
Saul

3 Likes

Indeed, what Saul said!

These are wonderful posts with a nice clear understanding of how to use what is fact (share counts, past performance, etc.) and then combine it with reasonable speculation (future fundamentals like sales revenue) to come up with a decent model.

Thank you very much for posting these replies!


Paul

1 Like

I think the big question is also what happens after FY 2021. How much will they be able to grow from the roughly $2 billion base they will have built at the end of this year? Nobody really knows. But it will be a major influence on the EV/S multiple and the share price.

I think that companies have really fundamentally changed during this pandemic and that there is a huge runway for everything connected to work-from-home/anywhere. As I pointed out in my article on SA, Zoom already estimated a $43.1 billion market (by 2022) at the time of its IPO. Again, nobody knows how much that TAM projection has changed to the upside since. I guess it’s a lot. Also, the fact that Zoom is mainly selling to enterprise customers and has been very successful in upselling these customers in the past, makes me confident they can grow at very high rates in 2022 and beyond. Only time will tell…

12 Likes

Thanks Rafe for a thought-provoking post.

I agree with Diablito and wanted to point out that I believe Scenario 1 or similar (and possibly even Scenario 2) will be a disaster for us fools long ZM. Here’s why:

Let’s assume - as in Scenario 1 that qoq growth goes to 0% (or close) by q3. ZM would then be a steady-state company with about $2bn revenue. If we further make the relatively rich assumption that they can generate 30% after tax in FCF on that revenue, and that investors will be happy with a 5% return on their investment (implying a P/FCF of 20), then ZM will be a $600m x 20 = $12bn company, vs $68.8bn now : -82%. So in scenario 1, P/S will likely contract very quickly - in this example to 6 - and the metric will become relatively meaningless as the company will no longer be a growth company. And we will lose our shirts come end of the year.

Scenario 2 is much better, but may also result in a share price decline. If I pull the qoq $50m revenue growth run-rate forward for a couple of quarters then we’re left with a company growing at between 30% and 40% - certainly good, but not great (sorry can’t figure out how to fix the table format below):

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
Rev sc. 2 y1 550 600 650 700
Rev sc. 2 y2 750 800 850 900
yoy g% 36.4% 33.3% 30.8% 28.6%

If we assume a P/S of 20 for our hypothetical ZM growing at 30%-40% then we get a valuation of around $2.5m x 20 = $50bn vs $68.8bn now : -36% by the end of the year.? The shirt is not quite lost, but that will hurt.?

I believe that we will see revenue in excess of Scenario 2 in later quarters, and if this growth is in the 45%+ region, ZM will be a good investment, which is why it still is one of my largest holdings.

Hope this adds some colour to the discussion and points out some downside risks on ZM: they need to continue to grow very fast to sustain the valuation - “only” hitting a bit north of $500m in q3 of this year won’t cut it. Would love to hear your thoughts.

-WSM
(long ZM)

5 Likes

WSM,

I used to think the same way but I think using EV/FCF to value ZM by end of this FY will make the current valuation more reasonable - after all, it might be more appropriate to value ZM when they have 2B+ revenue with potential 40-50% FCF margin.

Zoro

I used to think the same way but I think using EV/FCF to value ZM by end of this FY will make the current valuation more reasonable - after all, it might be more appropriate to value ZM when they have 2B+ revenue with potential 40-50% FCF margin.

We don’t know and can’t know the future numbers for EV/FCF until they happen. IMO, adding our own biases into the calculation is a form of GIGO. If you want to calculate it, just call it something else like “EV/FCF-e” for estimate.

Denny Schlesinger

1 Like

Scenario 2 is much better, but may also result in a share price decline. …a company growing at between 30% and 40% - certainly good, but not great

In scenario 2 you use 2.5b for this year’s revenue. We don’t know that ZM will hit 2.5 billion this year…but we know they’ll have significantly more than 1.8b. So let’s say 2b worst case. And 3b might be a stretch, but humor me.

2b x a PS of 20 = 40 billion.
2b x a PS of 30 = 60 billion.
2b x a PS of 40 = 80 billion.

3b x a PS of 20 = 60 billion.
3b x a PS of 30 = 90 billion.
3b x a PS of 40 = 120 billion.

So I can say with some confidence that ZM will be valued between 40 and 120 billion around the end of this year. Haha! As unhelpful as that may seem, I think it illustrates an important point: We are entirely unable to predict what multiple the market will grant a company, at all. Datadog has a PS close to 70 right now. Crowdstrike under 40. Tell me why. You can guess, but there is really no telling! The effect on the shares is obvious: if CRWD had DDOG’s PS ratio, it would cost $177 per share.

It is true that a company growing 30% - 40% would not likely be given a PS ratio over a certain level. But DOCU’s is 28 right now. VEEV’s too. And OKTA (sure, growing mid-40’s, but that’s not impossible for ZM next year) sports a PS ratio of almost 40.

I reiterate, We are entirely unable to predict what multiple the market will grant a company, at all. This is a very difficult concept for most of us at first. But vital.

Bear

49 Likes

It is true that a company growing 30% - 40% would not likely be given a PS ratio over a certain level. But DOCU’s is 28 right now. VEEV’s too. And OKTA (sure, growing mid-40’s, but that’s not impossible for ZM next year) sports a PS ratio of almost 40.

I reiterate, We are entirely unable to predict what multiple the market will grant a company, at all. This is a very difficult concept for most of us at first. But vital.

What I also find funny or maybe puzzling is SHOP. Shopify will do around $2 billion in revenue this year and Zoom will easily do $2 billion. Shop grew revenue last quarter at 47% and has a $100 billion and change market cap, compared to Zoom who will grow at triple or quadruple the rate of Shop and yet is fetching a $67 or so billion dollar market cap. Cheap? lol

Best,
Matt

2 Likes

Shop grew revenue last quarter at 47% and has a $100 billion and change market cap, compared to Zoom who will grow at triple or quadruple the rate of Shop and yet is fetching a $67 or so billion dollar market cap. Cheap? lol

It would be nice if Zoom management saw the same growth rate in the near future that you see. They guided for flat revenue from Q2 to Q3 and to Q4 in the last earnings call. I know, Saul has pointed out that they admit to being “very conservative” and they’ve consistently under guided. But still.

2 Likes

Shop grew revenue last quarter at 47% and has a $100 billion and change market cap, compared to Zoom who will grow at triple or quadruple the rate of Shop and yet is fetching a $67 or so billion dollar market cap. Cheap? lol

It would be nice if Zoom management saw the same growth rate in the near future that you see. They guided for flat revenue from Q2 to Q3 and to Q4 in the last earnings call. I know, Saul has pointed out that they admit to being “very conservative” and they’ve consistently under guided. But still.

Hi Smorg

Those flat revenues sequential revenues that they predicted, and that you are talking about, will be tripling revenue year-over-year. They predicted $500 million in revenue for this next quarter, which means they expect let’s say 7% more, or $535 million. That will be up 266% from $146 million last year!!! That’s way over a triple (a triple would be just $438 million), and getting close to a quadruple. They will be tripling their revenue at least, year-over-year in each of the next three quarters, and will probably be doubling it in the fourth quarter. After that we don’t know yet.

Now 266% growth is more than 5 times Shop’s 46% rate of growth, but what happens a year from now we don’t know. But we don’t know for Shop either.:grinning:

Shop has TTM revenue of $1.73 billion (which Zoom will top this year even if they never beat guidance), a market cap of $103 billion, an EV/S of 58.5, and grew last quarter about 47%.

When you try to compare them though, they are such entirely different companies, with so many unknowns in the future, the whole business of trying to compare them by evaluation seems futile to me, and doesn’t make much sense.

Best,

Saul

40 Likes

They guided for flat revenue from Q2 to Q3 and to Q4 in the last earnings call. I know, Saul has pointed out that they admit to being “very conservative” and they’ve consistently under guided. But still.

Given the ginormous growth they just experienced with no ability to forecast and with no one having any idea how the rest of the year is going to play out in terms of COVID-19, WFH, etc., etc., what in the heck would you expect them to forecast?

2 Likes

i They guided for flat revenue from Q2 to Q3 and to Q4 in the last earnings call. I know, Saul has pointed out that they admit to being “very conservative” and they’ve consistently under guided. But still.

IMHO there is no way Zoom will fail to beat guidance. Neither the growth in enterprise usage nor that of the smaller users will come to an abrupt halt. And the results last quarter were a consequence of development mostly in just the second half.

Moreover. I believe that many enterprise decisions are being influenced and accelerated by the experience of those many unknown numbers of enterprise decision makers who experienced Zoom, first hand in March thru May.

I predict a large beat of guidance for the next 2 quarters. After that its anyone’s guess but probably a return to status quo ante.

As for SHOP I think euphoria, the Fed and the growing tide of interest in on line commerce is propelling it well beyond reasonable valuations. But that happens a lot. I thought it was too high at 570 or so when I sold out. Its probably too high today but its a lot higher than it was and may always be.

Cheers

Those flat revenues sequential revenues that they predicted, and that you are talking about, will be tripling revenue year-over-year.

Yes. But, as we’ve discussed, the stock price has also already more than tripled. So tripling of revenue YoY might be considered “yesterday’s news.”

They will be tripling their revenue at least, year-over-year in each of the next three quarters, and will probably be doubling it in the fourth quarter.

That’s just an accounting benefit of maintaining the gains they’ve already experienced, not of new gains to come.

As I see it, the investing thesis today is that in this environment where companies are not providing any guidance at all, Zoom providing guidance for growth from Q1 to Q2 (because they had already seen over a month of Q2 by the time they had the earning call), and then flat, with multiple “conservative” caveats, is actually very bullish.

But again, this doubling of Q4 YoY doesn’t require any new growth beyond what we’ve already seen, which would be great if the stock price hadn’t already anticipated this kind of growth. Then again, we saw Wall St. doubting this before the earnings announcement. I even had a post with one such article on an analyst saying the retail investors were expecting too much even as she admitted Wall St. wasn’t expecting enough. Retail Investors 1, Wall St. Analysts 0.

Here’s what CFO Kelly Steckelberg said in the call (https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2020/06/03/zo… ):

Total revenue grew 169% year-over-year to $328 million in Q1. This top line result significantly exceeded the high end of our guidance range of $201 million…

For the second quarter, we expect revenue to be in the range of $495 million to $500 million. … For the full year of FY21, we expect revenue to be in the range of $1.775 to $1.8 billion, which would be approximately 185% to 189% year-over-year growth.

…we are projecting Q3 and Q4 revenue to be relatively consistent with Q2.

So we already had 169% YoY growth, and they predict a QoQ growth of another 50% for Q2. Quite astounding, yes. But for the full year, they’re saying less than 190% growth, which means no more growth from Q2.

But, as Saul patiently explained, this is too conservative. Not only has Zoom management in the past under guided and over achieved, but looking at the rates people are still adopting the service, management’s worry of a massive increase in cancelations as lockdowns expire don’t seem right: most people & companies will continue to Zoom with friends and family and co-workers even after they can see them in person. Some just because of distances to travel, others because of cost or convenience. While I could go see my mom now, Aunt Millie is still 300 miles away. And while my company could fly me a thousand miles to the home office, it’s cheaper to just have a few Zoom meetings instead. (These aren’t real - I don’t have an Aunt Millie and I’m retired).

Just to put an exclamation point on it, here are some other Steckelberg quotes on being conservative about churn:
Historically, monthly subscribers have a higher churn rate compared to annual or multi-year subscribers. In addition, as governments start to ease shelter-in-place restrictions, we may see a moderation of demand for our services. Given our assumptions on higher churn rate as well as economic uncertainty, we are projecting Q3 and Q4 revenue to be relatively consistent with Q2.

and

So, in the guidance, … we have assumed multiples of what the historical churn rates have been. And also, we have taken a conservative approach in terms of thinking about that in terms of potential uncertainty around the economic environment.

and

We’ve taken, again, a conservative approach to that, but it’s too early to tell, as most places – even where they’re starting to ease shelter-in-place, people are taking their time to go back to work.

and

I would say that we are taking a very conservative approach and assuming that the historic norms don’t yet apply to these new cohorts, both from the magnitude as well as the potential around economic uncertainty. So we – the way we’re forecasting it is using multiples of the historic churn rates.

When the CFO says “multiples,” I interpret that to mean a 2X, 3X, 4X kind of increase. As Saul points out, that doesn’t seem likely. More cancelations, yes, but compared to growth that they were still seeing in Q2 as they gave the call, not enough to zero out growth for future quarters. Being conservative is good, and since they don’t need to raise capital, management doesn’t actually want the stock price to zoom up (pun intended) because that’s a distraction to employees (I posted about Amazon in that situation previously).

tamhas:
Given the ginormous growth they just experienced with no ability to forecast and with no one having any idea how the rest of the year is going to play out in terms of COVID-19, WFH, etc., etc., what in the heck would you expect them to forecast?

Zoom’s in a unique situation. Whereas most businesses get worse as lockdowns continue, Zoom management is actually worried about lockdowns expiring and thus people going face to face instead of Zooming, with resulting cancelations of their monthly subscriptions. But, we all know WFH is here to say. Even when things re-open there will still be lots more WFH than there was last year. I myself think there will be a second wave of some sort, and even if not the world won’t completely return to 2019 normal ever.

Time to go re-watch some old Jetson’s episodes, where they all use Zoom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhxsD5uA7vs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOcT3sK8Eg

14 Likes

But, we all know WFH is here to say.

Based on what? Serious question.

Companies are generally very conservative. They don’t like new ways of doing business. Again, I reference my employer. They have issued a “come back to work” order. It’s “phased”, so we don’t all show up at once. But everyone, including people who demonstrated that they don’t need physical presence to do their jobs, is expected to return. “Business” travel is expected to resume, as well. I forget the precise term used, but basically they think face-to-face with distributors and customers (as well as presenting at investment bank conferences, e.g. JP Morgan) are vitally important. Even though teleconferencing is cheaper and more efficient, and has been for probably the last 10 years.

The push is to go back to how we were doing business before because it worked. Which it absolutely did (my company stock is why I can retire any time I want now). I’m sure my employer is not alone in this.

So what do you base this statement on? Have you seen some polling or scholarship that indicates businesses are planning to change fundamentally how they run their operations?

1poorguy

4 Likes

It seems to me that almost everybody knows this about ZM revenue in the next couple of quarters so it will be no surprise. What really moves stock prices upwards is something good that we were not able to predict with reliability. Markets reward successful risk taking.
I do own some ZM. Unlike Saul I missed it in the early stages. And how much ZM you hold has probably been a key factor in determining your returns so far in 2020. From 67 to 243 , wow.

2 Likes

Assuming Zoom makes most of its revenue from enterprises, is it likely that Enterprises will cut back in the future? Probably not, but will they increase usage? IOW is this market near saturation?