ZM

[XMFBreakerTinker]

Nat, that is 38x forward revenues. That is a multiple greater than any other stock we follow here. Not even Mobileye that Intel desperately bought sold for that much money and Mobileye was a one of a kind company, with only Nvidia as the other option so if Intel wanted to get into autonomous driving (which they had to or pull another mobile phone type miss) they had to buy Mobileye.

That puts this into perspective. You cannot compare backwards revenues with forward reveneus and then compare it to the largest multiple acquisition perhaps ever, and you get an idea of the frenzy and mania here.

Sure, sure, Microsoft or Amazon would still be a bargain even at this frenzy pace. All of us wish we could have had the chance to buy Microsoft of Amazon at a mere $16 billion marketcap plus the possible large dilution that Saul brought up.

If you believe that Zoom has that same potential then buying now will turn into an extraordinary investment. It is not irrational in regard.

Keep in mind that both Microsoft and Amazon were far ahead front runners against everyone. Perhaps Zoom is as well. It may be a Zscaler like thing. I do not know. If so, then I am not going to discourage anyone from buying now and buying as often as they can.

Just wanted to put the current price into perspective.

It may be rational in the very supreme case, and in the more normal case, it is far and away a mania. Just depends on what you think Zoom is.

Given that it was oversubscribed, from what I hear 30x, that does call into play the mania option. But again, there is history that would make the best of the best of the best a steal at this sort of IPO.

Tinker

[Jimb05]

TTM revenue for ZM is $331 M.

at $16B, that is a TTM P/S of 48

Looking forward,

If we assume ZM grows at 80%, they will hit about $600 M in Revenue.

forward P/S of about 27

If we use the last quarter x 4, the annual run rate.

ZM has a P/S of 38.

ZS has a P/S of 26.

So ZM is about 50% more expensive than ZS (using the last quarter x4)

Jim

[Oforfive]

Call me wild and crazy… I bought (drum roll) 10 shares to put in my sock drawer along with my Pet Rock (am I dating myself?).

Some day my great grandchildren can brag that gramps bought ZM at $63.08. Or by then it might be trading at $75 and they can hide the family secret.

KC

[amydk]

Tinker,

I totally hear you! Certainly didn’t mean to suggest that people should be rushing out to buy Zoom in lieu of ZS or anything else. I just wanted to make sure we were relying precise revenue numbers for our value calculations & estimations since there are so many board readers who closely follow your and Saul’s analyses on here!

thanks for all you do!

best,
nat

[Texmex]

So, valuation does matter. Is that the lesson here??

[SaulR80683]

Hi Nat, not to belabor it, but as Jimbo pointed out, Zoom has a EV/S which is 50% higher than that of Zscaler, which had been the poster-child for high EV/S until Zoom came along.

Also, I should point out that Zscaler is also profitable for the last two quarters (and the trailing twelve months), and had a positive Free Cash Flow of 16% of revenue last quarter, and had revenue growth of 65% last quarter, accelerating from 53% a year ago, AND had Billings growth of 74%, accelerating from 49% a year ago.

Put that together with Zscaler’s deep-imbedding in the customer’s business (it manages its security, for God’s sake, and requires C-level authorization to be installed), and is basically “impossible” to be replaced without huge, HUGE, headaches for the customer, and do you really think that Zoom, which provides a peripheral service of video conferencing, is worth a valuation 50% higher?

Saul

[amydk]

Hey Saul,

No, I didn’t mean to imply they were more deserving of such a valuation.

I just wanted to point out that the 67X revenue valuation for Zoom which was being cited up thread was not accurate based on the numbers we have been provided in their S1.

I should have just left it at that. Apologies for dragging Zscaler into this!

respectfully,
nat

[remmdawg]

Hi Nat, not to belabor it, but as Jimbo pointed out, Zoom has a EV/S which is 50% higher than that of Zscaler, which had been the poster-child for high EV/S until Zoom came along.

Also, I should point out that Zscaler is also profitable for the last two quarters (and the trailing twelve months), and had a positive Free Cash Flow of 16% of revenue last quarter, and had revenue growth of 65% last quarter, accelerating from 53% a year ago, AND had Billings growth of 74%, accelerating from 49% a year ago.

Put that together with Zscaler’s deep-imbedding in the customer’s business (it manages its security, for God’s sake, and requires C-level authorization to be installed), and is basically “impossible” to be replaced without huge, HUGE, headaches for the customer, and do you really think that Zoom, which provides a peripheral service of video conferencing, is worth a valuation 50% higher?

Saul

Yes, this seems to be the crucial issue. ZS has a clear sustainable advantage/moat but ZM does not. But at current prices you’re paying way up for ZM, hoping that it will have a sustainable advantage and sustainable superior growth.

And who knows what the runway for growth will be? The TAM is very uncertain and it’s already trading at well more than twice the market cap of ZS.

dave

[XMFSwift]

My hesitation with ZM, apart from the valuation, is that I do not see a company with any meaningful optionality. If it’s there, what is it?

Zoom could turn out to be a one hit wonder.

Best, Swift…
No position ZM

[LifeOfDreamer]

ZM threads have me bored to tears.
I will tune in after they have an ER/CC to learn more.

In the meantime, I am much more excited about companies that have ER/CCs coming up over the next 4 weeks:

TWLO - first full Q with SEND in the fold, plus they have the benefit of adding SEND revenue without having to compare it to SEND revenue y/y, so they will likely have an artificially high growth rate…will be interesting.

TTD - always interesting CCs, and with progress made in China, Amazon’s growing ad bus, general body blows being landed on FB daily it seems, launch of Disney+ and continued growth of CTV…what kind of growth can TTD do this year on top of a $470m 2018?

MDB - what is Atlas growth, and will market finally realize that a lot of data needs to reside on-prem, so Atlas really isn’t the end-all-be-all in the MDB story?

ESTC - haters gonna hate…time for them to show if hypergrowth can continue, if lockup is a thing in the past, and if they use the words “use case” over 30-40 times, again, during the CC, showcasing the optionality of this company.

AYX - time to learn what the new normal in a post-606 accounting world is, in terms of revenue growth. They are opposite of MDB/ESTC in the sense they aren’t meant for developers and open-source community…they tackle the world of data with the enduser meant to be business segment owners or citizen data scientists. (Think HR dept wants to leverage data analytics)

OKTA - optionality seems to be the trend here…want to see it continue.

Nothing wrong with talking Zoom, but in comparison, I wrote a few posts about Zscaler IPO last Feb/March, and basically heard crickets. I find their business model, and target market, much more compelling than Zoom. Zoom isn’t a bad company, but even the CEO says the stock price is too high:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zoom-video-soars-16-billion-1…

Dreamer

[knyc]

Swift,

I have the same question and my understanding is that their cloud platform is specifically built to optimize video communications. In brainstorming this by myself, I thought they might be able to expand into VR-enabled communications once that technology matures a little, if their cloud platform can be further optimized for that.

I also see room for building partnerships with telemedicine providers, online education providers,legal service providers, online training providers, or any other “virtual consultation” type of business. That doesn’t directly address optionality per se, but if their platform is as reliable and simple as it seems to be, they could own the B2B and B2C virtual interaction space.

Kevin

[IRdoc]

So, valuation does matter. Is that the lesson here??

I wish people would stop using this phrase. Everyone wants to use it to make a point. “Valuation matters” is no more a lesson than “eating matters”. Nobody claims that valuation doesn’t matter. Valuation matters to everyone unless you are getting the stock for free. We buy stock at the current valuation so the price is relevant. We all want a lower valuation when we buy and a higher valuation when we sell. It’s ridiculous for anyone to say that it doesn’t matter or to suggest that someone who is buying a highly valued stock is saying that it doesn’t matter.

I believe that one should value different companies with different business models differently. Someone buying ZS at 30x EV/S isn’t saying that valuation doesn’t matter. They’d rather pay 15x EV/S. They just think they can justify the current valuation even though it is way higher than other stocks because of the CAP, growth, recurring revenue, profit margins, etc. Saying they would buy even if it was 20x or 25x or 30x isn’t saying that it doesn’t matter. They probably wouldn’t pay 100x. Someone else can agree or disagree, fine. Some want to say 30x is too high because other companies are valued at 10x or 5x or 1x. To each their own. But one who says 30x is too high isn’t alone in saying “valuation matters”. It’s just that the one who is buying at 30x believes the company is still undervalued or valued appropriately.

A company with no sales at all might be worth buying if the product is good enough.

[Aphalite]

I don’t own ZM, but why is optionality considered a desirable thing? Would you rather the companies you follow try to expand into many different services of which there’s no track record? or would you rather have a focus on serving its core customers and trouncing its competitors?

Over and over we’ve seen companies try to stretch itself too thin and offer too many products and have it hurt shareholder returns because there’s not enough focus. It’s equivalent to holding 20 different stocks in your portfolio, how can you possibly give each one the attention it deserves? It seems going into additional product lines more often than not signals that the company believes that it has or is about to exhaust its runway with the current product, so the move is out of desperation rather than foresight

As far as moat (why do we keep talking about moats in SAAS companies? moats are most effective for keeping what you have, not gaining market share to reflect the growth we’re seeking), eventually 1) legacy security firms will be attempting to develop cloud only solutions or 2) start up competitors with access to cloud computing (think Amazon GuardDuty or Azure ATP) with no need to have their own datacenters will start winning their share of the market as well. ZS deserves its multiple because of how it’s grown/executed in the face of all of the competition it faces, but if you think they won’t lose customers to new innovators down the line you’re acting as rational as the ZM IPO buyers you’re mocking.

Additionally, I think that over a long period time, ZM’s total addressable market will dwarf that of ZS. ZS is enterprise, ZM addresses both enterprise as well as consumer and small businesses, and it scales with number of users. A tutor or online teacher is not going to drop $300k on ZS products, but they will pay for licenses for ZM.

Return wise over the next year? I think ZS will outperform ZM because of the valuation that ZM has absorbed on its first day of training. But five years down the road I would be really surprised if ZS has a higher market cap than ZM

[Texmex]

IRdoc,

We are mostly in agreement except that I have seen posts stating that only business metrics like moat, CAP, TAM, growth rate, margins etc. should matter. Valuation metrics like EV/S don’t matter and are not part of the stock buying decision. Just buy the best businesses. Hence my comment.

IMHO there is a too high valuation even for the best stocks.

[XMFSwift]

I don’t own ZM, but why is optionality considered a desirable thing? …Over and over we’ve seen companies try to stretch itself too thin and offer too many products and have it hurt shareholder returns because there’s not enough focus.

You mean like Amazon (“on-line book seller”), Apple (“Mac Desktop Computer maker”) and Google (“Search”), Square (“Payments company”), MELI (On-line marketplace), etc, ect. etc…?

The simple answer is that companies that are rigidly focused on delivering on one product are more fragile and susceptible to being disrupted.

Here is a lesson in ‘why optionality matters’ from the great investor, David Gardner:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/30/9-self-evident-foo…

David Gardner: No. 2: I’ll just call it by the watchword we often use which is “optionality.” Principle No. 2 is basically that the best businesses are able to evolve. Why does that matter? Well, just like in biological evolution, changes in external circumstances happen and your organization needs to both be aware of those things and be adjusting itself to be relevant, and or successful, and or just survive into the next era by evolving. And one of the best ways that innovative companies manage to do this is often they have a second or third trick, and we call that, again, optionality. It means you have multiple possible futures.

The strongest business of our time, I think, is probably Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL). Looking across all of Alphabet’s different businesses starting with Google – and then looking across the globe and seeing all the different places that it is doing its Googly things – that is incredibly strong and the optionality, there, is enviable. I hold that up even over something like Amazon or Apple, because I just believe that Alphabet is operating across more fronts and doing more interesting stuff than any other company in the world.

Now, very few organizations are going to be like that, and very few stocks that you and I will pick have that kind of resilience. As long as you understand the concept that just like in biological evolution it’s going to be really important when external circumstances change – the Ice Age hits – it’s going to be really important for companies to recognize that it’s getting cold, let’s say, and they need to stop doing this and start doing this other thing.

And the ones that can actually do that – that have the leadership, that have the vision, that have the strength to actually be able to implement those changes [and permission from the markets, and customers, and partners to evolve] – those are the companies that you and I want to own.

As an aside, here is David Gardner’s current stock picking record over two decades for the Stock Advisor service:

David 	        +570.6%
S&P 500 	+87.0%

Not bad!

Fool on! Swift…

[XMFSwift]

kncy,

Interesting thought regarding VR. That makes a lot of sense.

You Said: I also see room for building partnerships with telemedicine providers, online education providers,legal service providers, online training providers, or any other “virtual consultation” type of business. That doesn’t directly address optionality per se, but if their platform is as reliable and simple as it seems to be, they could own the B2B and B2C virtual interaction space.

Presumably, all of this opportunity is currently built into their TAM…Agree that they have a long runway for what their current platform offers. Just don’t know how they maintain a sustainable advantage. They have first mover status at moment (as they successfully disrupted the incumbents (webex, skype, etc) with dated platforms, but its not clear to me how they will outpace others over time. (I actually wouldn’t be surprised if this company was acquired sometime in future.)

ZM certainly does have proven, excellent leadership and technical chops. This alone may help them maintain an advantage over time.

Best, Swift…
No position

[IRdoc]

We are mostly in agreement except that I have seen posts stating that only business metrics like moat, CAP, TAM, growth rate, margins etc. should matter. Valuation metrics like EV/S don’t matter and are not part of the stock buying decision. Just buy the best businesses. Hence my comment.

IMHO there is a too high valuation even for the best stocks.

A single valuation metric is different from valuation. Sometimes, a given valuation metric doesn’t matter. For decades everything was valued based on P/E yet most on the board today would agree that sometimes P/E doesn’t matter. Establishing the value of a company includes the moat, CAP, TAM, growth rate, margins, etc. The bottom line is that you buy a company that you think will be worth more in the future, whether the EV/S or P/E or whatever metric is 1 or 100.

[foodles]

Optionality is a double edged sword, it can be good, or bad, for a company. It all depends on how well the company and their leadership implement it. For companies that do it right, it can greatly increase and extend (or even reaccelerate) their high growth period. For ones that don’t do it well, it can be considered “diworsification”, and be a time and money drain on resources that would be better used elsewhere.

Each company will need to be evaluated individually if they are able to use optionality to their advantage. NTNX for instance, came out with many new products that sounded like they are great products, but maybe didn’t train their sales staff properly to be able to handle selling the new products and has caused them at least what will probably be a couple quarter (or more) delay in their business plan.

Regarding ZM, I have no idea what their optionality will be, and whether they will be able to properly implement any such things they come up with. ZM seems like not enough reward to risk for me, I’m staying away for now.

[Texmex]

A single valuation metric is different from valuation.

You missed my point. I never claimed just look at EV/S.

The bottom line is that you buy a company that you think will be worth more in the future, whether the EV/S or P/E or whatever metric is 1 or 100.

But here is the issue. Many here might have bought ZM at $36 (p/s of 28) but did not buy at $62 (p/s of 48).

[stocknovice]

IMHO there is a too high valuation even for the best stocks.

In my humble opinion that’s the whole point. Where these threads sometimes get off track is investors always want to tie valuation to some specific measure (EV/S, growth, CAP, TAM, etc, etc, etc). The truth is there is no magic formula or someone would have found it by now. All investors have their own set of variables for determining whether a stock is under priced, fairly priced or overpriced. How they weight those individual variables is entirely their own prerogative.

When I see the inevitable “WELL HOW COME VALUATION MATTERS FOR ABC BUT NOT FOR XYZ?!?”, I often think the broader point is being missed. We all “value” stocks. It’s the basis of our buy, sell or pass decisions. Learning how and why others do that is the most valuable part of this board to me. Trying to point out gotcha moments tied to a certain metric or a prior decision clouds the discussion at best and borders on being intentionally disingenuous at worst.

Context matters, even for a company as seemingly ideal as Zoom. That’s what makes a market.