https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nasdaq.com/articles/zoom-ad…
Hi Saul and everyone, I bought into Zm at average price of 178 and it is 60% of my holding. It is stressful looking at the stock keep falling and now reading in the NASDAQ about this. The stock trading premarket at 130s and I’m standing to lose so much.
Hi ny2020,
I wouldn’t feel too comfortable with 60% of my portfolio in any one stock, unless I was an owner of said company. Anyways, we are longer term investors and not day traders.
Yes, this report will lower the price in the short run, but this virus and these numbers only add to the growth that we were seeing from the growing enterprise revenue.
Facebook and google video chats will be focused on free users and relying on ad revenue. The focus for Zoom still relies on enterprise customers, which is still at a very high growing point. So any users who go to those places wouldn’t be taking much away from zoom other than CNBC DAU articles. However, free users during these times would be bringing Zoom more company customers in the future, who wouldn’t use AD based video platforms.
Three comments:
hey ny,
Maybe you could share the rationale you used to make those purchases at those prices and commit to such a heavy weighting in your portfolio?
60% is a lot, even for a high conviction holding.
Hi Saul and everyone, I bought into Zm at average price of 178 and it is 60% of my holding. It is stressful looking at the stock keep falling and now reading in the NASDAQ about this. The stock trading premarket at 130s and I’m standing to lose so much.
I feel your pain, having done this kind of thing all the way back to 3DFX, and Ballard Fuel Cells. I hope you are young and have plenty of time to recover from this mistake, because if you have time you will. It’s a valuable lesson, and it’s worth going back to priorities the Fool has promoted now for decades: become debt free (except a reasonable mortgage); have 6 months or more of living expenses in cash; only invest money you can afford to lose.
Now you have to make a rational, non-emotional choice. Do you think Zoom can recover faster than any other option in the market? Or was your buy-in the high point for the foreseeable future and your money is better off somewhere else? Only you can decide that.
Personally I still think it’s a pretty d*** good story, and all the negative articles are intentional FUD financed by people who missed the boat and want in. But I’m no guru.
Hi Saul and everyone, I bought into Zm at average price of 178 and it is 60% of my holding. It is stressful looking at the stock keep falling and now reading in the NASDAQ about this. The stock trading premarket at 130s and I’m standing to lose so much.
You haven’t lost anything until you sell. It may have been a mistake to buy Zoom as you did … It would be a more serious mistake to sell precipitously as a result of a market excursion.
I suggest reviewing Zoom history and financials and studying many of the sterling discussions on this Board and the Zoom board and at least do nothing before their next quarterly report. If then you have reason to think your buy is an irretrievable error then ,and only then ,should you consider a sale.
draj - long Zoom
Hi Carver1963,
I’m a new investor and have been reading everyone post and agree with them. I was trying to time the market, and fear of missing out when I see the stock went up last Friday morning. So now is really to stay the course.
I didn’t read anything in this or the last three threads. I just wanted to chime in with a clear message.
They never said they had 300M users. It was a mistake in their blog. The news picked it up when they issued a blog correction, which is totally standard for ANY publication, even newspapers, when a mistake is found in the copy. AFTER the simple correction we started seeing headlines that paint a dubious picture of intent along side mentions of shorts.
This is NOT news. This is noise.
Besides, they are near an all time high, so the efforts of these irresponsible publishers aren’t even having an effect. I’m a little bummed I chose today to add more instead of last week, but only a little. I’m far more excited about the future.
OOPS! I forgot to post the correction!
It is NOT daily active USERS. It is daily meeting PARTICIPANTS. I have not checked this point but I assume this counts repeats. For example, I am in 5-10 Zoom meetings per day and I assume they count me as 5-10 participants. Idf someone knows for sure, let me know!
They never said they had 300M users. It was a mistake in their blog.
These are contradictory statements. So, let’s at least not do an Orwellian history re-write, OK?
In their blog posting, Zoom said they had 300M users. While it was a mistake, they did say it. In writing.
The news picked it up when they issued a blog correction, which is totally standard for ANY publication, even newspapers, when a mistake is found in the copy.
Zoom did not issue “a blog correction,” as you describe it. When a news organization makes a correction, they announce the correction. See this NY Time page, for instance: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/pageoneplus/corrections-a… or this https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/pageoneplus/corrections-m…
Zoom didn’t do that. They simply edited the blog posting without calling attention to the change. And they didn’t change the date! Matter of fact, that blog post (https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/22/90-day-security-pl… ) still has the Apil 22 date on it even though it was changed on April 24.
The Verge noticed the change, contacted Zoom, and only then did Zoom admit the change and apologize.
For example, I am in 5-10 Zoom meetings per day and I assume they count me as 5-10 participants.
Yup.
This is NOT news. This is noise.
On its own it wouldn’t be a big deal, but it fits into a pattern of Zoom Marketing deceptions, which includes mistakes such falsely claiming Zoom had end-to-end encryption capabilities. Zoom was so far away from actually having that capability that it recently just bought a whole security company (https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/05/07/zoom-acquires-keyb… ) in order to implement it.
I disagree that it’s just noise. As has been pointed out in the white papers on Zoom’s security issues, Zoom has not issued regularly Transparency Reports (Cisco WebEx does so here: https://trustportal.cisco.com/c/r/ctp/trust-portal.html?doct… ). Zoom now says they will moving forward. All in all, the media attention on security is push Zoom to do things they have until now refused to do.
Now, while it’s not noise, it also hasn’t been bad enough to make me sell, either. It’ll be interesting see how the 300M daily meeting participants number translates into actual paying users. Who knows, it could be that all this security attention, which is something CEO Yuan admits he didn’t focus on, will actually turn Zoom into a more compelling solution that it otherwise would have been. For instance, I believe only a small fraction of WebEx users utilize end-to-end encryption, but if Zoom makes that easy and affordable it could become a compelling reason to choose Zoom over Webex.
Wouldn’t it be something if the media’s focus on Zoom’s biggest weakness forces the company to turn that into a compelling business strength?
I feel like you picked on my typed text here. I’ve written in more detail and at greater length but I suppose I got tired or repeating it. At least my post brought the main issue back to the foreground.
Zoom did not report false numbers in financial documents, press conferences or other forms of communication generally accepted as more official or formal. The blog mistake occurred after there was a already a ton of other correctly stated references out in the world. I know this because I found it particularly annoying that numerous similar articles hit all at once with sensational headlines. Likely the first one or several were malicious in their intent to manipulate the price of the stock. I’m sure the rest were just picked up and regurgitated for content-sake. This is the noise I refer to. Nothing actually happened here. A very human mistake was made in a blog post and they corrected it. I’ve seen many post on this board that made the exact same mistake. The source of my annoyance is that we are taking time away for real learning and sharing to talk about this again, but here I am part of the problem I guess.
I won’t even go in to my views on blatant short-seller price manipulation or how I think more of it should be criminalized. And now there is a class action trying to get off the ground built on this…really? So silly. Vultures.
Wouldn’t it be something if the media’s focus on Zoom’s biggest weakness forces the company to turn that into a compelling business strength?
I believe they have done this a number of times recently. It is one of the things I love about Zoom and the CEO. Their response to all of this has been transparency and immediate action.
I feel like you picked on my typed text here.
Sorry, but the history being reported needed correcting. Like this new one:
It is one of the things I love about Zoom and the CEO. Their response to all of this has been transparency and immediate action.
It’s only been after the most recent heavy media pressure - the kind of pressure that some Zoom advocates such as yourself complain about - that Zoom and Yuan changed their stance on security and responsiveness. Previous issues reported before the Covid situation were left unfixed for months, if not actively pushed back on by Zoom as requiring one more click (even though that click was to get user consent to prevent unintended installation of viruses). I’ve posted references on these earlier.
Zoom did not report false numbers in financial documents, press conferences or other forms of communication generally accepted as more official or formal.
Press conferences? This is business, not government. A company’s blog on the company’s own servers is quite official. This wasn’t an offhand verbal comment made to a single person at a cocktail party, for instance. Not that I remember what a cocktail party actually was, btw. :{
I’ve seen many post on this board that made the exact same mistake.
That’s a false equivalence. People posting here are typically not representatives of the company, they are expressing their own opinions. This was on Zoom’s official company blog.
A very human mistake was made in a blog post and they corrected it.
Yeah, you kind of stepped into that one last time. The proper procedure on a correction is to at least note the correction, as in “a previous version of this blog post inaccurately characterized 300M users. That has been corrected to 300M meeting participants.” But, again, Zoom didn’t do that - they just made the change and didn’t even change the date!
This may seem minor, but in the cyber-security world, as it is in journalism, it’s important to be totally transparent. Zoom obviously isn’t quite there yet.
it’s important to be totally transparent. Zoom obviously isn’t quite there yet.
Will you at least admit that they’re headed in the right direction?
I THINK IT’ TIME TO CLOSE THIS THREAD. the 300 million users versus participants have been discussed to death.
Saul