No. of Recommendations: 67
With my companies starting to report their Q3 numbers in a couple weeks, here's a look at what the PS ratios would be if they simply hit their revenue guidance (which would be the worst most of these have done in years).

Ticker FWD P/S
SMAR 17.7
MDB 17.9
TWLO 15.8
ESTC 16.5
AYX 20.5
TTD 15.9
ZS 19.0
CRWD 25.5
PINS 13.9
DDOG 29.4

DDOG and CRWD may still look expensive, but recall that they are growing 60% to 100% faster than most everything else.

AYX still might not look cheap, but recall that they are profitable and that their gross margins are something like 90%!

Remember that margins and revenue growth rate are important for all these, as are many other things. TTD looks cheap by the one number given above, but they are growing a little slower than everything else. Still, they are very profitable, and PE is around 63. Not too shabby!

The real take-away for me is how far we've come. A couple months ago ZS's PS ratio was over 40. CRWD's was over 60! SMAR and MDB were near 30 and AYX was over 30. ESTC and TWLO were mid 20's.

"Look what the market is offering you for pennies on the dollar!" sounds like something a snake-oil salesman would say, and it's the kind of thing that people bristle at, especially those who see us as lunatics and read this board just to shake their heads at us.

There, I've said it for them. And yes, take it for what it's worth. Things can always go lower; I'd never deny that. But for my part, I really do think this is the time to buy. I mean look how far we've come!

Bear
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
AYX below $100 now sure does look cheap to me though. Looks like the selling is still not over..

Good luck to y'all

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
This whole topic is OT, but I may as well point out that, when stocks are trying to figure in the next couple of years exponential growth to justify their current price, there is no high or low. There is only the price someone else is willing to pay based on their own Ouija board and goat entrails. We will see tomorrow (or next week or next month or next year) if today's price is a bargain or not.

Just remember: “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” (Attributed to John Maynard Keynes)

Jeff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
“I really do think this is the time to buy. I mean look how far we've come!”

I was reminded of something I did with a good friend about 10 years ago. We ran the Grand Canyon from the south trail down to the Colorado River 9 miles below and back up.

About half way down I looked up and was in amazement how far we ran, only to then look down this one point and gasp at how far we still had to go. It visually looked like we were on a cliff in one of those Road Runner cartoons, looking down to the floor below.

Yea I’m with you Bear. I’ve been waiting to buy back in slowly. Bought this morning. I’ll patiently keep placing lower limit orders as the market swings back down. It was irrational on the way up, now it’s being irrational on the way down. That’s what markets do sometimes.

Pendulums swing both ways. I don’t think there was enough questioning of the pendulum swing straight up to nose bleed highs back in June/July.

I read a very convincing article back then about all the IPOs coming to market, being pushed by sheer greed to take advantage of the hot environment. It worried the author and it made sense to me. I privately emailed someone of importance on this board to ask if I could discuss on the board, to get his thoughts, but it was deemed off topic, so I left it at that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
The market is assuming the long-term hyper-growth will be hitting a wall. That current estimates (always conservative) are too high. That even category killing SaaS disruptive companies will slow to just above average growth and will face more competition.

That is clearly what the market is assuming across the board for the most part.

Earnings season will tell.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 28
That even category killing SaaS disruptive companies will slow to just above average growth and will face more competition.

That is clearly what the market is assuming across the board for the most part.

---

Honestly, a 15 P/S or 20 P/S or even 12 P/S is not what average companies even get to.
We simply allowed undervalued SaaS/cloud/growth companies from 2017 to explode up in 2018, and then started convincing ourselves with faulty rationalization that multiple expansion should just, like, keep going up!

SHOP was crazy expensive at 24 P/S or something like that. Now we think "okta down to 24 P/S? Cheap...buying!!" which is simply the result of being reconditioned to think that 30 P/S for MDB or ZS or AYX was the new normal.

I knew it was all insanity in July, and I was trying to get off the crazy train and was looking at value/dividend stocks, but I didn't commit. Oh well...that is on me. But I was lucky enough to keep trimming and build up cash over July and August, so while this collapse sucks, it sucks a bit less at least.

At this point, fully invested and running out of ways to horse trade from one stock to another, as they are all falling about the same.

Just because CRWD ZM DDOG are growing faster today doesn't mean it would last for another 4-6 Q's...they will trend down in growth rate eventually. So why would you immediately pay a double P/S and essentially a double mkt cap? Makes zero sense, and I have been saying that since ZM debuted. It was a jump-the-shark moment, in hindsight.

I think ZS will have just an "ok" next ER, so their stock may languish a bit longer, so I have put more into TTD and ESTC which I feel have strong beat-and-raise opptys in front of them, and great secular tailwinds behind them, and they no longer have obscenely high P/S ratios, while still having great growth rates.

I always asked why we could/should/would expect to continue to see gains via multiple expansion vs just having stock price gains be more in-line and reflective of actual rev/FCF/profit growth rates.

from ZS debuting high in IPO, then ESTC later, and then ZM/CRWD/DDOG, it is overly apparent this group of stocks became a momentum trade. Pure and simple. Great companies, but unsustainable stock prices in a world where they are being valued for being disruptive yet we are pricing them as if they themselves could never be disrupted in the next 3-4 years.

I feel quite lucky to still be up a decent amount...and it was just pure gut feeling and luck, because I was also buying into the momentum trade.

Que sera sera. All to do now is wait for them to bounce back and/or simply grow in-line with their growth rates moving forward, starting with this next round of ERs.

Dreamer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Earnings season will tell.

I certainly wouldn't count on earnings season to be a savior for the beloved high-growth cloud/software space. TEAM reported yesterday and did about as well as you could have hoped for by beating nicely on the top and bottom-lines, yet the stock is down 7% today and making new 3-month lows. That is on top of it already being down ~20% from its July/Aug peak heading into the report. Not a good sign.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
I knew it was all insanity in July...

I always asked why we could/should/would expect to continue to see gains via multiple expansion...

...and it was just pure gut feeling and luck, because I was also buying into the momentum trade.


Dreamer,

At first, I thought your statements above sounded kind of like "I told you so" ...until I read the last of the three. But I'm not sure I like the second part of it either -- I don't think you or any of us should beat ourselves up too much for "buying into the momentum trade." Those of us being cautious back in the summer have been proven correct in the short term. But if you'd been too cautious back in 2017 or 2018 when these things first started to look expensive, you would have missed that entire run-up. So I agree with you on one thing: Timing is luck.

And I do agree with your conclusion on what to do now: wait for them to bounce back and/or simply grow in-line with their growth rates moving forward, starting with this next round of ERs.

Bear
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
TEAM, which is not a name discussed much on this board, just had a by all measures pretty decent ER yesterday, beating all estimates. Revenue grew 36%, earnings grew 40%. Yet it sold off sharply today.

In psychology, there is something called anchor effect. People tend to base what they view things (such as valuation) on where they were recently. If the P/S was 20 and now 14, that means it's cheap right now and great buying opportunity, right? Unfortunately, Mr. Market does not care about how we base our beliefs. The prices will go where supply/demand leads, and when there is a regime shift ("rotation"), where the valuations were at recently may no longer be relevant.

While people on this board maintain a focus on the business growth prospect of these companies (which is important), Mr. Market simply thinks that the same growth rate should be priced differently. Given that the broader economy has been slowing down (OT I know), it may simply take a long time for the animal spirit to return the tech sector.

So we are left with growth eventually catch up to the valuation, and at the valuation and growth levels, it leaves little margin for error. We better hope they grow like crazy (and produce earnings soon if not yet and grow earnings like crazy).

What do our favorite stocks upcoming ER need to be to avoid the same reaction as TEAM?

bashuzi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yes, but TEAM is still up 55% year over year.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
if this is a sector wide "flee from risk" movement, as it appears to be, I would not count on anything except massive upside surprise to move any member of the group up. Institutions are taking profits and running.
OTOH we are seeing a waterfall decline, typical of bottoms . (tops are a process, bottoms are an event) . Unfortunately while I can quantify this for indices I have no tools for sectors.
Plus the historically nasty month of October is almost over.
Maybe the institutions have better data than we do, maybe something about the outlook for these software companies has really changed. If it were unease over the political situation the general market should be reacting too. OK maybe all this is OT but looking at these stocks only individually seems to be flawed when it is a group movement.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 65
Honestly, a 15 P/S or 20 P/S or even 12 P/S is not what average companies even get to.


Our companies aren't average companies.

An "average" company isn't growing revenue at 40% to 90%, or at anything even close to it! I just Googled it and they say the average S&P sales growth rate is 8.12%. Laughable!

An "average" company usually doesn't have 75% to 90% gross margins or anything even close to that! Actually it's just about half of that.

An "average" company doesn't have 85% to 95% of its revenue completely recurring and on subscription, and most have no "recurring" revenue at all in the sense we are talking about it.

An "average" company doesn't have a dollar-based net retention rate of last year's customer cohort of 115% to 145%, or anything even close to it! In fact last year's new car buyer or retail clothes buyer may buy nothing next year from you, and often does.


So why would we expect our companies to have the same P/S ratios as an "average" company? Of course our companies have much higher P/S ratios. How could you even imagine anything different?

Relax. This is a really bad correction for our companies' stocks but the companies aren't going away. Their stock price going down doesn't mean they are having any company specific problems at all. Forget about it over the weekend, and have a good weekend.

Saul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thanks Saul. Wishing also a wonderful weekend!
f
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 58
Not knowing who to reply to, I picked Saul's post . . . I spent a few hours contemplating whether to reply at all, the whole thread is pretty much OT for the board, but many long time and well respected members posted. I'm long time and, well you can decide if I have your respect, probably more for some and less for others . . .

Here's some comments I culled from the thread:

"Look what the market is offering you for pennies on the dollar!" sounds like something a snake-oil salesman would say, and it's the kind of thing that people bristle at, especially those who see us as lunatics and read this board just to shake their heads at us. - Bear

Just remember: “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” (Attributed to John Maynard Keynes) - Jeff

Pendulums swing both ways. I don’t think there was enough questioning of the pendulum swing straight up to nose bleed highs back in June/July. - Tryingmybest

The market is assuming the long-term hyper-growth will be hitting a wall. That current estimates (always conservative) are too high. That even category killing SaaS disruptive companies will slow to just above average growth and will face more competition. - Tinker

That even category killing SaaS disruptive companies will slow to just above average growth and will face more competition. That is clearly what the market is assuming across the board for the most part. - Dreamer

While people on this board maintain a focus on the business growth prospect of these companies (which is important), Mr. Market simply thinks that the same growth rate should be priced differently. Given that the broader economy has been slowing down (OT I know), it may simply take a long time for the animal spirit to return the tech sector. - bashuzi

Relax. This is a really bad correction for our companies' stocks but the companies aren't going away. Their stock price going down doesn't mean they are having any company specific problems at all. Forget about it over the weekend, and have a good weekend. - Saul

I will admit, not all that long ago when this downturn started to take hold, I was one who was near panic. I never got crazy and just went to cash. I decided then to ride it out. That's still my decision, but even as the erosion continues I'm actually more sanguine now than I was then. Here's why.

There are numerous reasons to just settle down and bear with it. Let's start with this is not the first time this has happened. At different times on different threads we've discussed 2000, 2008 and even 1929. If you look at the world-wide markets you'll be hard pressed to find any that are up. OK, I didn't do a longitudinal study (I'm still in China, unwilling to spend days at it), I just glanced at recent indices, all in the red (with the exception of Japan, less than 1% green). Yes, enterprise IT is really taking it on the chin, but it's not alone. There appears to be an irrational "exit to safety" whatever that means across the board. But, if I recall correctly, even gold was down. In any case, my point is that the market always recovers and gains new highs - eventually (recessions typically last 18 months).

But, let me put a finer point on it. During recoveries, the market always rewards growth. Don't believe me? Look at Saul's well documented performance over his investing career. I'm not sure why Saul decided to invest in growth stocks in the first place. Maybe he studied market proclivities for a while, maybe he was prescient or at least intuitive (is there a difference?). But for whatever reasons that's been his well rewarded investment style for something like 40 years or more (I think). Yes, Buffet has been enormously successful as a slow and steady value investor. But the dynamic growth along with the wealth of information we are experiencing now with these investments simply were not available to him when he started out. Would his style have been different under different circumstances? Who knows?

Let's take a closer look at the common traits of the particular companies most of us are invested in. First and foremost, they are at the forefront of the information/data "revolution." There have been a few true economic paradigm shifts over time. The "agrarian age", the "age of colonization", the "industrial revolution" and now the "information age" (did I miss one?). Those who recognized what was going on and postured themselves to benefit were inevitably richly rewarded in comparison to those who did not. And also of importance, in each case, the benefits came at a greatly accelerated pace in comparison to the prior paradigm shift.

But at a much more detailed level, all these companies are experiencing incredible revenue growth with spectacular margins and carry little or no debt. All these companies offer imperative, well protected products that do exactly what companies demand from their IT organizations. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are three things demanded of IT: Keep the ship afloat, reduce cost, reduce risk. Management of massive quantities of data is now an essential ingredient to keeping the ship afloat.

All of these companies are "disruptors". I'll spare you the litany of how each addresses their customer's needs. You should know that already. But in every case the old guard has been caught off guard and now is faced with the standard dilemma of how to move forward while maintaining their cash cow. Even with the history of companies that once ruled which have since gone out of business, or if still in business have been relegated to the role of just one of the pack commodity provider status it is astonishing that this is a dilemma for executive management. The handwriting is on the wall in big, bold, red letters. Yet, that this is a dilemma is a reality.

Will the growth rates be sustained forever? Of course not. But in most cases the companies we're invested in along with their most significant competitors have barely scratched the surface of their TAM - and in all cases, the TAM is also growing. And for the most part, these particular companies are the creme de la creme of the crop. Don't take my word for it. Look at Gartner, Forrester, etc. Forever is a very long time. But years is not an unreasonable time frame in which to expect continued growth at a torrid pace assuming management doesn't screw it up (big assumption, I admit).

These are not the characteristics of "momentum" stocks. These are fundamentals.

Can our disruptors be disrupted? Well, the very nature of disruption drives me to answer "yes". But, most of us are invested in a number of companies rather than just 2 or 3. The odds of all or even most of them getting disrupted are infinitesimally low. Nobody bats 1000 when it comes to investing. I expect a few to sour over time. I also expect to be nimble enough and emotionally disengaged enough to exit when the fundamentals turn and then get worse over time. That's an entirely different situation than what has occurred since last July.

Finally, I'll just quote Saul once again . . .

Relax. This is a really bad correction for our companies' stocks but the companies aren't going away. Their stock price going down doesn't mean they are having any company specific problems at all. Forget about it over the weekend, and have a good weekend. - Saul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I sure hope you, Saul and other vetrans on this board are right. I am inclined to agree that given the unique fundamentals of these companies (category killer, new generation technology, impressive growth & margin, large TAM etc), we are quite possibly investing in several long term huge winners, if they don't get acquired along the way.

At the same time, the market has been loud and clear in trying to tell us something, and it's imprudent not to listen. Investing needs conviction and temperament, true, but also needs humility and self doubt. Personally I have reduced my exposure to this space to some degree, but probably should have done quite a bit more in hindsight.

What I'm trying to say is that, sometimes it feel a bit like an echo chamber here where people come to provide emotional crutch to each other whenever bad news not related to a specific company hit. Just as many, especially Saul, have been ruthless to rethink when individual companies have diminished prospects, maybe it's prudent to adopt the same mindset to big sector-wide shift.

bashuzi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
At the same time, the market has been loud and clear in trying to tell us something, and it's imprudent not to listen.

I think, especially if everyone - "the market" - is loud about something, doing the opposite is the right thing to do.

Personally I have reduced my exposure to this space to some degree, but probably should have done quite a bit more in hindsight.

I did the opposite. Since I just started investing at the beginning of this year, I just had starter positions in the SaaS companies. Now I spent almost every dollar I had, and built everything into a full position.

Everyone has his own risk-tolerance(I am in the 30s, earning money, this makes it a bit easier I guess). And I am comfortable with a wild ride, as long as I can be confident with my decisions (this board, Bert, Saul and some other sources/people I think of very help a lot).

but probably should have done quite a bit more in hindsight.
In my opinion, this is a complete OT- and senseless thought. Reducing positions of great companies, doesn't make any sense. It rather sounds like you are a momentum investor or trying to time the market.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
Bash,
As I said, I was reluctant to even post. I'm also reluctant to reply, but here goes.

You are correct to a degree, the board can sound like an echo chamber at times, but it is not a blind echo chamber of bias confirmation. There are rational explanations for why these particular companies in this unique, and until recently non-existent space present extraordinary opportunities. It was my intention to present my perspective. As always, take it or leave it. It is nothing more or less than my reasoned opinion.

As for the vagaries of the market - I don't know if it is "trying to tell us something." I tend to doubt it. Over 75% of the trades in the market are driven by algorithms. So far as I know, they are programmed to react to market technicals. Once a sell-off begins, they set off a cascade of sell orders. As the avalanche rapidly increases in momentum, humans also react and sell orders are placed. The market "intelligence" turns to fear. That's not intelligence, rather it's an emotional reaction.

I spent a good many years of my career writing specifications for coders to program. I imagine that algorithms could be written to perform fundamental analysis. It would be a very complex task, but I once wrote specs for receiving inspection at high tech engineering/manufacturing firm. That was quite a ball of COBOL logic. Lord knows with AI & ML, modern languages and modern hardware the ability to code complex tasks is certainly not beyond the reach of modern computer science. I could be wrong but I just don't believe that they are being written that way. It is my belief that the trading algorithms are written to protect fund manager's jobs which are evaluated on a quarterly basis (if not more often). A fund manager who decided to sit tight (or horse trade) due to fundamental analysis during a market melt-down would probably be out of work in short order irrespective of how solid his/her logic might have been and how irrational the sell-off was. There's another side to that coin as well. A fund manager that consistently outperforms the market and his colleagues will also not last long because he will make everyone else look bad. There's a great deal of professional peer pressure to hug the average and cling to the fund benchmarks.

If you "listen to" every vagary of the market rather than your convictions as a small retail investor you will constantly be at the tail end of the whip and the mercy of unexpected forces. Of course, that implies you have convictions as opposed to emotional reactions. The market is an example of herd mentality. It stampedes when spooked. There is nothing rational about a stampede, it's simply an unleashed, unthinking burst of energy. It eventually burns itself out.

What triggered this stampede? I'm not certain. We are told that a respected analyst from CITI Bank had a lot to do with it, but that, if true, only explains the last few days. This started at the end of July. Maybe some who are more observant than I can explain it. To be honest, investing does not get my full time attention. I have other interests so there's a constant tug-of-war for my time.

My experience is that recoveries are generally slower than upswings (though I must admit in the last couple of years we've seen some dramatic upswings). So my strategy is basically do nothing and wait. You are entitled to yours whatever it may be.

Good luck - live long and prosper.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 25
Let's take a closer look at the common traits of the particular companies most of us are invested in. First and foremost, they are at the forefront of the information/data "revolution." There have been a few true economic paradigm shifts over time. The "agrarian age", the "age of colonization", the "industrial revolution" and now the "information age" (did I miss one?). Those who recognized what was going on and postured themselves to benefit were inevitably richly rewarded in comparison to those who did not....

...all these companies are experiencing incredible revenue growth with spectacular margins and carry little or no debt.

All these companies offer imperative, well protected products that do exactly what companies demand from their IT organizations:... Keep the ship afloat, reduce cost, reduce risk. Management of massive quantities of data is now an essential ingredient...

All of these companies are "disruptors"... in every case the old guard has been caught off guard and now is faced with the standard dilemma of how to move forward while maintaining their cash cow. Even with the history of companies that once ruled which have since gone out of business... or have been relegated to the role of just one of the pack commodity provider status it is astonishing that this is a dilemma for executive management. The handwriting is on the wall in big, bold, red letters. Yet, that this is a dilemma is a reality.

Will the growth rates be sustained forever? Of course not. But in most cases the companies we're invested in... have barely scratched the surface of their TAM - and in all cases, the TAM is also growing. And for the most part, these particular companies are the creme de la creme of the crop. Don't take my word for it. Look at Gartner, Forrester, etc.

Forever is a very long time. But years is not an unreasonable time frame in which to expect continued growth at a torrid pace assuming management doesn't screw it up (big assumption, I admit).

These are not the characteristics of "momentum" stocks. These are fundamentals.




That's just an awesome write-up Brittlerock, thanks so much. These companies are really in the forefront of a vast revolution, and just about every enterprise in every field needs what they are selling. Yet we have people worrying that they have P/S rations higher than an "average" company would ever attain. It just blows my mind.

Having the stock prices drop irrationally doesn't change what they do, or what their prospects are, in the slightest. We should all keep that fact in mind! The obvious conclusion is that you can now buy these companies with enormous prospects at cheaper prices (if you have free cash, which I don't).

Saul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
Just as many, especially Saul, have been ruthless to rethink when individual companies have diminished prospects, maybe it's prudent to adopt the same mindset to big sector-wide shift.


Hi Bashuzi, but that's the big difference, isn't it. There are no diminished prospects for these companies. They are not falling on any company specific or even sector specific news. They just all fell together because of probable programmatic selling which was then augmented by stop-losses, forced margin sales, and panic selling. There are no "diminished prospects" at all in that scene.

Saul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 39
An "average" company isn't growing revenue at 40% to 90%, or at anything even close to it! I just Googled it and they say the average S&P sales growth rate is 8.12%. Laughable!

An "average" company usually doesn't have 75% to 90% gross margins or anything even close to that! Actually it's just about half of that.



Let me just spell out for you again what this means compounded.

This year, the "average" company with $100 in sales and 40% gross margins has $40 in gross profit that it takes home to cover the costs of running the business.

Our SaaS company with $100 in sales and 85% gross margins has about $85 in gross profit that IT takes home.


BUT, next year!!!!
The "average" company growing at 8% now has $108 in sales and 40% gross margins so it has $43 in gross profit that it takes home to cover the costs of running the business (up $3).

Our SaaS company growing at 55% (below average for our companies) has $155 in sales and 85% gross margins and has about $132 in gross profit (up $47!!!). It has well more gross profit than the "average" company's total revenue already!!!


And the year after !!!!
The "average" company growing at 8% now has $117 in sales and 40% gross margins so it has $47 in gross profit that it takes home to cover the costs of running the business. (up $7 from two years ago)

Our SaaS company growing at 50% (slowing some) has $232 in sales and 85% gross margins and has about $198 in gross profit (Up $113 from two years ago). Our company now has twice the sales and four times the gross profit available to run the company.

And that's just in two years. Is it a wonder that our company has a higher P/S ratio?

Saul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
It's so easy to lose sight of that power of compounding!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 37
And the year after !!!!
The "average" company growing at 8% now has $117 in sales and 40% gross margins so it has $47 in gross profit that it takes home to cover the costs of running the business. (up $7 from two years ago)

Our SaaS company growing at 50% (slowing some) has $232 in sales and 85% gross margins and has about $198 in gross profit (Up $113 from two years ago). Our company now has twice the sales and four times the gross profit available to run the company.

And that's just in two years. Is it a wonder that our company has a higher P/S ratio?

It's so easy to lose sight of that power of compounding!




Please pay attention to this below! I really stopped too soon. Let’s just look at a third year, and figure our company has dropped its rate of growth to 45%. At the end of a third year:


The "average" company, starting with $100 sales and growing at 8% now has grown its sales by just $26, and has grown its gross margin dollars by all of $10!!!

Our SaaS company, also starting with $100 sales and now growing at 45% has grown its sales by $237, and has grown its gross margin dollars by $201!!!


Please look at those figures! They have grown their gross margin dollars 20 times more than the “average company” has grown its gross margin dollars in just three years, starting from the same amount of sales. And please quit trying to compare P/S ratios of our companies with what you see for conventional or average companies. It’s nonsense!

Best,

Saul


PS - Calculations
1.08 x 1.08 x 1.08 = 1.26 or a 26% gain in revenue in three years
1.55 x 1.50 x 1.45 = 3.37 or a 237% gain in revenue in three years

Of course our companies have vastly higher P/S ratios. How could they not?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The only change in stock price might impact the employee’s benefits, especially in sales team. We all know that sales is most important part (only less important than R&D)in Blitzscaling company. We can see that via recently Barron’s news about ZM CEO and CFO talking about unstable employees conditions while their stock price up and down too rapidly.

Just fellow up this board late March, so now suffered by recently pull back. My background was fund relative field and already retired for 10 years. Mostly my work focus on absolutely profit(very strict rule for stop loss). This my first time try to change my method. And l am not regret even cause me stressful a lot.
Print the post Back To Top