The slow and steady mentality is fine, but we see over and over that it isn't what the market wants. A private company or a high risk growth company, those are the two options for a software company.
Either that or they'll be taken over. They're revenue now is just a $2bn, so that "grow grow" mindset from 10 years ago did not work out. In theory, a steady CEO could try to steady at that size with a nice margin. But, actually declaring and pursuing that would mean halving the companies market cap to a "normal" P/E of 20-30X.
At that price (say $20bn) one of the big software companies would just buy them... for their own growth targets.
Moderation has no place in the public markets as a software company. It's remarkable how unstable a stable condition is.
I understand that being small leaves you vulnerable to the predatory tactics of big players, but I see that as a consequence of lax regulation. There are too many mono/duopolies already, and the bigger they get, the harder it will be to split them apart.
This, I think, is the core of why. It's not that being a medium sized publicly traded company is immoral or unprofitable - it's that in a public market your stock is priced on future earnings and choosing to be smaller than possible means your tech can be bought for cheap. If you choose to stay smaller than maybe you could be - you're leaving ROI on the table in a lot of peoples' eyes (even if you're right and you'd lose money trying to get huge). So, as your stock price drops off to reflect the expectation that you're not going to get super impressive earning growth, you start to look appealing as an alternative to developing technology for an industry giant. Why spend $5bn over 10 years to develop competing services when you can borrow $5bn today, buy atlassian, get a tax break on the debt and start making a play for market dominance with the atlassian tech?
If you want a small or medium company, staying private is a more sustainable approach.
Salesforce vs. Siebel being a great example of exactly that.
While I agree with your statement, I had to look that up because it sounds interesting. In 1999, the year Salesforce was founded, Siebel was the dominant player in the CRM field, holding 45% of the market, so not precisely a small company.
More than a budget war against a deal-with-the-devil startup, what killed Siebel was its inertia. Siebel sold expensive in-your-premises software, while Salesforce sold SAAS, and emphasized a cheaper cloud model. Siebel didn't react until 2003(!), when it released its first cloud version. By tht time, the expertise of cloud solutions of Salesforce made Siebel look like an amateur.
Siebel surpassed 1 billion revenue in 2000, while Salesforce did it until 2009. They had their chance.
I still agree that even if a small company did everything right, another one with more money and no fear of heavy losses would eat their lunch even if their product was inferior.
Markets pull towards potential, and the potential of Atlassian is valued higher than it's stable state.
Except the government got addicted to printing money and throwing it around to boost GDP (and taxes) through bullshit business models and bullshit investments. They literally created framework where being an overstaffed money-bleeding behemoth creates higher returns for the shareholders than being a lean-and-mean niche business.
If you don't go the unsustainable blitzscaling route you'll be outcompeted by those who do, just as Atlassian did to plenty of smaller, more sustainable competitors.
> I understand that being small leaves you vulnerable to the predatory tactics of big players, but I see that as a consequence of lax regulation.
That's nice, but that doesn't make it go away. Do you have a plan to make the regulation non-lax?
1. Companies provide useful products to customers.
2. Growth means that you built products that more customers paid more money for, because it was useful.
3. Thus, growth means your company contributed more to human prosperity.
What the market wants is short term growth and I firmly believe that is what is destroying our economy and the market.
Instead of building pillars and companies that outlive the founders, we have short term cash grabs. We have VC firms buying up our existing pillars, gutting them of any valuable assets, saddling them with debt, and then selling off the carcass. We have firms buying up real estate and creating or exacerbating scarcity to drive up demand and prices. We have shifts towards subscriptions and quarterly profits.
It's not healthy and it's destroying us.
Agreed, and its now a pox on the overall system.
What kind of a 100 year future does Atlassian have? Jira certainly isn't a 100 year product. Software is so fast... IDK. The pox is not just a product of greed and malice and nothing.
We're talking about a company that produces products that are widely used. JIRA is not the issue, but the company that produced it. 100 years is stretching it, but I would believe that Atlassian outlasts yahoo.
"only" $2bn ? this is bizarre to see discussed without question
And has been growing 30% YoY for the last 3~4 years alone. This is unheard of in any other industry/market.
Their FCF is also impressive.
It has been common for the leaders in every other market throughout commercial history, as it pertains to corporations of large size. What you're looking at are presently old industries and comparing them to newer, that's where your mistake rests.
Walmart did it. Sears did it. Kmart did it. Best Buy did it. US Steel and its components did it. The various automobile majors did it. Standard Oil and the other oil majors did it. General Electric did it. Caterpillar did it. Pan Am did it. Many of the railroad companies did it during their time. McDonald's, Starbucks and most large chains do it during their expansion->saturation phase. Coca Cola did it.
It's exceedingly rare to find a large corporation that didn't bang out 30% growth years for a decade or more to get as big as they got.
One day, decades from now, "cloud" will look like a big dead industry too, and people will talk about how it never grows fast. Just ask the people that used to make business software you install onto PCs.
Facebook took 17 years and Walmart took 25 years to reach $85B in sales.
Most tech companies have ~80% gross margins. Walmarts is ~25%.
You simply cannot compare the two.
Growing revenue while still not making a profit is not impressive. If you give me $100 today I can go out a buy $100 a pair of new shoes, and sell it for $70. Give me $200 and I'll go out and by two pairs of shoes and sell them for both $84 (total)! Keep giving me money and you'll continue to see this growth I promise!
> This is unheard of in any other industry/market
Given my example above, that should be a warning, not a sign of success.
I find it mind-boggling that people can really not even grasp that growing revenue with out demonstrating you can transform that revenue into profit doesn't mean all the much.
Grow profits every year by 30% and I'll be impressed.
It is when you’re a software company and the marginal cost of the goods is zero.
Hilarious that you use the analogy of shoes. This is exactly the problem. Great explanation on this concept:
https://a16z.com/2015/05/15/a16z-podcast-why-saas-revenue-is...
> Grow profits every year by 30% and I'll be impressed.
Oh, you mean like Facebook did?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/277229/facebooks-annual-...
This phenomenon might to some degree be a function of the board’s veto power over the CEO. A primary reason you typically go public is to grow, so by default at IPO you’re a “growth stock”. But from that point on, its difficult to ever make a transition to a steady, sustainable “dividend stock”, especially as a tech company. If you try to, the stock will tank, all the “growth” investors will get mad and you (the CEO) will probably get fired by the board, and they’ll bring in a new “growth” CEO.
For the successful companies that do grow into a dividend company, they often have valuations that far outstrip their eventual settling location at some point in the trajectory.
