I work with Stata for macro modeling, and even after trying EViews (which is arguably designed for time series work), I went straight back to Stata. Because my entire analytical workflow, the .do files, the mental models for debugging, the muscle memory for commands that represents years of accumulated path dependency. The cognitive switching cost vastly exceeds any marginal benefit from a "better" tool. This is exactly what you're describing: for B2B software, inertia isn't irrational behavior, it's economically optimal given the system-level dependencies already in place.
Great post. I think you have to be careful on what names to buy. Regardless, some of these SaaS companies have hugh headcounts, and I'm concerned about white collar jobs at these companies in the future. Either the stock will force them to shed bloat, or the AI disruption will.
Hi Oguz, I have to confess that I bought IGV 2027 puts recently. I think that SaaS have further to fall in the short term and I'm not the only one if I believe the price action on IGV in the last 2 months.
That said, some SaaS companies such as Adobe, ServiceNow and Veeva are getting close to good value for the long term investor. They are well entrenched (moat) and have a great balance sheet. Pity they don't pay dividends though.
Thinking of investing my puts proceeds into these 3 companies if the weakness continues. Aiming for IGV <= $70, 15% down from the current price.
Saas software business is not and never about technical complexity. You can build the clones of these saas products if not in hours but in days by a group of friends. It’s all about domain stickiness , customer satisfaction and workflow efficiency that makes these companies click. The barrier of entry was never a moat of Saas.
Thanks this is thoughtful and useful. The disruption in b2b may start amongst new and smaller firms where lower cost is very important and established practices are not entrenched. That may limit TAM potential for incumbents. The new models may start with more limited functionality than that of incumbents but over time, they may improve and add functionality making their offers more appealing across the business spectrum.
Very interesting, nice to hear a measured and reasonable take as opposed to clickbait that espouses one extreme or the other. You mentioned DUOL in the article, and you’ve written about it as attractive before (when its price was significantly higher). Have you changed your feelings on DUOL? Should it be treated like any other B2C software company, or is there something that makes it unique within the market?
I like DUOL, as I think they have built a brand known all over the planet. And a brand forms a moat, in B2C even more than in B2B. (Ask Mr. Buffett, and also ask him about the relevance of switching costs in the case of Coca Cola).
Same! Which is why I have invested a good chunk of my portfolio in them over the last 6 months. During which it keeps sliding. More than happy to keep holding….but what do you think about the software-related arguments in the above article re: DUOL?
Imagine somebody tried and copied them. What would he have achieved? How would DUOL's 135M worldwide users learn about it? And which prices would a new company take? So, the software arguments are not particularly relevant. It takes more to build a brand.
I work with Stata for macro modeling, and even after trying EViews (which is arguably designed for time series work), I went straight back to Stata. Because my entire analytical workflow, the .do files, the mental models for debugging, the muscle memory for commands that represents years of accumulated path dependency. The cognitive switching cost vastly exceeds any marginal benefit from a "better" tool. This is exactly what you're describing: for B2B software, inertia isn't irrational behavior, it's economically optimal given the system-level dependencies already in place.
Definitely, thank you so much for providing this insight.
Great post. I think you have to be careful on what names to buy. Regardless, some of these SaaS companies have hugh headcounts, and I'm concerned about white collar jobs at these companies in the future. Either the stock will force them to shed bloat, or the AI disruption will.
I completely agree. Either way work force in those companies has to be slashed by a lot.
This is gold, thank you
🙏🏻🙏🏻
Hi Oguz, I have to confess that I bought IGV 2027 puts recently. I think that SaaS have further to fall in the short term and I'm not the only one if I believe the price action on IGV in the last 2 months.
That said, some SaaS companies such as Adobe, ServiceNow and Veeva are getting close to good value for the long term investor. They are well entrenched (moat) and have a great balance sheet. Pity they don't pay dividends though.
Thinking of investing my puts proceeds into these 3 companies if the weakness continues. Aiming for IGV <= $70, 15% down from the current price.
I agree that the broader sector has to coke down by more Julien. In my opionion Adobe is the closest to being attractive valuation-wise.
Excellent, thoughtful essay, Oguz
This is the best article I have seen so far for discussing the recent SaaS sell-off. Thank you~
Saas software business is not and never about technical complexity. You can build the clones of these saas products if not in hours but in days by a group of friends. It’s all about domain stickiness , customer satisfaction and workflow efficiency that makes these companies click. The barrier of entry was never a moat of Saas.
Exceptionally good
Thanks this is thoughtful and useful. The disruption in b2b may start amongst new and smaller firms where lower cost is very important and established practices are not entrenched. That may limit TAM potential for incumbents. The new models may start with more limited functionality than that of incumbents but over time, they may improve and add functionality making their offers more appealing across the business spectrum.
Very interesting, nice to hear a measured and reasonable take as opposed to clickbait that espouses one extreme or the other. You mentioned DUOL in the article, and you’ve written about it as attractive before (when its price was significantly higher). Have you changed your feelings on DUOL? Should it be treated like any other B2C software company, or is there something that makes it unique within the market?
I like DUOL, as I think they have built a brand known all over the planet. And a brand forms a moat, in B2C even more than in B2B. (Ask Mr. Buffett, and also ask him about the relevance of switching costs in the case of Coca Cola).
Same! Which is why I have invested a good chunk of my portfolio in them over the last 6 months. During which it keeps sliding. More than happy to keep holding….but what do you think about the software-related arguments in the above article re: DUOL?
Imagine somebody tried and copied them. What would he have achieved? How would DUOL's 135M worldwide users learn about it? And which prices would a new company take? So, the software arguments are not particularly relevant. It takes more to build a brand.
https://substack.com/@summitstocks/p-187277267