I don't understand investing in tech companies

Stocks
1

I answered the Inderes survey on the homepage about tech companies, and I had to dig up some key figures for the companies to answer. Almost all the companies in the survey were either unprofitable or had listed on the stock exchange at peak valuations. Among them were a couple of older firms: F-Secure was the only one that had remained profitable in the long term, while Basware showed that its business was not profitable.

Tech companies seem to be in some kind of bubble. When Admicom makes a profit of 3.2 million euros, the market values this profit at 190 million. What about unprofitable firms? If unprofitability is kindly interpreted as an investment in growth, what kind of investment is it in this industry? Is a tech company’s investment aimed at achieving a monopoly, or does the company just have to keep up with constantly changing technology? My computer’s software is constantly updating, and I’ve never understood what significance some Microsoft update package has in my life. Then I have to search online when a previously working feature no longer works.

Technology is not the future; it’s already here all the time. Online stores and payment systems are no longer a new thing. For every company, one must ask what value the firm creates for its stakeholders. I don’t care about your goal of creating a platform that competes with Steam or YouTube; as a consumer, I want compatible standards, low search costs, and effortlessness. Investors, upon hearing the word ‘platform,’ add a zero to the acceptable valuation.

Is your firm the best available option? If not, continue developing, hope for the best, and for investors’ patience. If you are the best option, how much better are you than your competitors? This creates the margin. Global competition is ruthless, and luck also plays a role. Can you build a brand with any generic option? In ten years, the world will look completely different anyway.

7 Likes
2

Fashion comes at a price, even if it doesn’t always make sense. All companies selling their products on a SaaS (Software as a Service) basis can be priced assuming everything will succeed. It’s been the same for many gaming companies. Other companies are required to show proof of their ability to generate profits, but for these tech companies, mere talk and promises are enough. Years of growth don’t help anything if they can’t make a profit.

1 Like
3

I haven’t done that survey yet myself (thanks for the reminder). Admicom and Efecte were probably the only familiar companies to me in the survey.

I can’t say if tech companies are in some kind of bubble, but in Efecte’s case, I can’t relate to that. Admicom might be a bit overpriced, but it’s up to each investor to decide what multiples they accept for it.

In general, I don’t know if people invest in tech companies because of the hype. I, at least, own these two companies because I simply want to own them and I believe they will be good investments in the future, and I believe in their products and offerings.

Many of the companies are indeed loss-making. In Efecte’s case, I accept/even demand all the money to be invested at this stage. It’s strange if people who chase dividends are considered irrational, but if you invest in a company that invests in growth, that’s also wrong? Is there even a right way to invest anymore?

The companies in that survey can’t even be compared to each other. Anyway, there would have already been a thread here for FAANGs and other tech companies, where bigger platforms and these real tech companies are discussed.

4

It’s good to live by faith :smiley:

Dividends are a completely foolish invention from a tax perspective. There’s nothing inherently wrong with companies’ investments. The issue is mainly that a company cannot endlessly just focus on growth. Similar efforts must be made in the future to stay competitive. Additionally, the nature of the investments largely determines how one should view the matter. Focusing solely on sales and advertising is only sensible for a very short period. For example, Verkkis’s investment in advertising at the expense of profit is not an investment but a necessity to remain competitive. Many, however, see these as investment efforts.

In Efecte’s case, it seems there isn’t much focus on the product itself, and for a long time, they’ve relied on heavy marketing and “growth efforts” that don’t inherently increase the product’s long-term competitiveness. You always get sales when you invest in sales. The question is mainly at what cost sales are acquired. If the efforts don’t even meet the growth target, then the marketing has indeed been partly wasted, and we can’t really talk about a good investment.

2 Likes
5

But it’s better than living on hope alone =D

Yeah, in Efecte (Efecte) the biggest investments probably go to sales and marketing. Product development probably took ~20% of 2018’s revenue, likely for developing existing products. Personnel costs are the biggest expense, and the company has recently recruited sales personnel.

That’s true, if a product is heavily marketed but doesn’t sell, then it’s a waste of money. It’s difficult to assess how much money has been “wasted” and how competitive the products ultimately are, and how much money has gone into implementation costs, etc. Time will probably show the competitiveness in the end. It would be foolish for Efecte (Efecte) not to aggressively invest in sales and marketing at this point.

I started to wonder about the underlying purpose of this thread? Is the intention here to talk about a) specifically the companies in that survey b) Finnish software companies c) tech companies in general d) everything in between + all sorts of random stuff. Well, some discussion has already been generated…

Anyway, have a great weekend, G and everyone else :sunglasses:

2 Likes
6

I have Talenom (it generates a strong cash flow, although the share price has risen by 200% in a little over a year, but my first investment at 11 euros has already yielded 5% in dividends alone. A couple of years of growth, and the most recent purchases at around 31-32.1 euros are also generating a decent cash flow).
You might say it’s an accounting firm, but I actually see it as a software company, which in principle could probably become a separate software company in the long run…

Qt Group, things have progressed well, the industry is a bit special, the company already has 12 million in license revenues, even though it has been said that these license revenues will only really start flowing in 2020. I assume that if things continue to progress, there will probably be a dividend stream in a couple of years, but the original investments made at 6.6 and 6 euros have risen by about 100% at the same time (maybe I could sell sometime if I want that cash flow?!).

F-Secure, if one looks at historical profitability and the current focus on the enterprise sector, which seems to be progressing in principle, and considers the increase in data volume, etc., I could imagine that when it is no longer seen as profitable to grow so fast, that profitability will indeed come through. That is, at the current price, if one has acquired one’s shares as I have.

Edit: I also have Efecte (the latest quarter is already more promising.. we’ll follow that).

I do like it better if money comes from bits rather than furniture or steel; you don’t seem to get it as well from those.

In a way, the Talenom’s approximately 200% return and Qt’s approximately 100% return already cover Efecte’s approximately 10% loss quite nicely?

2 Likes
7

Perhaps the outlook also depends on the purchase price?

8

Is Revenio a software company? It’s nice that they’re starting to sell that home data from those HOME devices, so they get free profit :slight_smile:

9

Admicom (I owned it and made the worst 30% profit of my life), you could still get it for about 10-11 euros a while ago. Now the price is 40 euros.

Would 11 euros feel cheap, even with current numbers and forecasts?

You could have also gotten Efecte for well under 4 euros in December.

P.S. I haven’t looked at the poll, when was it, and I apologize if the expression is provocative now. I’m hungry.

I just filled it out. For example, Basware, does it have good earnings growth prospects? The earnings are currently in the red, and the new CEO is letting people go and promised to make the company cash flow positive by the end of 2020? So earnings are growing, but probably not absolutely good?

10

I understand investing in tech companies as a good foundation because, in practice, one company can well dominate its entire operating environment in the future. This, in turn, practically means a very permanent moat until future technology does the same task faster or better than the existing solution. On the other hand, in many cases, a dominant company gets its hands on this new technology first due to its size. Of course, most of them will not become success stories like Salesforce or Intuit, which completely dominate their own industry.

Additionally, due to the extremely good scalability of tech companies, investors are willing to accept ugly-looking losses for a certain period of time.

There are no full-fledged tech companies in my own portfolio, mainly because I don’t feel I necessarily understand technology and technological development well enough, and because the competition between tech companies is extremely fierce. Perhaps in the future.

1 Like
11

Talenom wasn’t a software company in the survey :smiley: ? Apparently it’s an accounting firm?

12

A productive investment focuses on future cash flow-based returns for the investor. The rest is speculation, but I’m not saying one can’t get rich through speculation. I examine my investments on a fundamental basis, but I consistently find that tech companies categorically appear to be poor investments. While the value creation of consumer goods companies is easy to understand – how German luxury car manufacturers use money to build a brand – it’s harder to grasp the value of a programming language or a specialized application.

There’s a strong effort to explain that there is value in sniffing out what consumers do. It produces data, intangible assets, which are more valuable than gold. Those who ask about capital are considered stuck in the past. Investors should accept unsecured credit in a company’s story. There’s nothing wrong with risky investments, of course, if one has nerves of steel. What if other investors lose faith? I am absolutely sure that Nokian Tyres will continue to sell tires no matter what the stock price is, but a tech company might struggle when management bonuses paid out in stock offerings dilute the shares of all owners even more. This is also the secret to the growth of the mighty Amazon.

It’s possible that I just don’t understand how tech companies make a profit. I wouldn’t have predicted Outokumpu’s or Finnair’s earnings per share to exceed one euro either. I created this thread to learn more about tech from those who know more about it.

1 Like
13

"I believe it’s important to thoroughly research targets and continuously monitor progress. I’ve personally increased my stakes when things have moved in the right direction.

However, I wouldn’t invest in just anything. I think it’s essential to look at least 2-3 years ahead with these investments.

But in my opinion, even my favorite, Talenom’s (P/E ratio), cannot be on the same level as Nokian Tyres or Outokumpu.

P.S. I also own Nokian Tyres, and I think it’s a good company. Of course, profitability will be challenging for some time."

14

Excellent start. I don’t always understand correctly either.
I tried hard to understand sometimes 4-5 years ago, when the Kauppalehti discussion forum was raving about a company called SSH and its mind-blowing future.

I looked at the numbers. The company churns out losses year after year or struggles with zero profitability. Yet the share price was skyrocketing and the multiples were through the roof.
I didn’t get it. Or I did get it: hype. Investors saw the potential for a big leap here, but not the threat that the same old trend would continue.

I wrote on the forum that the company was at an incomprehensible price given its ability to make losses and that I would rather invest my funds in companies whose future earnings generation and market price of the share had some understandable connection.

I received such a torrent of abuse from investors caught up in the hype that it was beyond belief. The main content of the messages was that I was the one who didn’t understand. And that SSH would make everyone “millionaires” in a few years. The stock would rocket to twenty and more in an instant.
Right, of course.

At that time, SSH’s share cost well over 4 euros on the stock exchange.
Today, it seems to cost just over 1 euro.

I’d like to go and ask that if I was the one who didn’t understand,
then what does that make all those who “understood”?

I have an answer to that too.
It’s “poorer”.

4 Likes
15

Good opening. First, I must state that if you feel that the pricing of tech companies is wrong and that they have an unreasonably massive hype premium, then you will increase your probability of beating the market in the long run by refraining from investing in tech companies. Successful contrarians make the biggest excess returns (and unsuccessful ones pay heavily for their stubbornness).

Here are a few special characteristics of tech companies compared to more traditional companies, using the VeHi method:

  1. Low marginal costs
  2. Unlimited or nearly unlimited capacity to distribute their products to the market
  3. Especially for SaaS companies: service-based billing (Netflix sells the same account monthly)
  4. In many industries, a “Winner Takes it All” situation

For example, Admicom, mentioned by Juip at the beginning, is a good example of each of these. I do not own Admicom.

  • The costs of a new customer are minimal: web-based ERP can be easily delivered to companies.
  • Practically every potential customer can be served, as no product is manufactured in a factory whose capacity would run out. If an internet-based product starts to falter, you just go buy a bit more capacity from the store.
  • Admicom makes agreements several years in advance, giving excellent visibility. This significantly lowers the company’s risk level.
  • Admicom has wisely chosen its market niche, where it is constantly becoming more dominant. The company is becoming the sole ruler of its chosen industries.

In Admicom’s case, it’s easy to see why tech companies can be paid a lot, as the company can, in the best-case scenario, grow extremely profitably many times over without additional investments. On the other hand, the company’s riskiness is limited based on its existing profitability. For these reasons, companies are paid a lot.

As for Pika-Sissi’s example of SSH, I must agree in the sense that tech companies indeed carry huge risks. Especially if a company is making a loss, the expected return of a probable scenario must be extremely positive for it to be rational to invest in. Tech companies are rarely all-in cases. Many have gotten their fingers burned, and it’s always instructive to read these investor stories from forums. So always remember moderation and the golden rule of diversification.

Here’s a bit of a stream of consciousness and justifications for my own tech company investments. You can check out the composition of my own portfolio on Shareville.

3 Likes
16

I would also answer that survey. Of the companies in this survey, only Admicom & Efecte were the most familiar to me.

I understand Juip’s point regarding these tech companies. I also invest based on fundamentals, and each company in the survey should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. I wanted to state my own position regarding Efecte’s unprofitability, and the company’s valuation is not unreasonable when viewed with the revenue multiplier (EV/S ≈1.6). I consider Efecte a relatively safe long-term investment in the end, because the company likely has very low customer churn, revenues are recurring (as is common with SaaS companies), and its products already have a proven track record in terms of competitiveness, e.g., a strong foothold already in Finland, positive satisfaction surveys, and winning major accounts in Germany, etc. Efecte could practically also make a profit currently without large sales investments. However, revenue growth has been a little too modest. But that’s it. Overall, when one glances at the companies in the survey, there is some commonality among them, for example, precisely this unprofitability and/or having just listed on the stock exchange. The SSH mentioned by Pika-Sissi could be precisely one of those cases where a nice tech premium is baked into the stock price. I haven’t delved into the company, nor have I really thought about it right now.

This thread could be one where, for example, Finnish software companies/tech companies are highlighted (and shot down accordingly :D) so it might be easier to get a handle on different companies at different times :thinking: many tech companies are still semi-unknown to me as well.

P.S. Niklas, you got a new follower on Shareville :+1:

1 Like
17

SSH’s valuation at the time was based on patents. Ultimately, however, the patents were invalidated in court. If they had been able to cash in on the patents, there would not have been an overvaluation at the time. The case was not clear-cut, so the patents had to be given a price based on assumptions. Now that the patents cannot be monetized, the price has continuously fallen towards the value of the business itself. It is not reasonable to compare SSH’s previous valuation to its current one.

1 Like
18

For Efecte, I felt that the latest quarter definitely showed a strong light at the end of the tunnel, but a little more reassurance is still needed. The new German customer who also acts as a reseller seemed very nice!

2 Likes
19

More than a third of my portfolio is in tech, but apparently, this thread mainly discusses software product companies, which I currently have very few of. I haven’t intentionally avoided them; I’ve just found what I consider better investment opportunities in the technology sector (mainly on US exchanges).

F-Secure is currently the only software product company I’ve deemed worthy of a place in my portfolio from the Helsinki Stock Exchange. I believe in the sector’s growth far into the future because soon it will be difficult to find a product that doesn’t have at least one computer embedded in it (with software and security issues within that software). F-Secure is a sufficiently large player in its field, has always had competitive products, and generally a good long track record. It is also sufficiently liquid (this condition alone can rule out a large number of Helsinki’s small tech companies).

At the core of tech firms is product development, which is a continuous race against others. Similarly, sales and marketing are ongoing activities. I don’t understand these narratives where either of these is treated as some temporary investment. If you slow down, others will pass you by.

Even if you’re first to market, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. It doesn’t even necessarily mean anything that you dominate the market in the early stages. For example, Netscape made the first really good web browser. Netscape achieved over 90% market share in the mid-90s. Its market share in 2006 was 1%, as Microsoft and many others easily overtook it.

Usually, people only remember the winners. However, for every winner, there are long rows of failures in the graveyard of tech companies.

Having seen quite a few first releases of products, I can say that almost always the first release requires significant patching later. The more parallel releases/products to maintain, the larger the proportion of staff goes into maintaining the old and is away from developing the new. Then, to top it all off, you can add customers who demand customization.

Tech companies can easily become locked into a certain platform/technology, as happened with Nokia’s mobile phone division and Symbian. Apple didn’t invent the smartphone; they studied existing products on the market and made one that was many times better. They had no legacy burden and had done their homework exceptionally well (their first release is famously not rubbish - the exception proves the rule).

Especially large companies have the option that Apple used with smartphones and Microsoft with web browsers. They let smaller companies push a technology, and then either buy them out, litigate them out, or develop their own much better product for the same market.

The problem for small companies is that they have very small product development (and sales/marketing) organizations. A large company can put 10-100 times the same amount of skilled people to work and achieve the same level quite quickly. Similarly, a large company can easily find a bunch of patents with which to sideline a smaller player (Motorola attacked Nokia as soon as Nokia’s market share in mobile phones became “significant”). With small companies, litigation doesn’t even need to be won - it’s enough that it drains years of money and resources (which a large firm has, but a small one might not).

In my opinion, a tech company can achieve a sustainable moat only through large size. In such cases, they usually have a good brand, a large patent portfolio, a large product development department, a large sales/marketing department, and several successful products. That is, replicating something similar becomes difficult.

I don’t believe that all the new-era companies currently in the lead will still be with us as independent entities in 20 years. The same thing happened to most of those who were in the lead in 1999-2002 and survived the bubble (e.g., Yahoo is no longer an independent entity and, before ending up under Verizon’s ownership, began to be just a shadow of the power Yahoo was in 2000).

In addition, in the semiconductor technology sector, for example, the moat is deepened by production technical expertise and the fact that each generation’s production line costs more than its predecessor. Currently, we are at a level where even giant companies may not embark on building a factory alone.

Yes, good tech companies can be found, but I, for one, no longer believe in stories.
There must be evidence, size, and liquidity.

4 Likes
20

If such a “revenue without additional investments” story works, it truly revolutionizes business. The effectiveness of this story can be examined company-by-company using the Asset Turnover ratio. This is obtained by dividing the fiscal year’s revenue by the average of the total assets at the beginning and end of the fiscal year. If the hypothesis holds true, the ratio should steadily increase over time. For many traditional companies, too, the ratio fluctuates with business cycles and demand. However, revenue is much less volatile than the lower lines of the income statement, and it is not easy to manipulate. I added the figures for a few companies mentioned in the thread to a spreadsheet. I am not claiming that these companies have guided for revenue growth without additional investments. The Asset Turnover ratio also says nothing about profitability.

asset%20turnover
asset%20turnover549×137 1.59 KB

If revenue does not grow automatically, we are among ordinary mortals. Growth requires additional investments, just like in all other industries. Additional investments, in turn, depend on profitable business operations or investors’ loose purse strings.

3 Likes