This was a good post @Jorge_B 
In my opinion, it would be a great move if @Frans-Mikael_Rostedt took these two extreme scenarios to the next management interview and asked directly why they think reality is closer to number two than number one. It would be valuable for investors to hear management’s rationale for this.
I’ve been following the company somewhat casually since the IPO, and much more actively this year. The drop in the share price and the low valuation of recurring revenue have piqued my interest in owning the company.
The years have taught me, sometimes harshly, not to underestimate the market, but I think there is currently a clear misunderstanding in the market regarding the company and the strategy it is executing. (Though the company itself also has some soul-searching to do here; I find their investor relations somewhat weak).
What people think is happening: Revenue does not grow → ARR drops → they buy another new company → profitability is weak → there is debt → the problem is structural
What is actually being done: Buying cheap customer bases → integrating them into our own platform → accepting that part of the revenue will churn → overlapping costs are eliminated → profitability improves → a larger and more efficient platform is formed
If the latter is the actual reality, the current weak profitability is not the company’s “true” long-term profitability level, but rather the result of a continuous integration cycle. In that case, the market is currently looking in the rearview mirror, whereas value will be created by what the combined company looks like after the integrations.
The acquisition of Ace is an excellent example to prove the strategy works. Ace’s revenue per employee is quite low for a B2B SaaS company at this stage. I suspect that, among other things, there is plenty of room to cut personnel costs during the integration phase.