| Account | Shares | Price | Value | % of acct | Cost/sh | Gain $ | Gain % | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 401K | 87 | $145.31 | $12,642 | 0.52% | $91.67 | $4,666 | +58.5% | — |
| HSA | 35 | $136.72 | $4,785 | 4.43% | $98.76 | $1,329 | +38.4% | — |
| Total | 122 | $17,427 | 0.39% | $5,995 | +52.4% | — |
In short: Referenced only — one of Citrini's February examples ("Service Now decelerating"), in an article he calls thought-provoking but "full of flaws."
1:20They also listed specific companies and how they think it might work out. For example, they talked about Service Now decelerating. They made fake headlines like Mastercard's revenue decelerating down to 6% year-over-year growth. They said it would destroy the job market, that software companies were getting obliterated, and they highlighted Door Dash as the poster child of the type of company that would be disrupted by Agentic technology.
In short: Illustration of the 2026 AI-disruption panic: sold off −33.3%, then "+31% from its lows" — "Did these businesses reinvent themselves in 90 days?… No. The fundamentals didn't change. The narrative did." No rating.
In short: The second name in the host's software-rebound basket; no Niles view on the stock. (A system-of-record business would sit in one of his three "safe" software buckets, but he did not apply that to ServiceNow here.)
19:20Maybe I'm going to buy a little bit of Salesforce, ServiceNow, Thomson Reuters. What do you think of that trade? Buying the, let's call it the SaaS apocalypse bucket, because you think AI is going to slow down a bit because Dario said so. — Well, so I just want to be clear about this. Between now and midterms, I'm very negative on the market overall, which means I don't want to be involved in anything. Now, I have long positions.
In short: An enterprise-level name "probably safer" from AI disruption.
In short: Long software alongside McCullough; "select software" such as ServiceNow will be "the middleman," already embedded in tens of thousands of companies and able to aggregate their compute buying for a better price. That is "free business for them" and deepens integration, though it lowers the price of compute.
ServiceNow sells workflow software that big companies use to run IT, HR and customer-service processes, so it already sits inside thousands of corporate systems. Taylor thinks AI computing power is being overbuilt and will get cheaper. He sees a new role for software like this as a buying agent: instead of each company renting AI compute on its own, ServiceNow could pool the demand of 10,000 customers, negotiate a better price and route the work through its own platform.
For ServiceNow that is extra business at little cost that makes it harder to replace. His broader view is to own the software that uses AI rather than the companies spending trillions to build it. He and the host are both long software.
22:28It's down 27%, but that's an index. We're long software. As am I. But, okay, so what's the message in a bottle there? Other than, and I know you wanted to take time on reviewing the bubble and why it peaked there. Select software are going to be, for instance, potentially ServiceNow, Palantir.
In short: The partners: "when [the] SaaSpocalypse or whatever we call it was there and they were destroying some of these names, we bought into it and ServiceNow on the cheap" — one of the rare mainstream longs, taken only because it was being dumped.
ServiceNow sells software that big companies use to run IT help desks and internal workflows. When investors decided AI would wipe out software companies (the "SaaSpocalypse"), shares like this were dumped, and the partners used that fear to buy it cheaply. It is a bet that the panic went too far.
47:21— So we play we have a lot of companies that were long and these small cap stuff that we can find that no one else really traffics in and we like it. We don't we've owned Google for years but that's basically the only household name that you — the only time we go into what I would call the mainstream media neck of the woods is when there's something's for sale, right? So for example when SAS apocalypse or whatever we call it was there and they were destroying some of these names we bought into it
In short: Named alongside Salesforce as the incumbent the market feared AI would leave "in the dust" in January. The article rejects the thesis on the same maintenance-and-updates argument and points to the recovery already afoot in software stocks.
ServiceNow is named beside Salesforce as one of the incumbents the market feared AI would leave behind. It gets the same verdict for the same reason: the "AI will rebuild your corporate software for pennies" story ran ahead of reality, because ongoing maintenance and updating — not the first draft of the code — is where the work and the money are. The de-rating that hit these names early in the year is unwinding.
In short: Exhibit for the technical read on the software bounce: "some bad news for AI leads into ServiceNow and Salesforce stocks go up several percent" — an odd dynamic that says the rally is partly the unwind of paired long-AI / short-software books.
4:03As much as the big deleveraging event has happened, degrossing is still happening across the whole hedge fund complex. — It's been entertaining to see socks and IGV basically have a negative one correlation. That does suggest that there's clearly a technical element to this that some bad news for AI leads into it and ServiceNow and Salesforce stocks go up several percent.
In short: Named in the software basket that benefits as the AI-eats-SaaS scare diminishes.
In short: Guest prediction: an "Athena OS" launch at Zeta Live in October (inferred from retracted job postings), partnered with Palantir, to compete as an "AI control tower" against ServiceNow — "informed speculation."
In short: Sechan's final trade the previous session, cited today as the other half of his "not all software is created equal" pair — "ServiceNow was yesterday, Intuit today, both up 26% for the month." A month-long 26% move is the evidence he offers that the quality tier of software is being repriced upward even while the group's narrative stays negative.
ServiceNow sells software that runs internal business workflows — IT support, HR requests, operational processes — for large organisations. It was Rob Sechan's final trade the previous session, and he mentions it today as one half of a pair.
The pair is the argument: ServiceNow and Intuit are both up 26% over the past month, which is his evidence that the market is separating good software businesses from vulnerable ones rather than selling the whole category. Deeply embedded workflow software is difficult to displace, whatever an AI model can write.
In short: One of the nine selective non-AI growth names attracting Q2 buyers. A disclosed author holding.
In short: "We also bought ServiceNow and Snowflake and some companies that we think have some moats" — the moat leg of the software dislocation trade.
ServiceNow runs the workflow systems large enterprises use to manage IT and internal processes. Once embedded, it is painful to rip out — that's the "moat" Singh is paying for. He bought it as part of the forced-selling software basket, on the view that a company this entrenched shouldn't be repriced just because someone needed a hedge.
8:27Even Palantir, although we don't own it, rallied about 40% on earnings. And for those of you who don't know what happened, in late July of 2026, Ken Griffin acquired the public equity portfolio of Situational Awareness, which was the AI focused hedge fund run by the former OpenAI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner after he suffered heavy losses.
In short: Market color in the software-rebound list — up 9.5% last week. No individual committee call; Terranova's blanket "I don't trust it" applies, Amoroso's "slowly pivoting to software" is the counter.
In short: Eisman's public-market yardstick for repricing every privately-held software borrower: "You take ServiceNow. ServiceNow is down over 50% from its peak. So, any software company owned by private equity has to be down something like 50% from more or less where it was bought because that's what the public markets have done." That mark, not the borrower's cash flow, is what makes the 2027-28 refinancings hard.
ServiceNow isn't being discussed as an investment here. It is being used as a ruler.
Software companies owned by private equity have no market price — nobody trades them daily, so their owners can carry them at whatever a model says. Eisman's move is to take the price the public market is putting on a comparable, high-quality software business and apply it to the private ones: "ServiceNow is down over 50% from its peak. So, any software company owned by private equity has to be down something like 50% from more or less where it was bought because that's what the public markets have done."
That single substitution is what turns a vague worry into a dated problem. If the equity cushion beneath a loan is worth half what it was, the lender rolling that loan in 2027 or 2028 is being asked to lend the same money against much less collateral — and will demand the sponsor top up the equity first. The borrower's own cash flow, which every manager cites as reassurance, doesn't answer that question at all.
24:37You take ServiceNow. ServiceNow is down over 50% from its peak. So, any software company owned by private equity has to be down something like 50% from more or less where it was bought because that's what the public markets have done. So, the big issue is going to be starting in 2027, but it's bigger in 2028.
In short: A held name trimmed into the squeeze: software rallied hard as hedge funds unwound the long-semis/short-software pair (Leopold's book was short ServiceNow, Adobe and Wix). "We trimmed some of our ServiceNow, which rallied a lot."
Software stocks like ServiceNow had been beaten down because hedge funds were running a popular pair trade: owning chip makers while betting against software. When one big fund blew up and was forced to unwind, that bet reversed violently and software names spiked. Singh owns ServiceNow and trimmed into that spike — selling strength that was caused by other people's forced covering rather than by anything happening at the company.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Explicitly kept out of the loser bucket. Ives: "look at Bill McDermott and ServiceNow — I wouldn't put them" with the losers. Luria puts it on the winning side of software consolidation: the CIO cutting from 100 packages to 30 keeps the big platforms — "Microsoft and ServiceNow and Adobe and even Salesforce can do this for me and I don't need these smaller companies."
ServiceNow runs the internal workflow software of large organisations — IT tickets, HR requests, service processes. It has been one of the loudest casualties of the "SaaSpocalypse" narrative, so it matters that both guests explicitly refuse to put it in the loser bucket: "I wouldn't put them" there, says Ives.
Luria places it on the winning side of the same squeeze that is hurting Salesforce. When the CIO consolidates from a hundred software packages down to thirty, ServiceNow is one of the platforms that absorbs the work — "Microsoft and ServiceNow and Adobe and even Salesforce can do this for me and I don't need these smaller companies." The consolidation that kills the small vendors feeds the big ones.
39:57You just have to understand as a software company like in terms of trying to embrace it. So you both see some there are software companies that are going to get really badly hurt by this. or then there's debate that yes but but not every I'm saying but you would think there are some look at Mcderman and service now they're not if you look at Bill Mcderman service now like I wouldn't put them no but I have to answer it in a different way which is you use the word software you just say you didn't
In short: Earnings were "absolutely phenomenal" but the rally was faded — "very unclear why, probably they weren't bullish enough." JPMorgan's CIO named ServiceNow as one of the critical platforms the bank still relies on for fraud/payments/lending even as point solutions get replaced by AI. "ServiceNow benefits as the AI organization engine and we think it will actually continue to grow."
ServiceNow is the software layer big companies use to run their internal workflows — IT tickets, HR requests, approvals. The fear across software this year is that AI makes such tools easy to replace. This week's evidence pointed the other way: earnings were "absolutely phenomenal," and JPMorgan's own technology chief said the bank still depends on platforms like ServiceNow for fraud, payments and lending, because the hard part isn't writing software any more — it's scaling it, securing it, and getting people to actually use it.
Singh's framing is that ServiceNow is "the AI organization engine": the place where all those AI agents get coordinated and governed. The market faded the good quarter anyway, which he finds inexplicable — "the market produces an endless stream of information but very little insight."
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Author disclosure: he owns NOW in the App Economy Portfolio (ratings shared only with members). Q2 revenue +24% Y/Y to $4.0B ($50M beat) and adj EPS +10% to $0.90 ($0.04 beat), yet the stock is still down more than 3% YTD — nobody disputes the growth, but the market is discounting the durability of seat-based revenue in a world where agents handle the tickets that used to require licensed humans. The quarter gave that thesis little to work with: cRPO +21% to $13.2B against $29B total RPO, 123 deals above $1M in net-new ACV (+~40% Y/Y), AI ACV crossed $1B (tracking to the $1.5B year-end target), agentic deployments up ninefold in nine months, renewal rate held at 98%, and federal demand pulled some on-premise subscription revenue forward. Three things keep the market skeptical: Q3 subscription guidance of $3.975–3.980B came in below the ~$4.01B consensus (a rare miss after five straight beats); the pricing model is mid-transition, with hybrid seat-plus-consumption billing diluting gross margin (full-year adj gross margin guide ticked lower even as adj operating margin held at 31.5%); and the M&A is costly — the $7.75B Armis acquisition closed in April is polluting margins, with the $4B short-term loan funding it adding interest expense and maturing in October (drag continues into Q3). FY26 subscription guide raised to $15.76–15.78B (vs ~$15.75B), a narrow bottom-end raise. McDermott pitches ServiceNow as the "AI Control Tower"; the 98% renewal rate is the number that doesn't fit the bear case. (Recap, not a stance call.)
ServiceNow sells the software big companies use to run their internal workflows — IT help desks, HR requests, customer service — and it charges per user, per year. That pricing model is exactly why the stock is down this year despite 24% growth: if AI agents end up handling the support tickets that used to require a human with a licence, the number of licences could shrink. It's a bet against the business model, not against the current numbers.
This quarter offered the bears little. Contracted revenue for the next twelve months grew 21%, million-dollar deals were up nearly 40%, AI-related contract value crossed $1 billion, and — the most telling figure — 98% of customers renewed. Against that: next quarter's revenue guidance came in slightly below expectations (rare here), the shift to a hybrid "per-seat plus per-use" pricing model is squeezing gross margin during the transition, and April's $7.75 billion Armis acquisition (funded with a $4 billion short-term loan due in October) is weighing on profitability. The CEO's pitch is that ServiceNow becomes the "control tower" governing all those AI agents. Note: the newsletter's author owns this stock in his App Economy Portfolio. A recap, not a call.
In short: "One of the best software companies in the world," down 38% this year purely on the SaaS apocalypse narrative. EPS 90c (+10%), revenue $4B (+24%) — "I don't see any weaknesses in these numbers… shows no signs that AI is negatively impacting its businesses." Still fell ~4%: "fighting the AI narrative is like fighting a ghost."
ServiceNow sells the software big companies use to run their internal workflows — IT tickets, HR requests, service processes. Eisman calls it "one of the best software companies in the world," and this quarter it grew earnings 10% and revenue 24% with "no weaknesses in these numbers" and no sign AI is stealing its business.
The stock is still down 38% this year and fell another 4% on the print, because investors have decided as a group that AI will eat business software (the "SaaSpocalypse"). His line — "fighting the AI narrative is like fighting a ghost" — is the practical lesson: when a narrative owns a sector, good results stop being rewarded. He treats the company as fine and the tape as the problem.
13:41The irony is that ServiceNow has executed really well, continues to grow, and shows no signs that AI is negatively impacting its businesses. But, fighting the AI narrative is like fighting a ghost. This quarter, once again, ServiceNow performed well. Earnings per share of 90 cents was up 10% versus last year, not bad.
In short: Flagged as a held position reporting Jul 22 (in the earnings-calendar review) — an AI-enabler long into the print.
Mentioned in passing as a position Singh holds that reports on July 22 — a software name he views as an AI enabler rather than a victim. No fresh call this week beyond flagging the earnings date.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Cohen (January pick, still likes): software companies will NOT be AI losers — enterprises want someone else running their ERP/CRM; NOW (belatedly) released new AI product suites in the past six months. Down 48% since Jul 2025; ~20x consensus 2027 EPS (~$5.00).
ServiceNow sells the workflow software big companies run their internal operations on. It's down nearly half since mid-2025 on the fear that AI will let companies replace such software. Cohen's rebuttal: most enterprises don't want to build and babysit these systems themselves — they want a vendor responsible for them, and ServiceNow has now shipped its own AI product suites. At ~20 times 2027 earnings, she's sticking with her January pick.
In short: Jason owns it: down ~30% on the year but Goldman reiterates buy and its agentic-AI tools embrace the space — the "AI replaces SAS" story doesn't apply to it; momentum building over recent months (pulled back lately). "Also worthy of ownership."
ServiceNow sells workflow software that automates IT and business processes for large organizations. It's down about 30% this year on the fear that AI "agents" would replace traditional software subscriptions. Jason Snipe's view is that fear is misplaced for a company like this: ServiceNow is embracing AI by adding its own "agentic" tools, so it's on the winning side of the shift, not the losing one.
Goldman Sachs reiterated a buy rating, and while the stock's price action hasn't been strong, momentum has been building over recent months before a recent pullback. Jason calls it "worthy of ownership."
In short: Buy maintained; 12-month PT cut to $145 from $163 (27x P/E, down from 30x on lower comps, on SNTM Q5–Q8 non-GAAP EPS); EPS 2026/27/28 trimmed to $4.14/$5.17/$6.44. Set-up into the 7/22 print is more attractive than last quarter; the single biggest re-rating driver is proving relevance in the enterprise-AI stack, with organic-revenue stabilization + upward WholeCo revisions as the proof points.
ServiceNow sells the software that big companies use to run their internal "work" — IT help desks, HR requests, customer service, security workflows — all on one platform. Goldman still likes the stock (Buy) but has lowered how much it thinks the stock is worth, cutting the 12-month target to $145 from $163. The cut is mostly about the multiple: Goldman now pays 27 times forward earnings instead of 30, because comparable software names have de-rated, and it shaved its profit estimates slightly. This isn't a downgrade of the business — it's marking the price you'd pay for it to today's market.
The whole debate comes down to one question: can ServiceNow prove it's a real winner in the AI era, not a victim of it? Investors worry that AI could either make ServiceNow's tools more valuable (it sits on mountains of enterprise workflow data) or route around them. Goldman's proof points to watch are simple — is the "organic" growth (the core business, stripping out companies it recently bought) steadying rather than falling, and does Goldman have to raise its whole-company revenue estimates over time. If both happen, the stock re-rates higher.
Into the July 22 earnings, Goldman thinks the odds are tilted favorably: management set a deliberately cautious growth guide (partly after some Middle-East deals slipped last quarter), it rolled out a concrete AI use case — automating first-line IT tickets — with a money-where-your-mouth-is promise of payback in under 100 days and marquee customers like NVIDIA, FedEx and CVS Health, and it's just starting to sell its recent acquisitions (Moveworks, Armis, Veza) into its existing base. A cautious guide plus improving AI evidence is the kind of set-up that beats.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Still rated Buy / Accumulate. The contrarian-value case (a supposed "SaaSpocalypse" AI victim) is being validated: ~$105, down ~32% YTD and ~51% off the $211 high, yet subscription revenue compounds ~19.5-20%, operating margin ~32%, FCF $4.6B (+34%), with a reaffirmed path to $30B revenue by 2030. CEO Bill McDermott positions it as the "semantic layer" for enterprise AI; a thickening integrator ecosystem (IBM, Cognizant, Google Cloud-HCLTech, and the new Accenture deal) is standardizing on NOW as the governed place agents act — the agentic-AI "control tower," not a seat-based casualty. Consensus Strong Buy (43 buys / 1 sell), ~$141 avg target (~40% upside), Benchmark to $130. Risks: the seat-to-consumption pricing transition must keep net revenue retention from rolling over, and federal-pipeline exposure if government IT tightens.
ServiceNow sells the software big companies use to run their internal workflows — IT tickets, HR requests, security and risk processes. For a year investors feared that AI "agents" (software that does tasks on its own) would make this kind of seat-by-seat software obsolete, so the stock fell ~51% from its high to about $105. Haymaker owns it and argues that fear was wrong.
The business itself never looked like it was dying: sales are still growing ~20% a year, it keeps about a third of every dollar as operating profit, and it generated $4.6 billion of spare cash (up 34%). More importantly, AI agents need a trusted, governed place inside a company to actually do their work — and the big consulting/integration firms (IBM, Cognizant, Google, and now Accenture) are all standardizing on ServiceNow as that place. So instead of being killed by AI, it's becoming the "control tower" agents run through. Wall Street analysts are now overwhelmingly bullish (43 buys, 1 sell, price target ~40% higher). Haymaker keeps it a Buy / Accumulate: the stock is nearly as cheap as when first recommended, but the evidence it's a survivor keeps arriving. Watch two risks — a shift from charging per-user to charging per-usage (which could dent renewal revenue) and its exposure to US government IT budgets.
In short: Santoli: up ~8.5% in a software bounce he reads as "suspect" — short-covering / exposure being taken off, not necessarily a new uptrend.
In short: Featured deep dive: FCF grew ~36% in 12 months while the multiple fell ~60% — a 7% 2027 FCF yield (above the S&P), 30%+ revenue growth, ~8,400 enterprise customers. A workflow platform that's an AI enabler / control-tower (governs agents across all three hyperscalers), not an AI casualty. DCF ~$180 (~90% upside); added shares ~$95.48 after the FOMC. JPMorgan reaffirmed the $1.5B AI ACV / $30–32B subscription path.
ServiceNow sells cloud software that automates the workflows big organizations run — IT tickets, HR processes, customer service — all on one platform with one shared data model. Its cash profits grew about 36% over the past year, yet the stock fell about 60% because investors fear AI will make software like this obsolete. That left it at a 7% free-cash-flow yield — cheap for a company still growing revenue 30%+ with ~8,400 big customers.
Singh argues the fear is backwards: ServiceNow is becoming the "control tower" for AI — a place where a company can build and, crucially, govern AI agents no matter which AI models or tools it uses, across all the major clouds. That makes it an enabler of AI rather than a victim of it. His cash-flow model puts fair value near $180 — roughly double — once the market stops lumping it in with software that AI actually threatens. He added shares around $95 after the Fed meeting.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: The winner: bought ~$102 (Apr 2) as "one of the most ridiculously mispriced stocks"; gapped to a ~$83 52-wk low at ~5.6x fwd revenue pricing the worst case, now ~$135 (+~30%). Q1: subscription rev $3.671B (+22%), FCF $1.665B (+13%), RPO $27.7B (+25%), +14.56% on the print. AI Control Tower launched at Knowledge 2026 as the enterprise-AI governance layer; Now Assist scaling. Thesis confirmed — but after a 65% rally "some gain-harvesting may be in order," though likely higher in 6 months if you hold.
ServiceNow sells software that big companies use to run their internal workflows (IT tickets, HR requests, and now AI "agents" doing tasks). Hay bought it in early April at ~$102 calling it one of the most mispriced stocks around — and within days it fell to ~$83 as the market panicked over three worries (would AI make its software obsolete, would an acquisition hurt margins, would Middle-East deals slip). He thought all three fears were overdone, and the next earnings report proved him right: revenue, cash flow and the backlog of signed contracts all jumped, and the stock leapt 14.5% in a day. It's now ~$135, up ~30% from his buy.
The new product that matters is "AI Control Tower" — think of it as the cockpit that lets a company supervise all the AI agents working inside it and answer "who's accountable when an agent makes a mistake?" That's exactly the governance problem every large enterprise is about to face, which is why Hay sees more growth ahead. His one note of caution: the stock has run 65% off its low, so taking some money off the table is reasonable — even though he expects it higher still in six months if you can sit tight.
In short: Reference — the prior POW! used as the template for the framing: "as we said with NOW, we have no idea how much ACN will chop in the near-term, but in the medium- to long-term… quite bullish." A precedent for the SaaS-as-AI-victim overshoot, not a fresh call.
In short: Used as a proxy for the software sector's de-rating: $209 in July 2025 to below $90 now (−60%), implying private-equity software equity is worth less than half cost — the core of his ARCC/Blue Owl refinancing worry. Illustrative, not rated.
11:26When they say that 85% of the software exposure is low risk, what exactly does that mean? Let's assume that means that the companies are performing fine right now. That's really not the issue. Let's use ServiceNow as a proxy for the sector. In July 2025, ServiceNow was priced at $209 a share.
In short: Pick of the Week — ServiceNow at ~$102, down ~53% from $211 on a sentiment-driven SaaSpocalypse selloff (clean Q4 fell ~11% only for missing a 22% "whisper" with a 19.5–20% guide). The architectural counter: NOW is the enterprise system of record every AI agent must read/write, so AI makes the record more valuable; Now Assist consumption "Assist Packs" are a compounding revenue meter (90% of IT tickets auto-resolved), net-new ACV more than doubled, RPO $28.2B +26.5%, 98% renewal, 35% FCF margin. ~22× fwd EPS / 8× fwd P/S (a 5+-yr low; 2016 setup → 400%+) / sub-18× FCF / PEG ~0.95; ~6× sales net of cash — below CAT/DE at ~30×. CEO bought $3M open-market + cancelled 10b5-1 sales. Consensus Strong Buy $202.70 (~105%); Haymaker $165–185 over 12–18 mo. A medium/long-term hold, not a trade.
ServiceNow runs the behind-the-scenes "plumbing" of big companies — the software that handles IT help tickets, employee onboarding, compliance approvals and purchasing requests for 85% of the Fortune 500. Its stock has been cut in half (down ~53%) because investors fear that AI will make this kind of software unnecessary (the "SaaSpocalypse"). The trigger was a January earnings report that was actually good on every measure, but the company forecast 20% sales growth when the most aggressive fans wanted 22% — a tiny miss that sparked an 11% drop. Haymaker thinks that's a mistake: ServiceNow is the official "system of record," the single source of truth that any AI assistant has to check before doing anything and update afterward. So as AI does more tasks, ServiceNow gets used more, not less — and its new AI add-on (Now Assist) charges by usage, so every AI-handled task rings the cash register.
On valuation, the stock now trades around 22× next year's earnings and 8× sales — the cheapest it's been since 2016, when it then rose more than 400% over the following years. Stripping out its $10 billion of cash, it's only ~6× sales, which is cheaper than slow-growing machinery makers like Caterpillar and Deere at ~30× earnings. Reassuringly, the CEO put $3 million of his own money into the stock and cancelled his planned share sales — a confidence signal. Analysts see it roughly doubling; Haymaker is more conservative at $165–185 over a year to 18 months. The caveat: the chart hasn't bottomed yet, so expect a bumpy ride. This is a patient, medium-to-long-term holding, "not a stock for the trading game."
In short: Cole — "SaaS destruction" group. Another SaaS name in the crushed cohort.
17:28apploving — constellations — constellation software in Canada open text is another you know kind of out there so I say that because that world is getting crushed — and those were the former darling quality growth stories and the only place that really hasn't underperformed is the big cap tech or what we call internally the hyperscalers okay now what do we liken this to and this will be to Bill's point this will be what my presentation's on tomorrow in effect I think we think of the hyperscalers like the telecoms of the late 90s. So in
In short: A software-ROS constituent named among the SaaS names breaking down in the IGV basket.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.