Guest Post: It’s Not Just the Economy (A Financial Analyst’s Perspective)

When I first started Securosis I was a little surprised at the number of due diligence and other investor-related projects that started flowing through the door. At Gartner we couldn’t engage in these kinds of projects (for some very good reasons), but being independent allowed me more flexibility. Since then we’ve continued to work closely with a variety of investment partners and clients. One of our partners is Marker Advisors, a boutique financial analysis and consulting firm here in Phoenix/Scottsdale. We like them for their dead-on analysis, and habit of buying us Mojitos on Friday afternoons. I wish I could tell you some of the stuff these guys are up to, but suffice it to say they have an extremely good pulse on the market. (We also suggest you follow Peter Kuper, who is blogging over at IANS and is another one of our favorite partners). We asked the guys at Marker for their take on the security software market, and they were kind enough to let us post their response. Some of this information is counter-intuitive, and shows why the economy isn’t the only issue the security market faces. We’ve broken it into two parts: # 2008 was a tough year economically, but most software companies discovered ways to grow revenue. The 20 companies we are closest to and favor (what we call our “coverage” list) grew revenue 18% (organically) YoY in 2008; an outstanding performance given both the environment and an overall market that grew at less than half that pace. Our larger “universe” of the 75 software companies we follow grew ~16% (including acquisitions). However, growth in both groups slowed in the 2H08 to ~9% YoY. The big question that needs answering is at what rate will revenue grow in 2009, and then 2010? To best determine this answer, let’s first take a look at why revenue grew last year: New product cycles. The first major new product cycles since 1999/2001 spurred investment in 2006 > 2008. 2008 capped a multi-year reinvestment cycle, as many companies managed to finally complete the move to Web-based technologies (from client server) in most applications/infrastructure, as well as upgrade to the latest generation of IP networking products. Existing vendor spend. Software companies with large customer bases were able to sell these new products (often at a discount) into a market that wanted to spend with existing vendors. Add-ons increase ASPs. New add-on products (product line extensions) helped increase ASPs, as customers looked to improve the productivity and broaden the use of new installations. Support costs increased. Many vendors pushed through 2007/2008 increases in maintenance and support charges, as pricing power shifted back to the vendors (for oh so short a time). International growth. International growth helped overcome a relatively difficult U.S. market. Budget Shifts. Budgets allocations shifted towards our favored sectors – Security, Web Content Management and Virtualization. Weak dollar. The dollar’s weakness pushed growth up in the 2H07 and the first half of 2008. M&A boosts results. Acquisitions in late 2007 and early 2008 boosted 2008 revenue results by a couple of percent. However, most of the factors that made 2008 a solid growth year are no longer present in 2009: We are at the end of this decade’s major product introductions. The next round of innovation appears to be focused on “cloud” computing, not data center computing. As customers evaluate where to install their next server and whether to rent or own software, they will spend less now. The economy will only make it easier to consider this a “transition” year. The large customer bases that were heavily mined throughout 2008 are nearing exhaustion. Although they did not overspend like they did in 2000/2001, they are appropriately stocked. Add-ons are slowing. Add-on products continue to get shipped, but it’s going to be a slow year for innovation. There will be no major new product cycles until 2010-2011. Moreover, the future product cycles will be more cloud-based and subscription priced, so look for evolution in business models. International growth will not be as much assistance in 2009, as EMEA, APAC and China all slow spending. We have picked up a growing number of channel checks that suggest all three regions are now slowing materially. Budgets will shift towards a much smaller set of projects in 2009. If you are a strategic vendor and make the short list, the year will look decent (low double digit growth). If not, it will be a struggle (flat to declining revenue YoY). Security and WCM will continue to outperform, but ratcheted down a full notch. Applications will continue to underperform. Basic infrastructure will be mixed – virtualization will be solid, but communications and networking will be slowed by both “cloud computing” marketing and major vendor “next big thing” sales campaigns. It is no longer clear where organizations should invest… In their own data centers? Or should they outsource basic infrastructure like email, collaboration, and data services to the emerging cloud vendors? Or outsource it to their software vendors’ SaaS offerings? 2009 will be a good time to evaluative these options, while not making a major investment decision. It’s hard to predict the dollar – however, it’s unlikely to provide much tailwind given 1H08’s prolonged weakness. We believe acquisitions will pick up as the year progresses, as potential sellers understand we are in for a rough couple of years and valuations are not coming back strongly. In fact, we think many of the best investment opportunities will come in the form of M&A. In December 2008, Street analysts had 2009 revenue growth at around 9% YoY for our coverage names, and close to that for our universe names. SaaS and virtualization companies have higher expected growth rates, and application companies lower growth rates. Today those same analysts have cut growth projections to around 5% YoY. In examining the quarterly forecasts, it appears investors and analysts are looking for a 2H09 recovery in capital spending. The crux of our question is how could they possibly know

Read Post

Marshal8e6 Buys Avinti

eWeek is reporting that Avinti is being acquired by Marshal8e6 this week. There has not been a lot of news in this sector of late, but this one is a little different, so what exactly do we have here? A web security appliance vendor merged with an email security software vendor, buying another vendor who leverages virtual environments to isolate code behavior. Marshal8e6 is the recent merger of the Mail Marshal email security guys with 8e6, the web security firm. Avinti provides a sort of application Habitrail to monitor code in its natural habitat, watch how it works and (since I am already running with this analogy) spot the evil hamster at play. From Avinti CEO William Kilmer: “Essentially we have a network-based device that would run a series of virtual images that can actually mimic the user’s desktop environment,” Kilmer said in an interview with eWEEK. “We’ll open it up, actually run it, and look for process or look for different signals that would indicate that it’s a virus.” While this is an odd mixture of technologies, the trifecta makes sense for them. Most vendors offer a combined email security and web security offering, and customers expect as much. But with signature based detection of spam and malicious code nearing the end of its useful lifespan, alternative methods of detection are needed and being used. I think in the short term Avinti’s behavior based inspection provides Marshal8e6 a very minor competitive advantage amongst some of their mid-tier competitors, but in the long run the Avinti approach is what is more interesting- providing a flexible ‘playground’ to test or deploy multiple inspection techniques, and I imagine allow the customer to cascade multiple methods at once. It also allows them to scale services on the back end on an as-needed basis with cloud or virtual computing, so if the customer wants to run appliances (software or virtual) they will have the option. Marshal8e6 of course faces the challenge of implementing a unified system and policy management interface for the combined product; all three products needed a refresh regardless, but this will be critical for both keeping existing customers happy and also making the product easy to use. Smaller email/web security firms are in a very tough position given competition from the top vendors, but if they can provide enough breadth of functionality to meet expectations while continuing to innovate, they have a good chance to survive this market. Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.