Securosis

Research

Sales/Marketing Spend, Cash Generation, and the FireEye-PO

It doesn’t happen very often so it’s highly scrutinized. No, it’s not me being nice to someone. It’s a security company IPO. Last week the folks at FireEye filed their Form S-1, which is the first step toward becoming a public company. The echo chamber blew up, mostly because of FireEye’s P&L. Basically, FireEye spent more on sales and marketing in the first half of 2013 than they took in revenue. Their top line revenue was $61.6MM; they spent $66.1MM on sales and marketing. Their total loss was $63.4MM. Yes, you read that correctly. On the surface that’s pretty ugly. Sure, revenue growth has been significant ($11.3MM, $33.6MM, and $83.3MM; in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively). But to lose that much money seems a bit troubling, no? Well, those folks squawking about the losses don’t really understand financial filings too well. In 2012, as I mentioned, they had $83.3MM in revenues. They showed a loss of $35.7MM. But they had positive net cash of $21.5MM in 2012. WTF? Those numbers don’t add up, do they? Keep in mind that bookings does not equal revenue. So FireEye figured out a way to get companies to pay them $75MM more than they could recognize in revenue due to accounting nuances. That’s listed on the balance sheet as Deferred Revenue. They had $43.7MM in current-year deferred revenue (which will be recognized over the coming 12 months), and $32.6MM in revenue deferred for longer than 12 months. And in the first half of 2013 they added another $12MM to their current deferred revenue and over $14MM to non-current deferred. To be clear, they booked a lot more than $83MM in 2012 and a lot more than $61.6MM in the first 6 months. Those revenue numbers are only the stuff they could recognize. The difference between bookings and recognized revenue is services they sold and got paid for now, which they will recognize over the life of the subscription. These multi-year agreements are great for cash flow, but not so great for the income statement. The good news is that companies don’t pay their employees with income statements. The sell-side analysts can do the math to figure out roughly what bookings were, but my point is not to get confused by nuances of the income statement, versus what they actually sell. To be clear, there are a number of issues with that kind of growth in sales and marketing spend. FireEye sees this as a land grab, and the best way to get land is to hire like drunken sailors, put scads of folks in the field, and try to sell product now. It is very expensive to build a global direct sales force, and it is usually done over a long period of time. Clearly FireEye sees their opportunity right now, so they are taking the express train to a huge go-to-market engine. FireEye is making a bet, which you can see in their spending on equipment including demo units (which presumably become production appliances when customers buy). They are betting that once they get a demo box installed on a customer site they will close the deal. They spent $18MM on “property and equipment and demonstration units” last year. That’s a lot of hardware, folks. So they are putting reps everywhere and giving them demo units to get into customer sites before the competition. At some point they will need to dial back the spending and show profits. Ultimately that’s what public company investors demand. But they get a pass on that for the time being because of the huge revenue growth, as well as the need to invest internationally to gain market share now. Which they had better do, because the competition is coming. Pretty much every network security vendor has a network-based malware detection device. They are all gunning for FireEye, which is why FireEye is grabbing as much real estate as they can, right now. Clearly the market for malware detection is red hot and very high profile for enterprises of all sizes. But we don’t expect a stand-alone technology to ultimately prevail for this capability. We expect malware detection to be part of a much bigger security strategy that spans not just the perimeter network, but also endpoints. So FireEye needs a much broader story in the works, or they’ll hit the wall hard. Perhaps they will use public market currency to acquire their way to a broader product line. They have also announced an ecosystem, while remaining focused on the malware detection space. Will that be enough? Time will tell. Listen, I’m not a stock analyst. Personally I cannot invest in the companies I cover, so I don’t have any skin in the game. But I can read a balance sheet, and FireEye is in land grab mode, spending like crazy to build global momentum. Maybe it will pay off and maybe it won’t. Maybe this S-1 is the catalyst they need for a bigger company to acquire them. Maybe they will IPO, broaden their story, and become a sustainable public company. Maybe they don’t. But it will be fun to watch in any case. Photo credit: “DKHouse 082” originally uploaded by May Monthong Share:

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.