4 ms·

Aren’t contract expiration dates distributed over time? Why would now be a particularly vulnerable time? Granted, we’re coming up on the end of the calendar yea

by otterley 11mo ago

Aren’t contract expiration dates distributed over time? Why would now be a particularly vulnerable time? Granted, we’re coming up on the end of the calendar year, but 2025 doesn’t feel particularly special.

foobarian 11mo ago
Also, how does one come upon these kinds of bits of industry lore? Asking for a daytrader friend. Ahem
- cj 11mo ago
  I've found the only stocks where I can personally be successful stock picking are companies I have some sort of unique relationship or experience with that is uncommon or unavailable to sophisticated investors or analysts. E.g. you're an IT admin at Big Co overseeing software contracts. You can often get interesting insights by looking at things like how aggressive their sales reps are with end of quarter discounts (how desperate are they to meet numbers that quarter?). Or if you see a company completely dropping the ball within your org, but on CNBC you constantly hear how great the company is by pundits and analysts -- maybe you know something the pundits don't. Often times the consensus view of a stock trails reality by a few weeks to a month - there's a lot of non-public but also non-confidential information that isn't readily available to analysts, but exposed to employees of customers/vendors/partners/end-users. TLDR: when stock picking or day trading, pick companies within the niche of the world where you're a SME.
  - smallnix 11mo ago
    TL;DR: inside trading /s
    - prepend 11mo ago
      That’s not insider trading. It’s using nonpublic information, legally. The example that my business school professor gave was that if you’re riding in an elevator with two executives and they talk about how they’re going to miss numbers and trade it’s not insider. If one of them tells you specifically, it is.
      - koolba 11mo ago
        > The example that my business school professor gave was that if you’re riding in an elevator with two executives and they talk about how they’re going to miss numbers and trade it’s not insider. If one of them tells you specifically, it is. That's why I always shout my inside information within earshot of my financial adviser but never actually place any trades myself.
    - master_crab 11mo ago
      Insider trading isn’t because he has non-public information. It’s based on trust/fiduciary responsibilities. It would be a hard sell to claim he betrayed anyone’s trust by trading on the performance he saw as a customer.
stronglikedan 11mo ago
I also have to wonder how many customers actually signed a 10 year contract (which is extremely long for software of all things), unless I'm misunderstanding the comment.
- financetechbro 11mo ago
  Yeah 10yr long contracts aren’t the norm. Typically 3-5 years if it’s not on annual basis
  - apimade 11mo ago
    They are for large infrastructure projects, especially at large organisations. It takes companies 3-5 years for migration of these products, all of which are not CapEx funded and so get minimal resourcing without prioritisation by leadership.
    - ethbr1 11mo ago
      Also, for anything with a 3-5 year implementation period, a longer contract aligns incentives. The vendor isn't incentivized to fuck you over on renewal pricing as soon as the implementation is complete. And because of the size of the contract, the customer has more leverage at renewal time.
  - taylodl 11mo ago
    Not for Oracle's "everything but the kitchen sink" unlimited enterprise licenses for large (Fortune 200) organizations that, like a buffet, encourage you to "eat more" to get a "better value." Which works great until you true-up after 10 years and your annual license fee skyrockets. Which is of course Oracle's plan. But, what I've been seeing happen instead, and this is purely anecdotal, is these companies are getting tired of paying tens of millions of dollars per year to Oracle as CIOs are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs. So they're wary of allowing themselves to fall further into Oracle's clutches and in fact they're looking at how to get themselves out of this situation. TL;DR - these 10 year enterprise deals with Oracle allowed companies to save money in the short run and get predictable annual licensing fees. It also bought them time to get more of their application portfolio off of Oracle so when it comes time to re-up they'll negotiate those fees down.

foobarian 11mo ago

Also, how does one come upon these kinds of bits of industry lore? Asking for a daytrader friend. Ahem

cj 11mo ago
I've found the only stocks where I can personally be successful stock picking are companies I have some sort of unique relationship or experience with that is uncommon or unavailable to sophisticated investors or analysts. E.g. you're an IT admin at Big Co overseeing software contracts. You can often get interesting insights by looking at things like how aggressive their sales reps are with end of quarter discounts (how desperate are they to meet numbers that quarter?). Or if you see a company completely dropping the ball within your org, but on CNBC you constantly hear how great the company is by pundits and analysts -- maybe you know something the pundits don't. Often times the consensus view of a stock trails reality by a few weeks to a month - there's a lot of non-public but also non-confidential information that isn't readily available to analysts, but exposed to employees of customers/vendors/partners/end-users. TLDR: when stock picking or day trading, pick companies within the niche of the world where you're a SME.
- smallnix 11mo ago
  TL;DR: inside trading /s
  - prepend 11mo ago
    That’s not insider trading. It’s using nonpublic information, legally. The example that my business school professor gave was that if you’re riding in an elevator with two executives and they talk about how they’re going to miss numbers and trade it’s not insider. If one of them tells you specifically, it is.
    - koolba 11mo ago
      > The example that my business school professor gave was that if you’re riding in an elevator with two executives and they talk about how they’re going to miss numbers and trade it’s not insider. If one of them tells you specifically, it is. That's why I always shout my inside information within earshot of my financial adviser but never actually place any trades myself.
  - master_crab 11mo ago
    Insider trading isn’t because he has non-public information. It’s based on trust/fiduciary responsibilities. It would be a hard sell to claim he betrayed anyone’s trust by trading on the performance he saw as a customer.

stronglikedan 11mo ago

I also have to wonder how many customers actually signed a 10 year contract (which is extremely long for software of all things), unless I'm misunderstanding the comment.

financetechbro 11mo ago
Yeah 10yr long contracts aren’t the norm. Typically 3-5 years if it’s not on annual basis
- apimade 11mo ago
  They are for large infrastructure projects, especially at large organisations. It takes companies 3-5 years for migration of these products, all of which are not CapEx funded and so get minimal resourcing without prioritisation by leadership.
  - ethbr1 11mo ago
    Also, for anything with a 3-5 year implementation period, a longer contract aligns incentives. The vendor isn't incentivized to fuck you over on renewal pricing as soon as the implementation is complete. And because of the size of the contract, the customer has more leverage at renewal time.
- taylodl 11mo ago
  Not for Oracle's "everything but the kitchen sink" unlimited enterprise licenses for large (Fortune 200) organizations that, like a buffet, encourage you to "eat more" to get a "better value." Which works great until you true-up after 10 years and your annual license fee skyrockets. Which is of course Oracle's plan. But, what I've been seeing happen instead, and this is purely anecdotal, is these companies are getting tired of paying tens of millions of dollars per year to Oracle as CIOs are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs. So they're wary of allowing themselves to fall further into Oracle's clutches and in fact they're looking at how to get themselves out of this situation. TL;DR - these 10 year enterprise deals with Oracle allowed companies to save money in the short run and get predictable annual licensing fees. It also bought them time to get more of their application portfolio off of Oracle so when it comes time to re-up they'll negotiate those fees down.