Forum Topics CAT CAT HY26 Results

Pinned straw:

Added 2 months ago

You'd think the results were terrible based on the market's reaction (down nearly 10% at time of writing), but at first glance they dont seem terrible to me.

There were some FX headwinds, but on a constant currency basis you're looking at 19% ACV growth, 16% revenue growth and a 50% lift in management EBITDA. Gross margins held steady at 75%.

Churn did tick up slightly, although has been noted they did exit from Russia which explains that.

Maybe the drop is more a concern over valuation? Even after the drop, and if you annualize first half revenue, CAT is on a P/S of ~6.4x. I know that;s a simplistic way to look at it, but just trying to rationalise the market reaction.

Honestly, I cant see anything that changes the thesis for me, but this is just my initial take after a quick look. What am i missing?

jcmleng
Added 2 months ago

Discl: Held IRL 10.15% and in SM

Here is my take on CAT's 1HFY26 results.

SUMMARY

Expectations and valuations aside, just evaluating the results on the numbers, I thought this was a very solid and robust performance. Have attached updated charts that underpin the summary below.

Positives

  • Improvement in Rule of 40 to 33% from 31% HoH, and YoY
  • It was a strong, above trend, revenue half of US$67.7m, with all segments contributing
  • ACV was US$115.8m, up 19% YoY CC - a noticeable higher than trend increase and almost purely organic
  • Average Pro Team ACV moved to $28,299 from $26,804 2HFY25
  • Lifetime Duration - on trend increase at 8.1 years, up from 7.8 years 2HFY25
  • Nice above trend addition of Pro Teams to 3,878
  • Sharp move in the Net Additions to Pro Teams this half - this is really positive
  • Continued strong traction in upselling - nice jump in Multi-Vertical Customers HoH
  • Costs remain well under control and continued trending downwards towards management medium term targets - no concerns
  • YoY profitability improvement was good - (1) Management EBITDA grew 56.6% (2) EBITDA grew 8.4% as acquisition costs kicked in
  • US$8.2m Free Cash Flow was generated, US$3.5m debt was repaid - Balance Sheet is now debt free, excludes impact of Impect acquisition capital raise and SPP


All the operational metrics are trending nicely and this is before the impact of Impect (pun totally intended) kicks in. There is everything to like from this from my perspective.

Negatives

  • ACV churn headlines was concerning at 4.9%, still below CAT’s 5% target, but once the Russian exit is stripped out, churn is a 3.9% - not a concern at all
  • Fixed Costs jumped 18% to US$25.1m, but this was due to unplanned additional Payroll Tax from the vesting of share-based payments occurring in 1HFY26, driven by the sharp increase in the CAT share price
  • Depreciation & Amortisation was up a fair bit - US$16.2m vs US$12.9m 1HFY25 and US$14.0m in 2HFY25 - this was US$2m of accelerated expenses of S7 devices and Thunder as they approach EOIL and ~$1m of intangible amortisation related to Perch - this caused the Loss After Tax to slip to (US$8.6m)
  • HoH profitability improvement was not as impressive (1) Management EBITDA grew 15.0% (2) EBITDA fell (7.3%). Overall, these felt like accounting-driven around the D&A, so am not concerned


I am unconcerned with the “negatives” - they look mostly accounting driven.

I was puzzled by the price movement today, noting that the tone from the US markets overnight meant today was going to be a nasty day regardless. Unless I have completely missed something, I did not see anything in the fundamental results that would cause a worry to warrant the 11% price drop.

Tempting as it was, I did not top up today given the expected volatility this week in Tech, but will have a closer look if it gets closer to ~4.00.

49144bc6fa3bdcd39025fab141a3fb4fef67a7.png

DETAILED CHARTS

Rule of 40

33%, comprising 19% ACV Growth, 14% EBITDA Growth

6c2fbeb104c781dc59962ef5ec28e809fda7ee.png

Revenue

  • US$67.6m, A$102m, surpassing A$100m revenue for the first time, up 16% YoY CC
  • A noticeably strong half

36e1a22922f6a206fd58e8dd4d63da1730c016.png

  • All segments contributed
  • P&H stands out, growing 21% YoY
  • T&C grew 16%

ac87404b1355239dbd49c6f915e9602fb1f8fa.png

Annualised Contract Value, Lifetime Duration, ACV Churn

  • ACV was US$115.8m, up 19% YoY CC - a noticeable higher than trend increase and almost purely organic - excluding Perch and Russian Exit, ACV grew 18% YoY CC
  • Average Pro Team ACV moved to $28,299
  • Lifetime Duration - on trend increase at 8.1 years

a6e30085f5cb73f2a542beac336f3375b8f293.png

  • ACV churn headlines was concerning at 4.9%, still below CAT’s 5% target
  • But the Russian exit has distorted the churn - when stripped out, ACV churn is below 4% and mostly flat - not a concern

fa25d885d4ee7c9a3fc79ef19a8746cc2abf75.png

Customer Growth

  • Nice above trend addition of Pro Teams to 3,878
  • Sharp move in the Net Additions to Pro Teams this half - this is really positive

ac518f45338783c7476a68b1f12504e6bc2b93.png

  • Continued strong traction in upselling - nice jump in Multi-Vertical Customers HoH
  • Net additions were 95, down from 180 in 1HFY25, but higher than the 78 from 2HFY25
  • Growth trajectory is also really positive

3d9f059182a0b05ac10c024c6a11b74489bf2a.png

Costs

Costs remain well under control - no concerns

b2c028e726ba10232550afd3d804d0900f866e.png

COGS growth trajectory is significantly flatter than revenue growth

Variable Costs are mostly flat against rising revenue - Variable costs as a % of Revenue fell 3% YoY to 49% vs management’s longer term target of 45% 

db815def057e2fe222a1fe3b6d8e7d8b8fd50b.png

Fixed Costs jumped 18% to US$25.1m, but this was due to unplanned additional Payroll Tax from the vesting of share-based payments occurring in 1HFY26, driven by the sharp increase in the CAT share price

Excluding the Payroll Tax impact, fixed costs would have been 35% of revenue, trending downwards towards the 25% target

dec5d5fbe993761eff054d894d46df5aa3728c.png

Profitability

  • The Profitability position is quite muddied by the adjustments made
  • Depreciation & Amortisation was up a fair bit - US$16.2m vs US$12.9m 1HFY25 and US$14.0m in 2HFY25 - this was US$2m of accelerated expenses of S7 devices and Thunder as they approach EOIL and ~$1m of intangible amortisation related to Perch - this caused the Loss After Tax to slip to (US$8.6m)
  • YoY improvement was good - (1) Management EBITDA grew 56.6% (2) EBITDA grew 8.4% as acquisition costs kicked in
  • HoH improvement was not as impressive (1) Management EBITDA grew 15.0% (2) EBITDA fell (7.3%)
  • Overall, these felt like accounting-driven around the D&A, so am not concerned


714346864b797f522dc915fc77a9997f7ff1cd.png

Cash

  • US$8.2m Free Cash Flow was generated, excluding the Perch transaction settlement of $3m cash, plus advisory fees
  • US$3.5m debt was repaid - Balance Sheet is now debt free
  • This is BEFORE the Impect acquisition, capital raise and SPP, so I expect the cash position to be much better than this - the SPP alone raised $13.3m and some portion of the main placement was for working capital


43a9c7065d061f0b4c3b38a10aee2e80c6379b.png

451be146b47b05c5d1a558fc89065cc00a97d7.png




37

mikebrisy
Added 2 months ago

@jcmleng great write-up ... thanks! You've saved me the trouble. And yes, @Strawman, for me the thesis here is very much intact.

I see nothing in today's result that causes me to challenge my valuation from earlier this year of $5.50 ($4.50 - $6.50), which I should roll forward 6-months to $5.75 ($4.70 - $6.80).

My only irritation is the exclusion from Management EBITDA of taxes on share-based compensation. I really wish they wouldn't do that. The fact that they have chosen to pay part of their opex (rewarding employees) with shares, means that the operation is exposed to the true cost of that which has tax implications. While the cash impliactions might not fall today, that is irrelevant. Also, can they really argue it is a one-off, non-recurring item?

Anyway, a minor irritation on a great result.

While I am quietly smug that I sold half my position at up to $7.40 on valuation grounds, feeling evporated today when I realise I was premature in buying back most at around $5.30,

So now the question is, given the valuation and the price, does my position size warrant increasing further tomorrow? Perhaps doing nothing and lettting time works its magic is the right thing.

I am happy with my valuation after today's result.

Disc: Held

32

edgescape
Added 2 months ago

I'm not across growth stocks very well and that is why I missed Catapult

But I thought Rule of 40 is Revenue Growth% + EBIT Margin/ Profit Margin

Or are we allowed to make up our own rule?

22

mikebrisy
Added 2 months ago

@edgescape yep, you can make it what you want because there is no standard for "Rule of 40".

Common measures are:

% Revenue Growth + FCF Margin %

% ARR Growth + FCF Margin %

% Revenue Growth + EBITDA Margin %

% Revenue Growth + % Profit Margin

to name a few.

$CAT’s Management EBITDA Margin is close to FCF number (just misses change in Working Capital) and the other thing you have to keep an eye on with $CAT is dilution due to share based compo, which marks the metric down a few % points from a shareholder perspective.

The value I find in Ro40 is the trend over several years.

Why $TNE yesterday decided to report it on a pretax basis because "someone told Edward that was the right way to do it", I’ll never know ( as there is no "right way ").

In terms of history (according to my BA) the term originated in the VC community in the US in 2014 as a way to screen high growth, unprofitable SaaS companies. VC Brad Field posted in Feb 2015 about having heard the term discussed in 2014.

And it has been used and abused ever since.

Brad originally wrote:

The 40% rule is that your growth rate + your profit should add up to 40%. So, if you are growing at 20%, you should be generating a profit of 20%. If you are growing at 40%, you should be generating a 0% profit. If you are growing at 50%, you can lose 10%. If you are doing better than the 40% rule, that’s awesome.”  

So to be fair to everyone, there is ambiguity in the measure as first publicised by Brad.

30
lastever
Added 2 months ago

TNE is also down big. I don't follow that stock but it also had 19% growth. I think there's a market sentiment/rotation thing going on.

21