Things I Didn’t Know About Red Hat

by Dennis Byron on June 7, 2007

The recent release of the Red Hat (RHT) 10-K fil­ing con­tains no great sur­prises but led down a few paths that might have IT invest­ment research potential.

As my post­ing over at ebizQ.net ear­lier this week pointed out about the size of the open source soft­ware (OSS) mar­ket oppor­tu­nity, Red Hat’s play­ing in the big leagues now. Or the big lea­guers such as HP (HP), IBM (IBM) and Ora­cle (ORCL) have come over to Red Hat’s ball park if you pre­fer. So it’s inter­est­ing to me to see that this “overnight suc­cess” is almost 15 years old, includ­ing its begin­nings in ACC Corp.

Cofounder Bob Young’s book and a short essay by Young tell the story. His essay includes a great expla­na­tion of the OSS busi­ness model using com­par­isons with sell­ing cat­sup and bot­tled water. So first invest­ment research food for thought: Don’t be afraid to invest in a pri­vate com­pany with a few years under its belt (as Red Hat was 10 to 12 years ago) and a good idea that hasn’t taken off yet. Such an invest­ment might lead to a bet­ter return than a buzzword-of-the-day but totally unproven con­cept pre­sented with reams of charts and graphs by a brand new startup.

Inter­est­ingly, in its 10-K Red Hat added Ora­cle but dropped IBM as among those that “offer hardware-independent, multi-user oper­at­ing sys­tems for Intel plat­forms.” This par­tic­u­lar Com­pe­ti­tion sec­tion of the finan­cial fil­ing does not have to be defin­i­tive but it typ­i­cally reflects the most effec­tive com­peti­tors and it is most reveal­ing when word­ing is changed from one year to the next as it did in this case. Adding Ora­cle makes sense although the data­base mar­ket leader was only in the operating-system mar­ket for the last quar­ter of Red Hat’s fis­cal year, which ended Feb­ru­ary 28, 2007. What might be more mean­ing­ful from an invest­ment per­spec­tive was drop­ping IBM. Maybe Red Hat just wanted to save ink.

Finally, I guess I already knew this next item but hadn’t thought about it: Red Hat has already gone through the “CA syn­drome.” The syn­drome is named for the very dif­fi­cult tran­si­tion Com­puter Asso­ciates (CA) is cur­rently com­plet­ing whereby it moved from a license-revenue model to now rec­og­niz­ing almost all its software-related rev­enue as sub­scrip­tion, deflat­ing for a few years in the process from a GAAP per­spec­tive. That is, unlike all of its big-league com­peti­tors’ rev­enues, most of Red Hat’s rev­enue is already rec­og­nized on a sub­scrip­tion basis vs. a front-loaded perpetual-license basis. (Note: Red Hat calls the big lea­guers “pro­pri­etary” soft­ware providers in its 10-K but that’s unfair since all have also now embraced OSS.)

A per­fectly fair apples-to-apples com­par­i­son of Red Hat with BEA, the IBM Soft­ware Group, SAP or Sun, for exam­ple, would either increase Red Hat’s mar­ket share by 5 or so per­cent­age points or cut back the other com­pa­nies’ shares pro­por­tion­ally. From an invest­ment analy­sis per­spec­tive, this means that Red Hat is not as small as the tra­di­tional market-research-firm tax­onomies and method­olo­gies would imply.

The annual Research 2.0 Red Hat analy­sis is in process now, and our report will be released in July or early August. It will go into depth about Red Hat’s and OSS’s future, and put a lot more meat on the bones than I did here in this blog post.

–Den­nis Byron

Tags: , , , ,

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: