Dan Ives: Why the SaaS Apocalypse Is a Total Myth

software is about to capture the next wave of the artificial intelligence boom, proving that the feared SAS apocalypse was nothing more than a fiction. By the end of this video, you will understand how enterprise data, strategic private equity buyouts, and a massive surge in cyber security budgets are shifting the investment landscape. In a recent appearance on CNBC, Dan Ies, partner and senior managing director at Yorkville Ives, sat down to unpack why the market is transitioning from hardware chips to high margin software applications. I'll show you the clip of Dan Ies's interview uninterrupted. And after that, I'll give you my own detailed breakdown reaction to what he said. >> Will the next wave of the tech trade be led by software or semis? Or maybe could it be both? With us now is Dan Ives, partner and senior managing director at Yorkville Ives. Dan, always great to see you. >> Great to see you. >> Where what stage are we in in this trade in terms of software in semis? Is it a one or the other still? >> I don't think so. I look, I think it just keeps coming down to like that software trade when we saw stock sell off SAS apocalypse. That was a fictional narrative in my opinion. I think you're starting to see that prove itself out. But software is going to be the second third derivatives of the AI revolution. So I I still view it even though chips are leading. software now is starting to get ready to go into that AI party and I think demonetization I think when you look at Microsoft Palunteer those are two specifically I think gave much more validation to what tech investors are looking for >> right and then there is this reported interest by silver lake for a workday can you sort of um go through like extrapolate what that could mean for the space if if private equity is looking at a name like a workday an enterprise name an HR software management name you know are there other names like this and could there be other deals to come? >> No, I could I think when you look at workday and you look what's happening across software in that there's value in PE and especially in that 415 area code they're going to find the value. I think it does put a floor on a lot of these names specifically relative to the sector but then you have to see as it actually plays out and are there more deals to actually be had. It all comes down to customer bases. The install bases are key because data you could talk about compute but data is almost that's that's the hearts and lungs of the AI revolution. These companies have the install bases but there's winners and losers and you like some of the names that you've talked about Adobe and some others. This is you're starting to see a separation relative to the names if it's a service now or others that will benefit versus maybe others that won't. What do you think has been disproven since the initial IGV lull over AI displacing software? What has been disproven in that narrative so far? What have we moved past? >> I think it's the it's the narrative that software companies that they're going to get eaten from anthropic and the model companies there. No one's going to need software companies. They're going to be disintermediated. typewriter companies, word processor, VCR, however you want to think about it, because now the monetization on the use cases you're seeing software companies are, they're really they're really key in a lot of these deals. And I think that is the shift in the narrative as you're seeing the monetization. >> That's the extreme of the narrative in terms of, you know, AI completely displacing software. But is there another narrative where AI just simply at the edges takes off the need for software? Certain kinds of enterprises may adopt AI instead of going to a CRM or a workday. >> No doubt. And that's why for software companies, they can't just be on the treadmill 2.5 speed like maybe they were four or five years ago. The hubris is out. And I think some of them are they're going to have to do acquisitions or when it comes to boards and some of the decisions that they're going to have to make. Do they look potentially strategically at other options because there's not all going to be winners. But the one thing that you're seeing the AI revolution the capex for every dollar of capex5 to $6 multiply across the rest of tech a lot of that will be software infrastructure cyber security is a good example as it all starts to play out. >> Is there more room for cyber as we are hearing about more and more um you know models getting out of sandboxes etc. Do you know the likes of CrowdStrike, which by the way hit a new new high in today's session, um do they have the tools? Are they the answer to you know breakouts like those that we've heard about so far? >> I think it's a golden age for cyber security because in our view from everything we've said I think budgets could ultimately double over the next two to three years. When you look at some of the leaders, let's say with George and Crowdstrike, seeing around corners relative to agents and how you're actually going to make sure that the surface area are ultimately going to be secured. Palo Alto and others, but at the end of the day, it really comes down to surface area is increasing. As the use cases grow, so is cyber security. It's a good example of the derivative beneficiaries. But I remember being at RSA in March and you know when you go back to the spring just the negativity there it just shows the narrative sometimes you know could be wrong at time but they these companies have to prove itself out quarter by quarter. >> The CNBC host opened the conversation by pointing out a significant market shift. The tech trade particularly semiconductors and apploving ticker symbol A had staged a powerful recovery after a highly volatile July. The semiconductor ETF was up 8% in the month, prompting the host to raise a fundamental question. Will the next wave of the tech bull market be led by software, by semiconductors, or is it possible that both sectors will charge ahead together? Ives rejected the idea that investors have to make an exclusive choice between these two tech pillars. He argued that the widespread fear of a SAS apocalypse, the belief that generative artificial intelligence would render traditional software as a service companies completely obsolete, was a fundamentally flawed narrative that is already starting to fall apart. In his view, software represents the second and third derivative plays of the broader AI revolution. While silicon chips and raw compute power have naturally commanded the spotlight during the initial infrastructure buildout, Ives explained that the software sector is now preparing to join the party as enterprise monetization begins to show real traction. He pointed to Microsoft, ticker symbol MSFT, and Palunteer, ticker symbol PLTR, as two prime examples of companies delivering the concrete financial validation that tech investors are desperately looking for. My take on this initial exchange is that Ives is spot-on regarding the sequencing of this tech cycle, but we have to be careful not to paint the entire software sector with one broad brush. While semiconductor infrastructure paved the road, the enterprise software applications driving on it must actually deliver utility to justify the massive capital expenditure we are seeing across the board. If companies cannot show how these multi-million dollar integrations boost their own productivity and bottomline efficiency, the entire tech investment thesis collapses, we are transitioning from a market fueled by pure imagination to one that demands concrete proof of value. And that means the pressure is now squarely on the software developers to perform. The CNBC host quickly steered the conversation toward the mechanics of this software recovery, specifically asking Ives about the role of private equity in setting a floor for software valuations. With several high-profile enterprise buyouts making headlines, the host wanted to know if this sudden wave of private equity interest is a sign of desperation or a signal of deep unrecognized value in the sector. She questioned whether these take private deals are proving that public markets have beaten down these software stocks too far or if it is simply a temporary defensive play. Ives responded with a clear aggressive stance, arguing that private equity firms are looking at the software sector like kids in a candy store. He pointed out that many of these midcap software players are trading at valuation multiples that completely ignore their cash generation power and their underlying proprietary data assets. In his view, the private equity playbook here is simple. Buy these undervalued assets now, integrate artificial intelligence capabilities into their legacy databases, and sell them back to the public markets at a massive premium in 3 to 5 years. It is a massive vote of confidence that institutional money thinks the public markets are mispricing the long-term utility of enterprise data. Where I land on this is that private equity is playing a classic arbitrage game, but the risks are significantly higher this time around. If a software company has a poorly organized data structure or a decaying user base, no amount of financial engineering is going to magically turn it into an AI leader. The market is becoming highly selective and private equity buyers will need to do serious technical due diligence to avoid catching falling knives, especially since legacy tech debt can be incredibly expensive to modernize. If you want more breakdowns at this depth, like the video and subscribe to the channel, and let's keep going. The host then shifted the focus to a more defensive pocket of the software market, asking Ives how cyber security fits into this broader capital expenditure story. She raised the point that while enterprise software sales cycles can be notoriously slow and subject to corporate delays, cyber security seems to operate under a completely different set of rules. She asked Ives if security budgets are actually immune to the broader corporate belt tightening we have observed over the past year or if they too will eventually face the chopping block. Ies characterized cyber security not just as a defensive necessity but as the absolute lynchpin of the entire enterprise migration to cloud infrastructure. He explained that as enterprises move their sensitive data to the cloud to feed these large language models, they are simultaneously expanding their digital attack surface. You simply cannot deploy advanced software tools without upgrading your security architecture first. Ies highlighted PaloAlto Networks, ticker symbol PNW, and Crowdstrike, ticker symbol CRWD, as the dominant players capturing this spend. He argued that even in a choppy macroeconomic environment, chief information officers do not have the luxury of cutting back on endpoint security or threat detection, making it a mandatory tax on digital transformation. My take is that Ives is absolutely right about the structural tailwinds, but the competitive dynamics in cyber security are brutal. We have seen how a single technical glitch or buggy update can disrupt global infrastructure, which means the margin for error for these high-flying security platforms is virtually zero. The valuation multiples for these stocks leave no room for execution missteps, meaning any slowdown in their growth trajectory will be severely punished by Wall Street regardless of how essential their services are. The host, sensing the tension between security and aggressive growth, then pushed Ives on the actual timeline for this monetization. She challenged him on the widespread skepticism surrounding the return on investment for enterprise software, noting that while companies are spending heavily on hardware infrastructure, many chief information officers are still struggling to point to direct measurable revenue generated by these new tools. She asked when the promise of software productivity actually turns into hard profit. Ives countered with a powerful multiplier metric that serves as the core of his bullish thesis. He argued that for every dollar spent on an Nvidia GPU chip, there is a multiplier effect of $4 to5 in subsequent software and services spending across the tech ecosystem. This is not a theoretical projection. Ives explained that we are already seeing this multiplier manifest in the cloud earnings of Microsoft and the enterprise adoption rates of Palunteer. He described this as a spending wave that is only in its first or second inning, suggesting that the skeptics are looking at a snapshot of a race that is barely begun. How I view this multiplier is that while the math makes sense on paper, the distribution of that spending will be highly unequal, the bulk of that $4 to5 multiplier is going to flow to a handful of massive platforms that control the enterprise operating system, leaving smaller niche software players fighting for scraps. If you are an investor, you cannot just buy a broad software index and expect to win. You have to find the specific platforms that own the customer relationship and have the developer ecosystem to scale. The host seized on this distribution question, asking Ives how smaller software vendors can possibly compete against the hypers scale giants. She asked whether the massive cloud providers will simply bundle their own solutions and starve out the independent software vendors. Why would an enterprise pay for a separate tool when their cloud provider offers a standardized version built directly into their existing contract? Ives argued that the fear of hyperscaler dominance overlooks the unique value of proprietary enterprise data. He explained that companies like Salesforce, ticker symbol CRM, or Service Now, ticker symbol NO, possess deep vertical specific workflows that cannot easily be replicated by a generic cloud model. An enterprises gold mine is its own historical data, and the software companies that have spent decades housing that data are the ones best positioned to monetize it. I've suggested that rather than killing independent software, the hyperscalers are actually partnering with them to drive more consumption on their cloud platforms, creating a symbiotic relationship rather than a zero sum game. What I'd watch here is how these partnerships evolve over the next 18 months. While the hyperscalers are happy to play nice today, they are aggressively building out their own vertical solutions, and the line between partner and competitor is getting incredibly thin. The independent software vendors must run faster than their cloud hosts can copy them, which puts immense pressure on their product development teams to constantly innovate. The host then brought up the macro picture, asking Ives how interest rates and Federal Reserve policy might impact this software rotation. She pointed out that software valuations are highly sensitive to interest rates because their cash flows are projected far into the future and asked if a higher for longer rate environment could derail this recovery even if the underlying fundamentals are strong. Ies dismissed the idea that modest rate fluctuations would halt this secular shift. He argued that the demand for efficiency is so intense that it transcends minor macroeconomic headwinds. In his view, a company looking to cut costs will actually accelerate its software spending because automation is the ultimate deflationary tool. Ives emphasized that the Federal Reserve's path is secondary to the massive multi-year capital expenditure cycle that is currently being funded by corporate cash reserves, not debt. The balance sheets of these major tech companies are stronger than they have ever been, making them highly resilient to monetary policy shifts. My take is that while mega cap tech can easily ignore interest rates, the midcap and small cap software players cannot. High borrowing costs make it much harder for these smaller companies to fund their own research and development, which could accelerate consolidation and lead to even more private equity buyouts. The gap between the tech giants and the rest of the market is likely to widen if rates remain elevated, creating a barbell effect where only the strongest survive. The host then asked Ives for his final high conviction playbook for investors navigating this transition. She wanted to know how to structure a portfolio to capture this software wave without taking on excessive risk. Ives laid out a clear hierarchy for the software expansion. He put enterprise applications with deep data modes at the very top followed closely by cloud security platforms. He reiterated that the tech bull market is not a single track race. Rather, it is a relay where the baton is currently being passed from hardware to software. Ives concluded by stating that investors who are sitting on the sidelines waiting for a major tech correction are missing one of the most significant transformational cycles since the commercialization of the internet. Where I land on this entire discussion is that we are witnessing a healthy maturation of the tech sector. The initial hype phase where any company mentioning artificial intelligence saw its stock skyrocket is officially over. We are entering the execution phase where management teams must prove that their software can actually deliver tangible bottomline value. The winners of this next phase will not be the ones with the loudest marketing, but the ones who can seamlessly integrate these advanced tools into the daily workflows of millions of workers around the globe. Thanks for watching to the end. If you see it differently, say so in the comments and like the video and subscribe to the channel if you want more. See you in the next one.