Month: June 2023
MMS • RSS
Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
New Jersey, United States – Verified Market Research recently published a research report titled, “Global Database Management Software Market Insight, Forecast 2030“. The Global Database Management Software market is elaborately discussed in the report so as to help readers to gain a sound understanding of key trends, top strategies, and potential growth opportunities. The Global Database Management Software report offers Porter’s Five Forces analysis, PESTEL analysis, and qualitative and quantitative analysis to give a complete and accurate picture of the current and future market situations. The analysts have carefully forecast the market size, CAGR, market share, revenue, production, and other vital factors with the help of industry-best primary and secondary research tools and methodologies. Players can use the Global Database Management Software report to build effective strategies for concentrating on key segments and regions and boosting their business in the Global Database Management Software market.
Our report includes ongoing and latest market trends, company market shares, market forecasts, competitive benchmarking, competitive mapping, and in-depth analysis of key sustainability tactics and their impact on market growth and competition. In order to estimate quantitative aspects and segment the Global Database Management Software market, we used a recommended combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches. We studied the Global Database Management Software market from three key perspectives through data triangulation. Our iterative and comprehensive research methodology helps us to provide the most accurate market forecasts and estimates with no to minimum errors.
Get Full PDF Sample Copy of Report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/download-sample/?rid=85941
Key Players Mentioned in the Global Database Management Software Market Research Report:
In this section of the report, the Global Database Management Software Market focuses on the major players that are operating in the market and their competitive landscape present in the market. The Global Database Management Software report includes a list of initiatives taken by the companies in the past years along with the ones, which are likely to happen in the coming years. Analysts have also made a note of their expansion plans for the near future, financial analysis of these companies, and their research and development activities. This research report includes a complete dashboard view of the Global Database Management Software market, which helps the readers to view an in-depth knowledge about the report.
RingLead, MongoDB, Redis Enterprise, SingleStore.com, Teradata Vantage, SAP HANA, HarperDB, Couchbase Server, Worksheet Systems, Confluent Platform.
Global Database Management Software Market Segmentation:
Database Management Software Market, By Type
� Cloud-based
� On-premises
Database Management Software Market, By Application
� Banking and Financial
� Government
� Hospitality
� Healthcare and Life Sciences
� Education
� Media and Entertainment
� Professional Service
� Telecom and It
For a better understanding of the market, analysts have segmented the Global Database Management Software market based on application, type, and regions. Each segment provides a clear picture of the aspects that are likely to drive it and the ones expected to restrain it. The segment-wise explanation allows the reader to get access to particular updates about the Global Database Management Software market. Evolving environmental concerns, changing political scenarios, and differing approaches by the government towards regulatory reforms have also been mentioned in the Global Database Management Software research report.
In this chapter of the Global Database Management Software Market report, the researchers have explored the various regions that are expected to witness fruitful developments and make serious contributions to the market’s burgeoning growth. Along with general statistical information, the Global Database Management Software Market report has provided data of each region with respect to its revenue, productions, and presence of major manufacturers. The major regions which are covered in the Global Database Management Software Market report includes North America, Europe, Central and South America, Asia Pacific, South Asia, the Middle East and Africa, GCC countries, and others.
Inquire for a Discount on this Premium Report @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=85941
What to Expect in Our Report?
(1) A complete section of the Global Database Management Software market report is dedicated for market dynamics, which include influence factors, market drivers, challenges, opportunities, and trends.
(2) Another broad section of the research study is reserved for regional analysis of the Global Database Management Software market where important regions and countries are assessed for their growth potential, consumption, market share, and other vital factors indicating their market growth.
(3) Players can use the competitive analysis provided in the report to build new strategies or fine-tune their existing ones to rise above market challenges and increase their share of the Global Database Management Software market.
(4) The report also discusses competitive situation and trends and sheds light on company expansions and merger and acquisition taking place in the Global Database Management Software market. Moreover, it brings to light the market concentration rate and market shares of top three and five players.
(5) Readers are provided with findings and conclusion of the research study provided in the Global Database Management Software Market report.
Key Questions Answered in the Report:
(1) What are the growth opportunities for the new entrants in the Global Database Management Software industry?
(2) Who are the leading players functioning in the Global Database Management Software marketplace?
(3) What are the key strategies participants are likely to adopt to increase their share in the Global Database Management Software industry?
(4) What is the competitive situation in the Global Database Management Software market?
(5) What are the emerging trends that may influence the Global Database Management Software market growth?
(6) Which product type segment will exhibit high CAGR in future?
(7) Which application segment will grab a handsome share in the Global Database Management Software industry?
(8) Which region is lucrative for the manufacturers?
For More Information or Query or Customization Before Buying, Visit @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/database-management-software-market/
About Us: Verified Market Research®
Verified Market Research® is a leading Global Research and Consulting firm that has been providing advanced analytical research solutions, custom consulting and in-depth data analysis for 10+ years to individuals and companies alike that are looking for accurate, reliable and up to date research data and technical consulting. We offer insights into strategic and growth analyses, Data necessary to achieve corporate goals and help make critical revenue decisions.
Our research studies help our clients make superior data-driven decisions, understand market forecast, capitalize on future opportunities and optimize efficiency by working as their partner to deliver accurate and valuable information. The industries we cover span over a large spectrum including Technology, Chemicals, Manufacturing, Energy, Food and Beverages, Automotive, Robotics, Packaging, Construction, Mining & Gas. Etc.
We, at Verified Market Research, assist in understanding holistic market indicating factors and most current and future market trends. Our analysts, with their high expertise in data gathering and governance, utilize industry techniques to collate and examine data at all stages. They are trained to combine modern data collection techniques, superior research methodology, subject expertise and years of collective experience to produce informative and accurate research.
Having serviced over 5000+ clients, we have provided reliable market research services to more than 100 Global Fortune 500 companies such as Amazon, Dell, IBM, Shell, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Siemens, Microsoft, Sony and Hitachi. We have co-consulted with some of the world’s leading consulting firms like McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, Bain and Company for custom research and consulting projects for businesses worldwide.
Contact us:
Mr. Edwyne Fernandes
Verified Market Research®
US: +1 (650)-781-4080
UK: +44 (753)-715-0008
APAC: +61 (488)-85-9400
US Toll-Free: +1 (800)-782-1768
Email: sales@verifiedmarketresearch.com
Website:- https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/
Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
MMS • RSS
Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
New Jersey, United States – Verified Market Research recently published a research report titled, “Global Open-Source Database Software Market Insight, Forecast 2030“. The Global Open-Source Database Software market is elaborately discussed in the report so as to help readers to gain a sound understanding of key trends, top strategies, and potential growth opportunities. The Global Open-Source Database Software report offers Porter’s Five Forces analysis, PESTEL analysis, and qualitative and quantitative analysis to give a complete and accurate picture of the current and future market situations. The analysts have carefully forecast the market size, CAGR, market share, revenue, production, and other vital factors with the help of industry-best primary and secondary research tools and methodologies. Players can use the Global Open-Source Database Software report to build effective strategies for concentrating on key segments and regions and boosting their business in the Global Open-Source Database Software market.
Our report includes ongoing and latest market trends, company market shares, market forecasts, competitive benchmarking, competitive mapping, and in-depth analysis of key sustainability tactics and their impact on market growth and competition. In order to estimate quantitative aspects and segment the Global Open-Source Database Software market, we used a recommended combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches. We studied the Global Open-Source Database Software market from three key perspectives through data triangulation. Our iterative and comprehensive research methodology helps us to provide the most accurate market forecasts and estimates with no to minimum errors.
Get Full PDF Sample Copy of Report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/download-sample/?rid=59420
Key Players Mentioned in the Global Open-Source Database Software Market Research Report:
In this section of the report, the Global Open-Source Database Software Market focuses on the major players that are operating in the market and their competitive landscape present in the market. The Global Open-Source Database Software report includes a list of initiatives taken by the companies in the past years along with the ones, which are likely to happen in the coming years. Analysts have also made a note of their expansion plans for the near future, financial analysis of these companies, and their research and development activities. This research report includes a complete dashboard view of the Global Open-Source Database Software market, which helps the readers to view an in-depth knowledge about the report.
Titan, SQLite, Neo4j, MariaDB, Apache Hive, Couchbase, MongoDB, Redis, MySQL.
Global Open-Source Database Software Market Segmentation:
Open-Source Database Software Market, By Product
• Cloud Based
• On Premises
Open-Source Database Software Market, By Application
• Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)
• Large Enterprises
For a better understanding of the market, analysts have segmented the Global Open-Source Database Software market based on application, type, and regions. Each segment provides a clear picture of the aspects that are likely to drive it and the ones expected to restrain it. The segment-wise explanation allows the reader to get access to particular updates about the Global Open-Source Database Software market. Evolving environmental concerns, changing political scenarios, and differing approaches by the government towards regulatory reforms have also been mentioned in the Global Open-Source Database Software research report.
In this chapter of the Global Open-Source Database Software Market report, the researchers have explored the various regions that are expected to witness fruitful developments and make serious contributions to the market’s burgeoning growth. Along with general statistical information, the Global Open-Source Database Software Market report has provided data of each region with respect to its revenue, productions, and presence of major manufacturers. The major regions which are covered in the Global Open-Source Database Software Market report includes North America, Europe, Central and South America, Asia Pacific, South Asia, the Middle East and Africa, GCC countries, and others.
Inquire for a Discount on this Premium Report @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=59420
What to Expect in Our Report?
(1) A complete section of the Global Open-Source Database Software market report is dedicated for market dynamics, which include influence factors, market drivers, challenges, opportunities, and trends.
(2) Another broad section of the research study is reserved for regional analysis of the Global Open-Source Database Software market where important regions and countries are assessed for their growth potential, consumption, market share, and other vital factors indicating their market growth.
(3) Players can use the competitive analysis provided in the report to build new strategies or fine-tune their existing ones to rise above market challenges and increase their share of the Global Open-Source Database Software market.
(4) The report also discusses competitive situation and trends and sheds light on company expansions and merger and acquisition taking place in the Global Open-Source Database Software market. Moreover, it brings to light the market concentration rate and market shares of top three and five players.
(5) Readers are provided with findings and conclusion of the research study provided in the Global Open-Source Database Software Market report.
Key Questions Answered in the Report:
(1) What are the growth opportunities for the new entrants in the Global Open-Source Database Software industry?
(2) Who are the leading players functioning in the Global Open-Source Database Software marketplace?
(3) What are the key strategies participants are likely to adopt to increase their share in the Global Open-Source Database Software industry?
(4) What is the competitive situation in the Global Open-Source Database Software market?
(5) What are the emerging trends that may influence the Global Open-Source Database Software market growth?
(6) Which product type segment will exhibit high CAGR in future?
(7) Which application segment will grab a handsome share in the Global Open-Source Database Software industry?
(8) Which region is lucrative for the manufacturers?
For More Information or Query or Customization Before Buying, Visit @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/open-source-database-software-market/
About Us: Verified Market Research®
Verified Market Research® is a leading Global Research and Consulting firm that has been providing advanced analytical research solutions, custom consulting and in-depth data analysis for 10+ years to individuals and companies alike that are looking for accurate, reliable and up to date research data and technical consulting. We offer insights into strategic and growth analyses, Data necessary to achieve corporate goals and help make critical revenue decisions.
Our research studies help our clients make superior data-driven decisions, understand market forecast, capitalize on future opportunities and optimize efficiency by working as their partner to deliver accurate and valuable information. The industries we cover span over a large spectrum including Technology, Chemicals, Manufacturing, Energy, Food and Beverages, Automotive, Robotics, Packaging, Construction, Mining & Gas. Etc.
We, at Verified Market Research, assist in understanding holistic market indicating factors and most current and future market trends. Our analysts, with their high expertise in data gathering and governance, utilize industry techniques to collate and examine data at all stages. They are trained to combine modern data collection techniques, superior research methodology, subject expertise and years of collective experience to produce informative and accurate research.
Having serviced over 5000+ clients, we have provided reliable market research services to more than 100 Global Fortune 500 companies such as Amazon, Dell, IBM, Shell, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Siemens, Microsoft, Sony and Hitachi. We have co-consulted with some of the world’s leading consulting firms like McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, Bain and Company for custom research and consulting projects for businesses worldwide.
Contact us:
Mr. Edwyne Fernandes
Verified Market Research®
US: +1 (650)-781-4080
UK: +44 (753)-715-0008
APAC: +61 (488)-85-9400
US Toll-Free: +1 (800)-782-1768
Email: sales@verifiedmarketresearch.com
Website:- https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/
Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
Decoding MongoDB’s Unprecedented Options Trading Surge: Mixed Signals or Clear Indicators?
MMS • RSS
Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
MongoDB’s Unusually Large Options Trading: What Does It Mean?
On Wednesday, MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB) saw unprecedented options trading activity, as traders purchased 36,130 call options on the stock. Compared to the typical daily volume of 1,660 call options, this represents a staggering increase of 2,077%. The question is: what does it all mean?
Firstly, let’s take a look at some key figures for the company. MongoDB has a market capitalization of $26.24 billion and a PE ratio of -82.25. Its current debt-to-equity ratio is 1.44, while its current and quick ratios are both at 4.19. The stock has experienced significant volatility over the past year with its one-year low being $135.15 and its one-year high being $398.89.
This range in share price is reflected in diverse opinions from research analysts. While Wedbush reduced their target price from $240 to $230, Mizuho lifted their price target from $180 to $220 after Morgan Stanley raised MDB’s rating from equal weight to overweight with an increased target price of up to $270.
Even more perplexing is the recent sale of MDB shares by company insiders such as CTO Mark Porter and CAO Thomas Bull who sold 2,669 shares each at an average price range of $228-$381 per share.
So what should investors make of all these contradictory signals? While it could be tempting to speculate about possible future developments within the company or broader market trends that may be impacting trading behavior on this particular stock, ultimately only time will tell what lies ahead for MongoDB.
One thing is certain – this level of options trading activity suggests there are many different views on where MongoDB is headed in coming weeks and months among traders and investors alike who seek to profit off these movements by placing bets accordingly through various options. As always, investors should exercise sound judgement when interpreting these signals and making investment decisions.
MongoDB, Inc.
MDB
Buy
Updated on: 16/06/2023
MongoDB’s Earnings Report Sparks Investor Interest and Drives Stock Surge
MongoDB’s Strong Earnings Report Attracts Institutional Investors
New York-based data management company MongoDB (NASDAQ:MDB) released its quarterly earnings results on Thursday, June 1st, and investors were highly impressed. The tech firm’s report showcased astounding revenues of $368.28 million for the quarter, surpassing the estimated analyst calculations of approximately $347.77 million.
The result marked a year-on-year revenue growth of nearly 29% for MongoDB, which specialized in offering open-source database software. However, other crucial figures from the earnings report are equally as impressive. For example, the company posted an EPS of $0.56 for the quarter, beating analysts’ predictions of just $0.18 by a vast margin of $0.38.
Despite an overall negative net margin of 23.58%, the news was enough to attract notable institutions such as Toroso Investments LLC and Kayne Anderson Rudnick Investment Management LLC to raise their stakes in the company significantly.
Toroso Investments increased its holdings by 5.4%, with B Riley Wealth Advisors increasing their position by as much as 16%. Interactive investors that have shown considerable confidence include Empower Advisory Group and A.M Square LTD holding more than $7 million and $280 thousand respectively.
By contrast, several hedge funds decided to sell shares instead of taking additional positions in MongoDB during Q2 2021.
Markets have already started reacting positively to this news with shares surging at +15% over Monday morning.
Industry experts suggested that investors remain optimistic about both MongoDB’s current financial standing -now profitable following years of heavy operating losses- and furthermore towards cloud computing technology moving forward.
With projected continuing growth considered favorable for disciplined investment managers seeking alpha returns, one could presume many hedge funds will continue drumming up interest in not just MDB but also SaaS companies specializing in various cloud infrastructure offerings across Software Development plays this year until negative high valuations start to weigh in and prompt profit-taking.
It’s a gradual shift, but one that already saw large mutual funds hording these technology stocks, which at the same time gradually causes other investors not wanting to miss out on the train.
Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
MMS • RSS
Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
Our Industry leading client is currently seeking an experienced Restful API Developer with a strong background in Java, AWS, Kafka, and MongoDB. In this role, you will be responsible for designing, developing, and maintaining high-quality RESTful APIs that seamlessly integrate with various systems. Collaborating closely with cross-functional teams, you will play a vital role in delivering scalable and reliable API solutions to meet our business needs. Your expertise in RESTful architecture, Java programming, cloud computing with AWS, messaging systems like Kafka, and NoSQL databases such as MongoDB will be essential.
Responsibilities:
As a Restful API Developer, your responsibilities will include:
- Designing and developing RESTful APIs using Java and related frameworks.
- Collaborating with cross-functional teams to gather requirements and define API specifications.
- Ensuring the performance, scalability, and security of the APIs.
- Integrating APIs with third-party systems and services to enhance functionality and connectivity.
- Creating comprehensive documentation, including technical specifications and usage guidelines.
- Implementing unit tests and automated tests to ensure the quality and reliability of the APIs.
- Troubleshooting and resolving API issues, performance bottlenecks, and system failures.
- Working with DevOps teams to deploy APIs on cloud platforms, particularly AWS.
- Utilizing Kafka for event-driven architectures and efficient data processing.
- Designing and implementing data models and database interactions using MongoDB.
- Staying up-to-date with industry trends and best practices in API development, Java programming, AWS services, Kafka, and MongoDB.
Requirements:
To be successful in this role, you should meet the following requirements:
- Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Software Engineering, or a related field (or equivalent experience).
- Proven work experience as a Restful API Developer or in a similar role.
- Strong proficiency in Java programming language and related frameworks (e.g., Spring Boot, JAX-RS, Jersey).
- Experience with AWS services, particularly API Gateway, Lambda, EC2, and S3.
- In-depth understanding of designing and implementing RESTful API architectures.
- Knowledge of messaging systems such as Kafka and experience with event-driven architectures.
- Familiarity with NoSQL databases, especially MongoDB, and the ability to design efficient data models.
- Understanding of containerization technologies such as Docker and Kubernetes.
- Solid grasp of software development best practices, including version control (e.g., Git), testing methodologies, and code review processes.
- Excellent problem-solving skills and ability to debug and troubleshoot complex issues.
- Strong communication and collaboration skills, with the ability to work effectively in a team environment.
This opportunity is a contract opportunity with optional benefits including Health, Medical, Dental, Vision, 401K, etc.
Key Terms: Software Engineer, Java, Kafka, Microservices, AWS, Rest APIs, Spring boot, Kubernetes, Mongo DB
Please be advised- If anyone reaches out to you about an open position connected with Eliassen Group, please confirm that they have an Eliassen.com email address and never provide personal or financial information to anyone who is not clearly associated with Eliassen Group. If you have any indication of fraudulent activity, please contact
Job ID: 378163
About Eliassen Group:
Eliassen Group is a leading strategic consulting company that provides business and IT services for our clients as they seek to transform and execute strategies that will drive exceptional outcomes. Leveraging over 30 years of success, we focus on professional services, talent solutions, and life sciences. Eliassen Group offers local community presence and deep networks. We are committed to positively impacting the lives of our employees, clients, consultants, and the communities in which we operate.
Eliassen Group is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, protected veteran status, or disability status.
Don’t miss out on our referral program! If we hire a candidate that you refer us to then you can be eligible for a $1,000 referral check!
Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
MMS • RSS
Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
BSidesLjubljana 0x7E7 is taking place today at the Computer History Museum, and Help Net Security is on site.
Here’s a look at the event featuring Solar Designer (Openwall), Boris Sieklik (MongoDB), Darko Kukovec (Infinum), and Daniel Poposki.
Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
MMS • Charity Majors
Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ
Subscribe on:
Transcript
Introductions [00:05]
Shane Hastie: Good day, folks. This is Shane Hastie, with the InfoQ Engineering Culture Podcast. Today I have the privilege and pleasure of sitting down, across many miles with Charity Majors. Charity is the CTO and co-founder of Honeycomb.io. Listeners to the Architecture Podcast on InfoQ will be very familiar with her voice, and people who come to the QCon conferences will have met Charity many times, but this is the first time we’ve got Charity on the Culture Podcast.
So, Charity, welcome. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us.
Charity Majors: How is that the first time? Oh my goodness. Thank you so much for having me.
Shane Hastie: There’s a few people out there who might not have heard of you. Who’s Charity?
Charity Majors: Well, I am an infrastructure engineer, is how I think of myself. I am co-founder, as you said, of honeycomb.io. I was the CEO for the first three years, CTO now. I live in San Francisco. I took up hand lettering and art over the pandemic as my hobby, and I’m currently in London, so I just gave a talk at WTF is SRE conference. It was super fun.
Shane Hastie: This is the Culture Podcast. You made a beautiful statement when we were chatting earlier. Culture is meaningless when somebody says your culture is broken. So how do we tease out what a good “culture” looks like?
Culture is both formal and designed and informal and emergent [01:32]
Charity Majors: Yes, it bugs me whenever people are like, culture is this, culture is that, because it can mean anything and everything. If you look it up in Google it’s everything from the rules and regulations to the practices and the habits, and the informal and the formal, and it’s just like you’re saying nothing at all when you say culture. And so I think it’s really important to get more specific.
One of the ways of differentiating here is, I think, when you’re talking about companies, it’s important to differentiate between the formal culture and the informal culture. The formal culture of the company is everything that managers are responsible for. It’s everything from how we do payroll is part of your culture, your vacation policy is part of your culture, whether or not you train your managers as part of your culture. The balance of acceptable behavior that people can do and not get fired is culture.
And then there’s the informal culture, which, I think, is much more bottoms up. It’s informal, it’s not in the employee handbook. It is often playful, and fun, and anarchic, and chaotic. It’s the in-jokes and the writing your release notes in Limerick form, or it’s all the things that you bring about your character and your personality that you bring to work with you and you play off each other. When we talk about culture at work, I think, we often think about the informal culture because it’s what jumps to mind, but in fact they’re both, I think, really important.
Shane Hastie: As a leader, how do I create the frame, perhaps, for that informal culture to be generative?
Leadership actions create culture irrespective of your intent [03:06]
Charity Majors: Yes, the thing that I think that sometimes escapes people’s minds is that if you are, I don’t really like to use the term leader as a synonym for manager because they’re not, but as managers you are being paid by the org to do certain things on behalf of the organization, and whether you like it or not, whether you think about it or not, your actions are creating culture. It’s just like how the President of the United States, everything the president says is policy for the executive branch. You can’t get around it. And whether you’re intentionally creating culture or not, you are creating culture because people look to you and they see what you accept or what you don’t.
My friend Emily Nakashima, who’s our VP of Engineering, wrote this amazing blog post, called Power Bends Light. It’s about her experience going from being an engineer to a manager, and how suddenly she started noticing, she has a weird sense of humor, suddenly as a manager people started laughing at her jokes. They had never thought she was funny before and now suddenly they thought she was funny. She was like, at first this really bugged me and then I just realized it’s how we experience power. It’s subconscious, it just is. We’re monkeys, and our power dynamics play out in these really subtle ways.
So, I think that the culture that we, as managers and formal leaders of the company, are tasked with is creating a healthy organization. Pat Lencioni, who’s the author of Five Dysfunctions of a Team and a bunch of other books, I feel like his book, called The Advantage, is the single best book I’ve ever read about this. It’s all about how we, as companies, we are so obsessed with becoming smart companies, with our strategy and our tactics and all this stuff, and we’re not nearly focused enough on becoming healthy companies. He makes the point that health trumps and often begets success, because most organizations are using just a tiny fraction of the overall intelligence and wisdom of their org, but healthy ones can tap into almost all of it.
It’s like families. You think of the super dysfunctional family. It doesn’t matter how smart they are, the kids are going to be fucked up. But a healthy family, they don’t have to be the top 10% of IQs because they learn from their mistakes. They communicate in healthy ways, they have affection and compassion for each other, and so they’re just able to be much more highly functional, and they’re likelier to be successful.
And so, I feel like the job of leadership is, number one, we have fiduciary responsibilities to make the organization successful, which means that we need to make it healthy. And an organization that is unhealthy is maybe easier to spot. It’s the ones where projects are getting canceled and people are doing political stuff, or they’re unsure where they’re going, or they’re not on the same page as the teams that are next to them, or they’re spending a lot of resources trying to argue about something. These are all super obvious visible ways that the unhealthiness of our culture manifests.
I’ve been talking for a long time so I’m going to pause there.
Shane Hastie: And I’m thoroughly enjoying listening to what you say. So, creating that space for the culture to emerge.
Charity Majors: Yes.
Shane Hastie: Actually, let’s delve into one statement you made, that is, I think, quite important. Leader manager, not synonyms. How do they show up in the workplace?
Leader and manager are not synonyms [06:27]
Charity Majors: The first blog post I ever wrote that really took off was the one called The Engineer/ Manager Pendulum, and it was in 2017, I think. I wrote it for a friend, actually, who was the director of engineering at Slack at the time, and hating his job, but really reluctant to go back to being an engineer because he liked to have the impact, and he liked to have the power and the control just to shape the technology and the team, and it felt like going back to being an individual contributor would be a huge step back in his career. The piece that I wrote, the argument that I was making, is that the most powerful technologists in our industry tend to be people who have gone back and forth, not just once or twice, but multiple times, because you accrue these skill sets of both the tech itself but also the people skills, and the merging of the two, and the navigating the organization, and you just get stronger and stronger as you go back and forth.
I feel like lots of managers who go back for the first time are shocked to see that when they’re an engineer after having been a manager, they’re treated differently and they operate differently in the workplace because they have these skills. People still look to them for this people leadership, even though they’re technically responsible only for the technical outcomes. I feel so, so strongly about this topic that your leaders are not just your managers, and in fact that management is not a promotion. Management should not be a promotion, it should just be a change of career. You’re peers with the people that you’re “managing”. Even though there is a hierarchy, there is a need for decisions to be made in an organized manner. I feel like technical contributors should be responsible for technical outcomes. Managers should be responsible for organizational outcomes. Managers are responsible for making sure that a decision gets made, but they don’t sit there making all the decisions. Good ones don’t, at least, and the ones who do rapidly find themselves without anybody who wants to be on their team.
I feel like this is a concept that is starting to really catch on and even go beyond the balance of just engineering teams, because you really want people doing their best work to be in the part of the organization where they feel most engaged and challenged and excited. And honestly, people who just do the management track for too long really lose touch with a lot of that, with the hands-on brilliance, and the genius of making things and making things work, and how your system is built, and how it’s structured. And in engineering at least, I think, the best line managers I have ever known have never been more than five years away from writing code and production. You really either need to move up the ladder as a manager, or you need to go back to the well periodically to refresh your skillset.
Shane Hastie: That has to be a very deliberate and conscious choice, doesn’t it?
Shifting between engineer and manager and back needs to be a very deliberate choice [09:19]
Charity Majors: It does. I feel like we’re just starting to see the first generation of technologists who have intentionally done this, and the results are phenomenal because you want to retain the talent who feels compelled to be good at their jobs, who feels compelled to stay on the sharp edge, who feels compelled. And so you don’t want your managers to be like, “Well, I’ve been doing this for two or three years, I’m bored. I guess I have to leave in order to be challenged again, or in order to be hands-on again.” You don’t want that. And you also don’t want people to join the manager track because they feel like they have no power otherwise, they don’t get to make decisions otherwise, they don’t get responsibility or accountability otherwise.
On both sides of the coin, as an organization, I feel like we are just starting to acknowledge that we need to restructure the entire way we think about compensation, job ladders, the career advice that we’re giving to our top performers, or any performers. It goes along with this that you also, I think, want to lower the barriers to becoming a manager. I think anybody who’s interested in being a manager should get a chance to at least build those skills. There might not be a seat in the org for them to join, but management is not an if then, it’s not an either or. It’s just a bunch of skills. If you’re interested in management let’s hook you up with an intern. Maybe you can run our intern program, maybe you can lead some meetings, maybe you can take over while this manager goes out on a four-month maternity break. There is never any shortage of work for managers to do, and if we can just level the playing field and make it…
I feel like a lot of times it’s been like if you want to go into management you sit here crossing your fingers and hoping to be tapped from above, and just be like, “You have been chosen to be our manager.” That’s bullshit. That’s creating some artificial scarcity that just doesn’t need to exist. You should be asking everyone on your team if they’re interested in being a manager, and if they’re interested hook them up with some practice skills. Sometimes they’ll be like, “No. Whoa. Tried that. Definitely not for me.” Sometimes they’ll be interested. I feel like everybody wins when we demystify management, and then we suck the hierarchy out of it as much as we can.
Shane Hastie: For the person who’s at that three to five year cuss, they’ve maybe done the pendulum a couple of times and now they are thinking, do I want to actually go deep in that management and start to climb up the hierarchy? What do they need to do to position themselves, and to move into that space?
Progressing through organisational hierarchy [11:51]
Charity Majors: A lot of it comes down to the randomness of fate and opportunities. You need to be working at a place. I mean, if you just look at the number ratios. If you need one manager for every, let’s say, seven engineers, and if you need one director for every, say, two to five managers, and you need one VP for N directors. You can see that the opportunities get scarcer and scarcer as it goes up, so you might need to change companies. And this is something where I feel like there’s this taboo about expressing that you’re interested in it because it’s seen as a blessing, or something, and it’s almost uncouth to express too much excitement for going up the ladder. Which is again, I feel like we drain the hierarchy out of this stuff, we make it more acceptable to talk about this stuff openly.
If you’re interested, I think that one of the first steps is to ask people around you if they think you’d be good at it. One of the things that I feel like if you’re an engineer and you’re interested in being a manager, you should know if people feel like they’d like to report to you or not, because that’s a pretty decent signal whether you’ll be any good at it or not. And maybe people don’t think you will, in which case you’ve got some work to do right there. There’s that. Do people naturally want to follow your lead? There is the opportunity aspect. And if you’re, say, a director at a mid-level company and the company’s not growing and your boss doesn’t seem like they want to go anywhere, you might want to try joining a smaller company, or a different company that’s growing. Typically, if you go from a mid-level company to a small company or big to a mid-level, you can typically jump up one level. You can go from a director to a VP, or a manager to a director, so that’s a way to get it on your resume.
Managing managers is an entirely different role to managing engineers [13:32]
I know I’m just jumping all over the place here. But one thing that I think is a little mysterious to some people is that going from being an individual contributor, as I see, to a manager versus going from being a manager to a manager of managers, they’re almost as big of jumps as each other. Managing managers is an entirely different job than managing engineers. This is underappreciated, because, as managers, each of you who’s managing people has a way, it’s usually through intuition, of interacting with the world that makes people want to follow your lead. And usually this is very intuitive, and usually you don’t even know how it works really, but once you start managing managers, they all have their own unique way of doing things that makes people want to follow their lead. And so now that you’re trying to help them figure out how to debug problems you need to think about management and leadership in entirely new and different ways. It’s up a level of abstraction, and it means having to relearn the job from first principles.
Another thing that I would say about this, and then I think I’m done, is that almost everybody who becomes a manager, who starts on this ladder, almost everybody assumes that they want to go to the top. Everybody is like, “Yes, I want to be a CTO someday. Yes, I want to be VP someday. Of course I want the opportunity to be a director.” There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s very natural. We see a ladder, we want to climb it. We’re primates. But, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of people get to a point and they realize that they hated it, they didn’t want it, they don’t want to go any higher. And that’s fine too. My only advice would be to people to be sure and check in with yourself. It takes a year or two, maybe three, to really settle into the new gig. But really, after that, check in with yourself. What brings you joy? Does something bring you joy? Does anything bring you joy? What are the threads you want to pull on for your next steps that will help you lean harder into that joy?
Because I know way too many people, and so many of my friends are these ambitious types, I’m a dropout, so I don’t really get this, but the people who are fucken ladder climbers from birth to grave, and they’re just like climb, climb, climb, climb. They get too something resembling the top and then they realize that they’re miserable. While it is easy to go back and forth between manager and engineer, it is real hard to go back from, say, a VP to engineer if you haven’t done it in 10 years. And I know so many people who have literally done just that.
My friend, I wrote a blog post about her. My friend, Molly, came in as our VP of Customer Success or whatever, then her husband struck it rich when OCTI POd, and she suddenly had this real come to Jesus moment and realized, “I’m jealous of the software engineers. All I really want to do is sit there and write code. I hate what I do.” It took her a few years. We moved her to support. She wrote code on the side and everything. She finally managed to move back to software engineering, and she is happy as a frog in the pond. But it was rough, and it’s really hard to find those routes back. So I think it’s really important to check yourself, and remember that ladder climbing is in and of itself not actually fulfillment.
Shane Hastie: Great points there. If we can bounce topics a little bit, AI. Generative AI versus AIOps. I know you’ve got opinions, so here’s a platform.
The challenges in and around AIOPS [16:53]
Charity Majors: One or two. I’m on record as being pretty spicy about AIOps in the past, and I think a lot of people think that I’m just an AI hater. And I thought maybe I was too, but then generative AI came along and I’m like, oh no, there’s some real stuff here. This is going to change our industry in the next couple of years. It’s going to change our industry really fast. And so I’ve had to stop and think about, okay, what was it that I hated about AIOps, and what is different about this? For those who missed it, this is Friday, May 5th, and on Wednesday we shipped our own generative AI product that lets you generate and execute queries using natural language against your observability data. What’s slow about the thing that I just deployed, or where are the errors? It’s great. It’s such a democratizing leveling feature.
AIOps, okay, so I think the way that I’m thinking about it is this, the last 20, 30 years of software development have been about the difficulty of writing and building software. It’s been hard. And so it’s been hard enough that I think that it’s obfuscated or hidden from us the reality that it has actually always been harder to run, and maintain, and extend, and understand our systems, than it has been to build them. But because the upfront cost of building was so high we got to stuff that onto the ops team, or amortize those costs down the road a bit. We could stuff it under the quilt and forget about it. But now that building is getting so easy, I feel very strongly that the next five to 10 years or so are going to be all about understanding software, all about understanding what you’ve just merged, understanding what you’re writing, understanding what your tests are doing, understanding while you write, after the fact, after you write, and everything in between, understanding what your users are doing.
And so I think that my beef with AIOps has been about the fact that they so often do things or claim to be removing the need to understand. Making it so that they’re like, you don’t need to understand your software. This AI is going to understand your software, and it’s going to take action, or it’s going to do the right thing, or it’s going to alert you, or whatever. I feel like that is not only wrong, but it’s harmful. It’s harming you, not even the long term, in the midterm. It is harming you in your ability to understand your software, or explain your software, or migrate, or use, or extend your software. And I feel like there are lots of great uses for AI, but they come in form of helping us understand our software.
Liz Fong-Jones uses this example of we don’t want to build robots to do things for us. When AI goes off and does something, it is no notoriously difficult, bordering on impossible, to go back and understand what it did or why. This is not a path that’s going to lead us to great things. But there are paths where, like Liz says, we’re not building a robot, we’re building a mecca suit. Like a transformer suit that you can get into, with big ass limbs and everything, but you are still the brain of the thing. You’re still making decisions, because machines are great at crunching numbers and any machine can tell you if there’s a spike in this data or not, but only people can attach meaning to things. Only you can tell me if that was a good spike, or a bad spike, or a scary spike, or a unexpected spike, or what. And so giving people tools with generative AI to help them, like ours does, you know what you want to ask, but it was really complicated to use the query browser.
We help you ask the question so that you can understand it better. And here’s where a lot of CTOs out there, if you get them a little drunk, they will be like, “Yes, actually I am willing to buy things, or I want to buy things that tell me that my people don’t have to understand the systems, because,” and this freaked me out when I first heard it from someone, “because people come and go, but vendors are forever.” What the fuck? They’re literally saying, no, we don’t want to invest in making our people smarter and more informed and everything, because we know we can sign a multimillion dollar contact and that’s going to be more reliable to us than our actual people are. And while I get the logic, come on, this is not leading us down a path to success or happiness. We have to invest in making our people smarter, and better informed, and better able to make decisions and judgments, because at the end of the day, someone is going to have to understand your system at some point. They just are.
Shane Hastie: I would go back even further and say that there’s another thing we’ve not been good at. Fred Brooks said it a while back, “The hardest thing about building software is figuring out what to build.”
Charity Majors: Yes. Oh, my goodness. That is so true.
Shane Hastie: How does generative AI help us with that, or does it?
The limits and potential of generative AI in software engineering [21:46]
Charity Majors: That’s a great question. I don’t think we know that yet. I don’t think it does. I really don’t think it does, and I would be really dubious of any products they claimed to. Yes, I mean, these tools are powerful. They’re really freaking powerful. People who haven’t used them, they’re incredibly powerful. But at the end of the day, cleverness has never been the most important thing. In fact, it’s often overrated. At the end of the day, I believe that we need to build systems that are comprehensible. We need to understand who we’re building them for, why we’re building them, how we’re going to make money off of them, and how to fix them. And there’s a lot of really powerful use cases in there for generative AI and other super powerful tools, but I don’t want a machine telling me any of those things.
“A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.” [22:38]
Maybe 10 years from now, but I think that as far as we can see down the pipe, this is not a thing that we should look to them for. If for no other reason then ultimately, there was this quote that Fred Hebert dug up that came from an IBM slide deck in 1979. It was, “A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.” I think that applies in a lot of different ways. A computer cannot be held accountable for the rise and fall of your stock, therefore a computer can’t tell you what to build. I think that we’re a long way from holding computers accountable. So, I think, that capability and accountability should go hand in hand. And so, for the foreseeable future, I think that we need to not just make the decisions, but ensure that we have the detail that we need to make good decisions, which again, is where AI can definitely help us. But being clear on the why’s, I think, at the root of everything,
Shane Hastie: And just to delve into a topic while I’ve got you, platform engineering. You made the statement, “We need a new kind of engineer.” Please expand.
Platform engineering is the grand reunification of DevOps [23:48]
Charity Majors: Yes. I’m walking a very narrow line here because there’s a company in particular out there who’s been making very inflammatory statements about how DevOps is dead, and screw those people. That’s not true. I mean, oh my God. Ugh, wait, clickbait. But I would go so far as to say that the DevOps split never really should have happened, and I understand why it did. There was too much complexity, too much surface area, et cetera. But fundamentally, and this does go back to accountability and responsibility again, because the people who are writing the code need to also run the code. It’s that fundamental. And the more complicated things get the more we’re running back to this, because the people who don’t build the system have no hope of understanding and debugging the system, and the people who don’t run the system have no hope of building a runable system.
Along those lines, I feel like what we are seeing is a grand reunification, and I think that the platform engineers are at the tip of the spear here. Every engineer should be writing code, and every engineer should be running the code that they write. And where platform engineering is, I think, really exciting, is number one, these tend to be engineers with deep background in both operations and software engineering. Number two, I think it’s an engineering team that when done correctly, when done well, isn’t actually owning reliability. It’s like the first ops team that doesn’t actually own reliability. Instead, your customers are not the customers, your customers are your internal developers. And your job is not to keep their code running at four 9s, or whatever, your job is to see how quickly and easily they can write code and own their own code in production. And then it’s their jobs to be responsible for however many 9 in the SLOs, and the SLIs and everything. And I think this is awesome.
I also think that right now we’re at a stage where you can’t have junior platform engineers. You really have to have experienced platform engineers. But it’s also, I think, the highest leverage engineering that anyone’s ever been able to do. Because the platform engineer, you are sitting here leveraging the work of vendors who have tens, hundreds, even thousands of engineers working on this product, and you write a very few lines of code or Shell script or whatever, and make it accessible to your entire organization, which is, I jokingly call it vendor engineering, but it’s incredibly powerful. And it involves taste, I think, as much as it involves raw engineering. You need to know how to build a thin layer, or an API, or an SDK, or something that empowers everyone internally, while providing this consistent look and feel, the right conventions and everything, to leverage everything this vendor has to offer. Then I just think it’s a really exciting place to be right now.
Shane Hastie: That’s a huge cognitive load.
One of the most important jobs of platform engineering is to manage cognitive load [26:38]
Charity Majors: It is. This is why, I think, that one of the number one jobs of platform engineers is to manage that load and to manage it very consciously. I think that you have to be constantly shedding responsibilities, because otherwise you’re going to be constantly adding responsibilities. Anytime it turns into you have to build a software product it’s time to offload it to another team, because platform engineers do not have time to write and own products. They can spec them out, they can make dummies, they can prototype, but they do not have the cycles to do that.
Yes, I think it’s a very interesting, it’s a very new space, and it’s really exciting. I tweeted jokingly a couple of weeks ago, something like, “A team that you respect has just announced that they’re building a startup for platform engineering. What are they building?” And the responses were all over the map. I really think that platform engineering is probably DevOps, in that you can’t build a platform engineering product because it’s a philosophy, it’s a way of operating. It’s a social invention, not a technical invention. I think there are a lot of technical challenges in conventions being hammered out in the ground right now, as we speak.
Shane Hastie: Charity, great conversation, and I wish we had plenty more time, but I know it’s late for you, and we have limits on how long the podcast can be. If people want to continue the conversation where can they find you?
Charity Majors: Well, I am still on Twitter, @mipsytipsy. I plan on checking out Blue Sky this weekend, but we’ll see. There’s also my blog at charity.wtf, and of course there is the Honeycomb blog, honeycomb.io/blog, where I and others write quite a lot about things, not just concerning Honeycomb, but also observability, and platform engineering, and stuff all over the map.
Shane Hastie: And we’ll make sure to include all of those links in the show notes.
Charity Majors: Awesome.
Shane Hastie: Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us today.
Charity Majors: Thank you for having me. This is really fun.
Mentioned
.
From this page you also have access to our recorded show notes. They all have clickable links that will take you directly to that part of the audio.
MMS • Robert Krzaczynski
Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ
The release of System.ServiceModel 6.0 provides client support for calling WCF/CoreWCF functions. These NuGet packages, collectively known as the WCF client, enable .NET platform applications to interact seamlessly with WCF or CoreWCF services. Although the .NET Core 3.1 platform and later versions do not include built-in WCF server support, CoreWCF, a separate community project based on ASP.NET Core, fills this gap by providing a WCF-compliant server implementation.
The following packages are included in the 6.0 release:
Source: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/wcf-client-60-has-been-released/
The latest version introduces support for named pipes, compatible with both WCF and CoreWCF implementations. NetNamedPipeBinding facilitates binary communication between processes on the same Windows machine. However, named pipelines are only available on Windows and are not available on Linux or other non-Windows platforms. In order to fill this gap, CoreWCF is developing Unix domain socket support to offer equivalent functionality for Linux. The WCF client will be updated with the release of CoreWCF to ensure seamless coordination.
Starting with the 6.0 release, the WCF client package no longer supports .NET Standard 2.0 and is exclusively for .NET 6.0 and later. This change enables the use of newer functionality available in .NET 6 that is not present in the .NET Framework. By focusing on the .NET 6 platform, the size and complexity of the package are reduced, simplifying the deployment process. Support for the .NET standard is maintained, and applications or libraries can continue to use the System.ServiceModel.* packages in version 4.x, or make use of references to conditional sets for the .NET Framework using these NuGet packages for .NET 6 and later.
Furthermore, the System.ServiceModel.Duplex and System.ServiceModel.Security packages are no longer required because their types have been merged into the System.ServiceModel.Primitives package. This change eliminates the need for these mentioned packages, as the type forwarders will always reference the version of the Primitives package used by the application.
This release raises different emotions in the community. Antonello Provenzano commented below the Facebook post:
WCF? It is 2023: REST, GraphQL, gRPC, AMQP… which is the legacy system using WCF that has to be updated to .NET Core?
If the goal is updating the WCF service interface, then there’s much more behind that interface that has to be updated, causing a big bang in the software of the system (presumably a monolith).
If instead, it’s a brand new implementation, why choose WCF to expose the API, when the other ones available are mature and well-supported by an entire supply chain?
Another user, Jozef Raschmann, answered:
Calm down. All our government services are based on WCF and its security extension WS-*. Still, there isn’t a standardized alternative in the REST world.
MMS • Steef-Jan Wiggers
Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ
AWS continues to bring support for new versions of runtimes for AWS Lambda. Recently, the company announced the support of the Ruby 3.2 runtime.
Ruby 3.2 introduces various enhancements and performance upgrades, such as advancements in anonymous argument passing, the addition of ‘endless’ methods, improved regular expressions, the introduction of a new Data class, enhanced pattern-matching capabilities in Time and MatchData, and the inclusion of ‘find pattern’ support within pattern matching.
Praveen Koorse, senior solutions architect, AWS, writes in an AWS Compute blog post that Ruby 3.2 enhances the handling of anonymous arguments, simplifying and streamlining the utilization of keyword arguments in code and before this update, passing anonymous keyword arguments to a method involved using the delegation syntax (…) or employing Module#ruby2_keywords and delegating *args, &block. However, this approach was less intuitive and lacked clarity, particularly when dealing with multiple arguments.
If a method declaration now includes anonymous positional or keyword arguments, they can be passed to the next method as arguments. The same advantages of anonymous block forwarding apply to rest and keyword rest argument forwarding.
def keywords(**) # accept keyword arguments
foo(**) # pass them to the next method
end
def positional(*) # accept positional arguments
bar(*) # pass to the next method
end
def positional_keywords(*, **) # same as ...
foobar(*, **)
end
Another example of improvement is that Ruby 3 introduced a new feature called “endless methods,” which empowers developers to define methods with just one statement using the syntax def method() = statement. With this syntax, there is no need for an explicit end keyword, allowing methods to be defined as concise one-liners. This enhancement simplifies the creation of basic utility methods and contributes to writing cleaner code, enhancing code readability, and improving maintainability.
def dbg_args(a, b=1, c:, d: 6, &block) = puts("Args passed: #{[a, b, c, d, block.call]}")
dbg_args(0, c: 5) { 7 }
# Prints: Args passed: [0, 1, 5, 6, 7]
def square(x) = x**2
square(100)
# => 10000
To utilize Ruby 3.2 for deploying Lambda functions, developers can follow these steps: upload the code via the Lambda console and choose the Ruby 3.2 runtime. Alternatively, they can leverage the AWS CLI, AWS Serverless Application Model (AWS SAM), or AWS CloudFormation to deploy and administer serverless applications coded in Ruby 3.2. In addition, developers can also use the AWS-provided Ruby 3.2 base image to build and deploy Ruby 3.2 functions using a container image.
Tung Nguyen, founder of BoltOps Cloud Infrastructure Consultancy, tweeted:
Deployed a Jets v4 demo app on AWS Lambda Ruby 3.2. It was a success! No more need to use a Custom Runtime Lambda Layer.
In addition, a respondent to a Reddit thread about Ruby 3.2 support AWS Lambda stated:
Use containers and stop worrying what AWS supports. 🙂
With another one responding:
And manage my own runtime? Eh
Competitive Function as a Service (FaaS) offerings other than AWS Lambda, like Azure Functions, do not support any Ruby runtime version. Users can leverage Ruby (older runtimes) through a workaround for Azure Functions. On the other hand, Google Cloud Functions does support Ruby runtimes, including 3.2, which the company recommends using.
Lastly, Ruby 3.2 is Ruby’s latest long-term support (LTS) release. AWS will automatically apply updates and security patches to the Ruby 3.2 managed runtime and the AWS-provided Ruby 3.2 base image as they become available.
More details of writing functions in Ruby 3.2 are available in the developer guide.
MMS • RSS
Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB – Get Rating) saw some unusual options trading on Wednesday. Stock investors purchased 23,831 put options on the company. This is an increase of 2,157% compared to the typical volume of 1,056 put options.
Analyst Upgrades and Downgrades
MDB has been the subject of several analyst reports. Barclays boosted their target price on MongoDB from $280.00 to $374.00 in a research report on Friday, June 2nd. Morgan Stanley upgraded MongoDB from an “equal weight” rating to an “overweight” rating and boosted their target price for the stock from $230.00 to $270.00 in a research report on Wednesday, April 12th. Royal Bank of Canada boosted their target price on MongoDB from $235.00 to $400.00 in a research report on Friday, June 2nd. Credit Suisse Group decreased their target price on MongoDB from $305.00 to $250.00 and set an “outperform” rating for the company in a research report on Friday, March 10th. Finally, Stifel Nicolaus boosted their price objective on MongoDB from $240.00 to $375.00 in a research report on Friday, June 2nd. One equities research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, two have issued a hold rating and twenty-one have assigned a buy rating to the company. According to MarketBeat.com, the stock has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average price target of $328.35.
Insider Buying and Selling at MongoDB
In related news, CAO Thomas Bull sold 605 shares of MongoDB stock in a transaction dated Monday, April 3rd. The stock was sold at an average price of $228.34, for a total value of $138,145.70. Following the completion of the transaction, the chief accounting officer now directly owns 17,706 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $4,042,988.04. The transaction was disclosed in a document filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is accessible through this link. In related news, CAO Thomas Bull sold 605 shares of MongoDB stock in a transaction dated Monday, April 3rd. The stock was sold at an average price of $228.34, for a total value of $138,145.70. Following the completion of the transaction, the chief accounting officer now directly owns 17,706 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $4,042,988.04. The transaction was disclosed in a document filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is accessible through this link. Also, CFO Michael Lawrence Gordon sold 5,157 shares of MongoDB stock in a transaction dated Monday, April 3rd. The shares were sold at an average price of $228.36, for a total value of $1,177,652.52. Following the completion of the transaction, the chief financial officer now directly owns 103,706 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $23,682,302.16. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Over the last three months, insiders sold 106,682 shares of company stock valued at $26,516,196. 4.80% of the stock is currently owned by company insiders.
Institutional Inflows and Outflows
A number of hedge funds and other institutional investors have recently bought and sold shares of MDB. Cherry Creek Investment Advisors Inc. boosted its stake in shares of MongoDB by 1.5% during the fourth quarter. Cherry Creek Investment Advisors Inc. now owns 3,283 shares of the company’s stock valued at $646,000 after purchasing an additional 50 shares in the last quarter. CWM LLC boosted its stake in shares of MongoDB by 2.4% during the first quarter. CWM LLC now owns 2,235 shares of the company’s stock valued at $521,000 after purchasing an additional 52 shares in the last quarter. First Horizon Advisors Inc. boosted its stake in shares of MongoDB by 29.5% during the first quarter. First Horizon Advisors Inc. now owns 228 shares of the company’s stock valued at $53,000 after purchasing an additional 52 shares in the last quarter. Allworth Financial LP boosted its stake in shares of MongoDB by 12.9% during the fourth quarter. Allworth Financial LP now owns 508 shares of the company’s stock valued at $100,000 after purchasing an additional 58 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Bleakley Financial Group LLC boosted its stake in shares of MongoDB by 5.3% during the first quarter. Bleakley Financial Group LLC now owns 1,144 shares of the company’s stock valued at $267,000 after purchasing an additional 58 shares in the last quarter. Institutional investors own 84.86% of the company’s stock.
MongoDB Stock Up 2.9 %
Shares of NASDAQ MDB opened at $385.40 on Friday. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.44, a quick ratio of 4.19 and a current ratio of 4.19. MongoDB has a 52 week low of $135.15 and a 52 week high of $398.89. The stock has a market capitalization of $26.99 billion, a P/E ratio of -81.78 and a beta of 1.04. The stock’s fifty day moving average is $272.74 and its 200 day moving average is $227.46.
MongoDB (NASDAQ:MDB – Get Rating) last issued its quarterly earnings results on Thursday, June 1st. The company reported $0.56 EPS for the quarter, topping analysts’ consensus estimates of $0.18 by $0.38. MongoDB had a negative return on equity of 43.25% and a negative net margin of 23.58%. The company had revenue of $368.28 million for the quarter, compared to analysts’ expectations of $347.77 million. During the same quarter last year, the business earned ($1.15) earnings per share. MongoDB’s revenue was up 29.0% on a year-over-year basis. Sell-side analysts forecast that MongoDB will post -2.85 earnings per share for the current fiscal year.
MongoDB Company Profile
MongoDB, Inc provides general purpose database platform worldwide. The company offers MongoDB Atlas, a hosted multi-cloud database-as-a-service solution; MongoDB Enterprise Advanced, a commercial database server for enterprise customers to run in the cloud, on-premise, or in a hybrid environment; and Community Server, a free-to-download version of its database, which includes the functionality that developers need to get started with MongoDB.
Further Reading
Receive News & Ratings for MongoDB Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for MongoDB and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.
Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
MMS • RSS
Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news
<!–
Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news