Month: September 2023

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

AM Squared Ltd boosted its holdings in shares of MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB – Free Report) by 33.3% during the 1st quarter, according to its most recent disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm owned 1,200 shares of the company’s stock after buying an additional 300 shares during the period. AM Squared Ltd’s holdings in MongoDB were worth $280,000 as of its most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Other hedge funds have also recently bought and sold shares of the company. abrdn plc lifted its stake in MongoDB by 79.7% in the 1st quarter. abrdn plc now owns 12,019 shares of the company’s stock worth $2,802,000 after acquiring an additional 5,331 shares in the last quarter. Clarius Group LLC lifted its stake in MongoDB by 7.7% in the 1st quarter. Clarius Group LLC now owns 1,362 shares of the company’s stock worth $318,000 after acquiring an additional 97 shares in the last quarter. Moody Lynn & Lieberson LLC purchased a new stake in MongoDB in the 1st quarter worth about $7,433,000. Daiwa Securities Group Inc. raised its stake in shares of MongoDB by 3.5% during the 1st quarter. Daiwa Securities Group Inc. now owns 5,461 shares of the company’s stock worth $1,273,000 after purchasing an additional 186 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Principal Financial Group Inc. raised its stake in shares of MongoDB by 12.3% during the 4th quarter. Principal Financial Group Inc. now owns 8,452 shares of the company’s stock worth $1,664,000 after purchasing an additional 924 shares in the last quarter. 88.89% of the stock is owned by hedge funds and other institutional investors.

Analyst Ratings Changes

A number of equities research analysts have recently weighed in on MDB shares. Morgan Stanley raised their price target on MongoDB from $440.00 to $480.00 and gave the stock an “overweight” rating in a research note on Friday, September 1st. JMP Securities raised their price target on MongoDB from $425.00 to $440.00 and gave the stock a “market outperform” rating in a research note on Friday, September 1st. Truist Financial raised their price target on MongoDB from $420.00 to $430.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a research note on Friday, September 1st. The Goldman Sachs Group increased their price objective on MongoDB from $420.00 to $440.00 in a report on Friday, June 23rd. Finally, 22nd Century Group reissued a “maintains” rating on shares of MongoDB in a report on Monday, June 26th. One equities research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, three have given a hold rating and twenty-one have assigned a buy rating to the stock. According to data from MarketBeat.com, MongoDB currently has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average price target of $418.08.

Check Out Our Latest Research Report on MDB

Insider Buying and Selling

In related news, Director Dwight A. Merriman sold 1,000 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Tuesday, July 18th. The stock was sold at an average price of $420.00, for a total transaction of $420,000.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the director now owns 1,213,159 shares in the company, valued at approximately $509,526,780. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available through this link. In other MongoDB news, Director Dwight A. Merriman sold 1,000 shares of MongoDB stock in a transaction on Tuesday, July 18th. The stock was sold at an average price of $420.00, for a total value of $420,000.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the director now owns 1,213,159 shares in the company, valued at approximately $509,526,780. The sale was disclosed in a filing with the SEC, which is available at the SEC website. Also, Director Hope F. Cochran sold 2,174 shares of MongoDB stock in a transaction on Thursday, June 15th. The shares were sold at an average price of $373.19, for a total value of $811,315.06. Following the completion of the transaction, the director now owns 8,200 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $3,060,158. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Insiders sold 99,694 shares of company stock worth $39,991,889 in the last 90 days. 4.80% of the stock is owned by company insiders.

MongoDB Price Performance

MongoDB stock opened at $374.57 on Wednesday. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.29, a current ratio of 4.48 and a quick ratio of 4.19. The company has a market capitalization of $26.44 billion, a PE ratio of -108.26 and a beta of 1.11. MongoDB, Inc. has a one year low of $135.15 and a one year high of $439.00. The business has a 50 day simple moving average of $387.78 and a 200 day simple moving average of $313.60.

About MongoDB

(Free Report)

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.

See Also

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

Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ

Microsoft released version 8.0.0 of the Windows Community Toolkit in September 2023. The updated version unifies the namespaces for both WinUI 3 and UWP code, simplifying the code portability for developers.

The Windows Community Toolkit (WCT) is a collection of controls and libraries that help Windows developers by providing additional features that the underlying platform doesn’t yet offer. Historically, the features provided by the toolkit were gradually incorporated into the Windows development platform itself.

The Windows Community Toolkit is not to be confused with the .NET Community Toolkit (NCT), which contains the common features of WCT that aren’t tied to any underlying UI platform.

The substantial change in version 8.0.0 is the rationalisation and simplification of the toolkit. Up until now, there were two packages in the toolkit: Microsoft.Toolkit.Uwp for the UWP (Universal Windows Platform) and CommunityToolkit.WinUI package for the WinUI 3 platform, supported in WCT since April 2021. In the new version, both platforms will use the CommunityToolkit naming for the packages. Every standalone WCT NuGet package will have two variants, prefixed CommunityToolkit.Uwp for UWP components and prefixed CommunityToolkit.WinUI for WinUI 3 components.

While the packages are named differently, the namespaces inside the code have been unified into CommunityToolkit.WinUI root. This allows developers to change the underlying platform for their applications without having to change any code referencing the toolkit.

To illustrate the new layout of the toolkit, let’s take the HeaderedItemsControl as an example. It is a control that allows items to be displayed under a common header object. A developer will find the new control under the CommunityToolkit.WinUI.Controls namespace in the NuGet package for the headered controls, They would install either the CommunityToolkit.WinUI.Controls.HeaderedControls package or the CommunityToolkit.Uwp.Controls.HeaderedControls package, depending on their development platform.

Beyond the toolkit refactoring and simplification, there are several new features in the updated version. There is a new collection of headered controls (the controls with a common header) and segmented controls (controls that show options from which users can choose). Many controls have been updated visually. The Toolkit Gallery app, a part of the code sample for the WCT, has been updated with a fresh look and now it includes the controls preview and documentation side by side.

The migration process for the users of the old, 7.X version of the WCT involves several steps. The first one is to find whether they were using UWP or Win UI 3 version of the WCT, by looking at the package name in their .csproj file. Microsoft.Toolkit.Uwp is the UWP version, while CommunityToolkit.WinUI is the Win UI 3 version. Those packages will have to be removed and the 8.0 package installed (either the CommunityToolkit.Uwp or CommunityToolkit.WinUI). Then, the code namespace references and XAML namespaces will have to be renamed to CommunityToolkit.WinUI namespace. Microsoft recommends updating the application’s WCT version before trying to switch platforms.

Some features present in the previous version were left out of the 8.0.0 release. The popular AdaptiveGrid control has been replaced with ItemsRepeater control. Microsoft recommends developers check and contribute to the Windows Community Toolkit Labs, a repository for pre-release and experimental features that aren’t stable enough for the main WCT repository. For example, the DataGrid control has been removed from version 8.0.0 and moved into the Labs repository. The feedback from the developers has been generally positive, with some people expressing the disappointment about removal of popular controls.

Version 8.0.0 was pre-released on August 23rd 2023 and released for general availability on September 7th 2023. The source code for the toolkit is available on GitHub.

Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ

Transcript

Walker: My name is Andy Walker. I’m here to talk to you about how big tech lost its way. I’m doing this particularly in light of the recent layoffs, which have been announced across the tech industry. For those of you who haven’t been reading the newspapers, at the start of this year, companies like Google, Meta, Facebook, and Microsoft laid off large numbers of people without warning. They did it mostly by just removing the people’s access and telling them not to sign up to work anymore. People found out they weren’t employed anymore, simply because they’d lost access to their work accounts. Some people lost access while they were in customer presentations, other people lost access while they were on maternity leave. This is a pretty big departure for an industry which really sees itself as making the world a better place. Today’s talk is about how that has come to be. Also, to try and understand how a company can start off with such high aspirations and then suddenly find itself over a period of time coming to one which has really lost its ethical compass. It’s also worth understanding this both in terms of how we can prevent it in our own existence, but also the wider implications it has for society as a whole.

A Missed Opportunity or Business as Usual?

I spent 10 years working at Google. A long time before that, I spent some time working at Netscape in the early days of the internet. Some of my examples are over quite a long period of time. If you think about it, you can look at this very much as a missed opportunity, because here are companies which are making absolutely crazy sums of money. If you look at it between the 4 companies I mentioned, they made $150 billion profit over the last year alone. If you want to put that into context with my favorite metrics of how much money you will have earned a day since the birth of Jesus Christ, then that’s $200,000 a day since the birth of Jesus in a single year. That’s just profit, let alone revenue. That’s including Amazon, which doesn’t even seek to make profit, because it’s all about growing its business. If you think about some of the founding charters of these companies, at the beginning, Google said it wanted to make a very different kind of company. A company which was really invested in its people. A company which took its profits and invested them back to make society a better place. Suddenly, we found ourselves in a situation where not only are these companies not investing their profits back and making the world a better place. In fact, if you look at Google this year, they’re looking to invest the $70 billion of profit they tend to make, back into stock buybacks, which is not making the world a better place at all. The question is, how did they lose their way? Is this inevitable for any company when it reaches a certain size? What’s the journey taken from the early days where the company was genuinely looking to make huge improvements, to where it went about building its data centers, the way it went about looking after its people, really did set the tone for the industry, and a lot of people followed. Now, suddenly, it feels a lot like any other large corporation, like an oil company, or big tobacco. We need to understand how this thing can happen so that wherever possible, we can’t be part of it.

Ford vs. Dodge

This isn’t a new thing. In fact, if I go back to the 1920s, there was a very famous lawsuit raised by the Dodge brothers against Henry Ford. Henry Ford had perfected the production line, which allowed him to deliver cars at about 10% the cost of his rivals. In doing so he found himself with a near monopoly of the car market, because nobody else could compete with the prices he was able to sell his cars for. Two of his shareholders were the Dodge brothers who were looking to start Chrysler. They really wanted to get dividends from Ford, so they could invest it in their car company, but Ford wanted to invest it back in his company. He wanted to invest it back in his people. He wanted to invest it back in his customers. Actually, what happened is the Dodge brothers took him to court and won, and he wasn’t able to do so in the way that he wanted to. This highlights one of the biggest problems that all publicly traded corporations face and that is one of fiduciary duty, which is the company needs to act in the best interest primarily of its shareholders at all times. Frequently, this is interpreted to mean that the company’s duty is to maximize profits. In fact, many activist shareholders do see it in exactly those terms. As long as you can prove that you’re acting in your shareholders’ interests, there isn’t a lot your shareholders can do against you. If you go back to friendlier companies like Google, and then even Meta, they went to great lengths to ensure that the founders would retain control of the company, even as the equity in the company became diluted over a period of time.

The Innovator’s Dilemma

As a company grows, there’s also one kind of thing called the innovator’s dilemma. This is the companies which are in the best position to actually make use of new innovations are the ones least able to do so. There are a number of reasons for this, but primarily is the fact that when you’re trying to adopt a new technology, if you already have a large established business, that technology probably isn’t a perfect fit for that business. If you’re operating as a large established business, you look at the return you’re getting back for that particular technology, and it doesn’t seem to be worth it compared to doing business as usual. In fact, when you build a very large, profitable business, you even start running into some fairly perverse incentives around not only not innovating, but trying to prevent other people from innovating.

To give you a couple of examples of this, let’s go back to the very early days of the internet, and the emergence and disappearance of Netscape. When Netscape was founded, Bill Gates famously sent out a memo saying a new competitor has been born on the internet. Microsoft’s response to this was quite telling. First of all, they realized that they needed a foot in the door, an entrant in the browser wars. To do this, they invested heavily in Internet Explorer. By about the time Internet Explorer 4 came out, it was probably at least on a par with Netscape Navigator. In fact, Netscape took a step backwards between Navigator 3 and Communicator 4, as they completely rewrote the code base. At the same time, as this happened, Microsoft also decided not only did they have a competing product here, which was comparable, but they were going to give it away for free. They started bundling Internet Explorer into Windows and effectively destroyed Netscape’s business overnight. What followed next was Netscape was bought by AOL. AOL stopped caring about the browser. In fact, what happened was, the browser was open sourced, which then eventually led to the creation of Firefox and Internet Explorer’s downfall.

Now having established this position of market dominance with Internet Explorer, Microsoft stopped innovating. They actually started building things into their product, to make it deliberately non-standards compliant, so that other people would not be able to get into their marketplace. Therefore, they would maintain their lead. Eventually, this burned them, because what happened was, as they built more non-standard features, they had to backwards compatible support all of these. They stopped trying to build a better browser, because they thought the battle was won. When Firefox and then Chrome came out, and were significantly better offerings, Microsoft was in a position where they had a lot of tech debt to work around, and were playing catch-up. It’s only recently that their browser with the rewrite for Edge has started to become comparable again to the best browsers on the market. In actually innovating to get rid of a competitor, Microsoft then started preventing innovation, and prevented themselves from making things better, setting the tone for companies like Google, also Apple with Safari to come in and build a much better product and actually start taking the mantle away from them and disrupting them. This caused a lot of problems for Microsoft in the early 2000s.

If you take another example of the innovator’s dilemma, the iPhone. It turns out that Steve Jobs really didn’t want to make a phone. He was very happy with the iPod. In fact, iPod, in 2007, represented about 40% of Apple’s total revenue, and he didn’t want to get rid of a product he already had. He really didn’t want to work with the telcos, who had a disproportionate say over what handset manufacturers actually did and how they configured their devices. The iPhone actually started as a skunkworks project, which was hidden from Steve Jobs until it was ready to actually show him what they could do. Even then, it was only reluctantly that he disagreed and committed with his team to release the product and actually go live with the phone, which completely changed the handset business. One of the interesting things about the innovator’s dilemma is that as companies grow, not only are they stopping innovation, but innovation can only happen in an environment where people can actively disagree with their leadership. If you’ve just fired 50,000 people as Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon have done, you are putting a fairly large barrier in place to people in future disagreeing with their leadership team. Which means innovation is not going to come from the people with ideas, it’s going to come from primarily people who are able to disagree with people, which is the leaders of the company. This is a really big problem.

Implications of the Internet

While we’ve been here before with companies, never before have we had a technology which has had the reach of the internet. As of January 2023, it was estimated that 5.1 billion people have access to the internet in some form or another. That is insane. Not only do they have access to the internet, by having access to the internet, they have the ability to potentially talk to 5.1 billion other people. While in many cases, this has been incredibly powerful as the networking effect has taken hold, we haven’t really been able to keep up with the implications this has had on society. We really need tech companies to be innovative right now, because the sheer scale of the internet has led to a number of things becoming true. The first of which is that regulation cannot keep up with innovation. We’re talking here about the problem that there are no effective laws for moderating the internet. Technology is moving at such a pace that government regulation is so foreign an instance, that it has become something of a Wild West. You find yourself in a situation where it is impossible to hold people to account on the internet, except for a few very rare cases, for bad or malicious behavior. Because there are no transnational treaties on what to happen when somebody in your country is operating a troll farm, for example, which is causing harm to somebody else’s. There are no recourses set in place for people manipulating each other’s elections by creating hundreds of thousands of fake accounts to spam spurious information at each other. There are very few mechanisms for actually holding users to account. In some cases, someone may be prosecuted if they’re in the originating country. Even then, mostly, what might happen is you lose your account. Creating a new account on the internet doesn’t take very long indeed. It’s very hard to prevent people from impersonating anybody, or reestablishing a presence at scale, no matter what you do.

We find, because of this disconnect between law and the technology, nobody wants to be responsible for it. If you talk to government, they will tell you that the tech companies need to effectively regulate and police themselves. If you talk to the tech companies, they’ll say that they’re just following the law, and they will comply with all local law enforcement requirements. The net result of this is the users who are stuck in the middle of this, this lack of responsibility means that it’s very easy to get away with a lot of bad things on the internet. This is further not helped by the fact that we’ve got this idea that freedom of speech is a basic human right. While in some cases this is true, we fail to tack on the thing at the end of that, which is, while freedom of speech is important, people should also be able to be held accountable for the harm that they cause by their speech. You can see people on the internet now having incredibly profitable careers and business models, through spreading disinformation and effectively hate speech. Nobody wants to deal with this.

If you go back to the nobody wants to deal with it government versus tech companies thing. On the government perspective, this is too much of a hot potato for any democratically elected government to handle, because they don’t want necessarily to be getting into a game of what people can and can’t say on the internet. They are very nervous about passing any laws which would require people to be held to account. On the other hand, if you’re a tech company, you absolutely do not want to be in the business of being the moderators for what constitutes acceptable speech on the internet. It’s not just necessarily acceptable speech on the internet, as well there’s disinformation. Throw in some of the developments with generative AI which have come through, like for example, ChatGPT, and you find yourself in a situation where it is possible to generate convincing sounding fake information at industrial levels now. As those things start becoming more widely adopted by malicious actors, we’ll find ourselves in a situation where the internet becomes less and less a source of trustworthy information, and more an echo chamber where our own views are reflected back at us.

We also have the misconception that the people we’re building for on the internet are good people. One of the conversations that I’ve had a number of times is around, we should just assume our users have good intent, and that will be fine. If you look at it by number of users, then over 99% of users are trustworthy users. The 1% of bad actors are so harmful and are able to harm at such a scale due to the scaling nature of the internet, that the harm they do is disproportionately large to the number of them. When Google Maps was looking to increase the number of people being able to edit maps information, because keeping that worldview up to date without an authoritative data source turns out to be hard to do at scale, this was exactly the argument which was used. What happened was, they found that while 99% of people making edits were doing so in good faith, they accounted for less than 1% of the edits being made. Because the people who were making malicious edits were doing so at such scale, because they had incredibly profitable business models from doing so, that it completely drowned out the value of the useful single unit they were getting, to the point they had to switch it off until they had some proper safeguards put in place.

As somebody working in big tech, you’re going to have a conversation along the lines of how much abuse is acceptable, because it turns out, you can’t stop all bad behavior on the internet. All you can do is try and skim off the worst of it, and figure out where you draw that line. Again, if you have companies which are earning hundreds of billions of dollars a year in profit, and they would rather choose to invest that profit in to their shareholders, rather than protecting the people who are using their platforms and making them profitable, then you have to consider the short-term thinking that’s going on here to enable this thing to happen. Because long term, this is not a good business strategy. If you even look back five years, the internet is a much darker place than it used to be. It’s getting worse every single day.

One of the reasons that also big tech companies don’t want to handle their bad users, is because they measure success the wrong way. If you ask a company for its success metrics, it’s going to start to talk to you about daily active users and growth. Because if you want a quiet time on the stock market, the simplest way to do it is to continue growing year after year. They chase after these metrics, which we can refer to as vanity metrics. If user growth and engagement growth are the way you measure how your product is successful, all that winds up being is you have a very wrong set of incentives for handling abuse, because abuse is engagement, and it is usage. Not only are big tech companies failing to reinvest their huge profits in how they handle abuse. They have an incentive not to do so, because if they do so their vanity metrics are going to look worse.

Cultural Entropy

How do we get from a company which wants you to make the world a better place to one which is largely happy to turn a blind eye to all kinds of bad behavior. I’m going to introduce you to the concept of cultural entropy. This is how a company’s culture degrades over a period of time. The default state of the universe is entropy unless you’re pouring energy and organization into it. Company culture is the same thing. Because if you’re not actively promoting or reinforcing your culture over a period of time, then what will happen in a publicly traded company is that company culture will start suffering from entropy to the point where fiduciary duty to the shareholders becomes the primary concern, rather than also feeling duty of care to the customers and users who are also relying on that company.

It Begins and Ends with Leaders

To go to another organization, which I have a massive amount of respect for, NASA. Gene Kranz was head of mission control when the Apollo 13 disaster happened. Back at the turn of the century, he was asked about where NASA stood today. His quote around NASA’s ability to tackle big goals really resonated with me when I read it recently, because if you look at NASA when they did the moon landings, the Moon lander computer was not very powerful. In fact, your mobile phone is 25,000 times more powerful than the computers running the Moon lander. Technology has progressed so far since the 1960s and 1970s. Yet, we haven’t really made any progress at landing people on the Moon. We haven’t really made a huge amount of progress in space. Some people may say launching an electric car into space playing music into the cosmos is progress. I might disagree with you there. In fact, if you look at some of the ways some of the people who founded companies are reinvesting their profits into going into space, you might also question their ego in doing so. It just completely stands out. You look at the resources that a company like Google, or Meta, or Microsoft, or Amazon have, and they have incredible talent. In fact, they’ve gone to massive lengths to hoover up the best people they can find to the extent where, in some cases, they have destabilized the job market by offering so much money to people, and making it so hard for other people to hire. They’ve got the technology. They have incredible setups. The ability to compute at scale has grown at such a rate, it’s astonishing. Yet with all of this, they are unable to make appreciable progress on the problems which really matter.

I think it’s down to the leadership of these companies. Because if leaders are unable to have somebody come to them and disagree, and really keep pushing the iPhone, unless they’re turned down, even when they’re turned down over again, then nothing really happens. When you have hired so many people, and hired so many people into leadership positions, then it’s very hard for people to actually disagree with their leadership. Leaders remember their time working through the ranks, where they were solving problems, and they missed that. They haven’t realized that their job has changed from being the ones proposing ideas to being the ones who are the arbiters of the problems and the outcomes, which are looking to be achieved by their people. In doing so, they act as a dampener on the ability of their organizations to innovate, and so that you find companies degrading in very predictable ways.

Personal Ambition Replaces Mission

The first of which is that personal ambition replaces mission. I’ll go back to the founding missions of some companies. Google, organize all the world’s information and make it universally accessible. Facebook is connecting the world. If you actually reexamine what the companies are doing today versus those missions, and you’ll see that there’s a pretty big drift from what the company set out to do, and what it’s doing now. You look at what galvanized NASA in the ’60s, being the first people to land on the moon, and where they are now, which is they’re not really quite clear what they’re trying to achieve. They have some big goals, but they’re not as unifying and as impossible as the goal they set out on in the 1960s. Once you lose that sense of mission, then ambition takes over. What tends to happen is you hire a bunch of really ambitious people. There are a limited number of really senior roles for these ambitious people. What will they start doing? Getting promoted based upon impact, as you become more senior, takes a very long time. If you’re looking to demonstrate even going to staff engineer at one of these companies, you need about 18 months of demonstration that you’re operating at that level and the problems you’re working on are stable enough to be able to solve over that time period. If you’re looking to go from that to director level, it’s order of 3-plus years. If you’re looking to get to VP level, it’s even longer.

Ambitious people have one thing in common, which is they tend to be quite impatient. Rather than trying to solve these problems, they start building organizations. They start hiring lots of people in from the outside. As they hire people in, they need more management, and they don’t necessarily have people ready to go into management. They start packing up layers between them and their people with middle managers, so that their organization looks the right way so that they can get promoted to the next level. This happens a lot. By doing so, what they do is they create a management chain, which doesn’t know how to work with each other. I was talking to a friend of mine back at Google, and his reporting chain looks like him, Director, Director, VP, VP, VP, Senior VP, and then the CEO of the company. Every single person between him and the CEO of the company is trying to add value wherever they can to show that they can move to the next level. Which means that decision making takes forever, because you have to have too many people in the room who are used to being the decision maker, who are all competing to be the ones making that decision, which in turn absolutely kills innovation stone dead because it’s like trying to swim through concrete.

Novelty Is Confused for Innovation

Novelty gets confused for innovation. It’s very hard when you are a very successful company to determine whether your new feature is any good or not. I’ll give you an example. If Google made a system for designing cardboard flamingos, and linked it off of the search page, they would have tens if not hundreds of millions of users of people overnight. For a startup, that is extraordinary success. For a company like Google, all it proves is that people click on stuff. It doesn’t prove their features are any good. It doesn’t prove they’re making their product special. It doesn’t prove they’re actually solving a problem. What happens is things get released, they get a lot of press attention, and over a very short period of time it looks, “Look at all these users?” That success isn’t sustained, because they don’t know how to measure whether their product is any good or not. Because the way they measure it is through the vanity metrics of number of people using it. Because of this, things which are novel get lots of press attention. An example which springs to mind, which is quite topical is the current so-called AI wars inside search. I have yet to see an AI search integration which makes the search experience more useful for me. I have lots of ones which are a lot like watching an ongoing car crash, ones which are slightly creepy, ones which, as somebody described it, are mansplaining as a service. It’s not really making the process better. In fact, this is the innovator’s dilemma encapsulated, because there probably is a way to make an incredible AI search experience but tacking it onto something you already have when the AI part of it isn’t mature enough, only makes something which was very good to be something which is a bit there, and isn’t making the thing better. Because so many people are already using those systems, this can easily be perceived as being a wildly successful feature. If you actually look at what makes a good search experience, you would have to argue that this isn’t the case.

Executive Rewards Go Up, Accountability Goes Down

Executive rewards go up, but their accountability goes down. Let’s take an example. Sundar Pichai, at the end of last year, the CEO of Google, got granted $200 million of equity over the next few years, $120 million of which is directly tied to increasing shareholder value. If you’re a company like Google, which doesn’t pay dividends, increasing shareholder value basically means one thing, which is improving the stock price. If you actually look at it, now, when Google fired 12,000 people, their stock price over the next few weeks went up by around about 15%, maybe 20%. If you’re Sundar Pichai, you’ve just become $30 million to $40 million richer. You have a financial incentive for doing things that the market is going to react positively to, even if it’s not necessarily a good long-term bet for your company. Accountability goes down because it’s very hard to keep people in executive positions to account when you see cases of people engaged in harassment of their employees, or inappropriate relationships, or bullying, and you see those people getting rewarded over again. You wonder what’s going on. The problem is, is that the more senior somebody becomes, the harder it is for their companies to hold them to account. Because very few people are going to speak out against a VP. To performance manage somebody, you have to have the very direct support of that person’s manager to actually run through the performance management process. When we get to director and VP level, these are all very busy people who would rather be spending their time on making more money and doing better than actually holding people to account. Therefore, it tends to get brushed under the carpet in a way which simply doesn’t happen to people at entry levels within the company.

Accountability Becomes a Blame Game

While executive accountability is going down, everybody else’s accountability is going up. You start finding performance reviews becoming increasingly punitive. Leadership start saying things like, we need to hold our people to account for delivering these things. Rather than, we need to create an environment where they can be their best and succeed and reward them for it. Then you start finding horrible things where people sat in rooms where you have to manage to a performance distribution, or a certain number of people need to be fired every year. This doesn’t result in an innovation culture, this results in a culture where people will do what they need to do to stay in a job, and not a whole lot more. At the end of it, you wind up in a situation where people become expendable. Where the CEO of a company, or, in fact, many companies, because if you look at the CEO emails of all of the tech companies who have laid people off over the last six months, they could all have been written by the same ChatGPT conversation. They all read along the lines of, “We hired too many people during the lockdown, and now business has changed, so we need to get rid of those people. We’re very sad that we have to do so. We take full responsibility, even though our stock price has gone up, and we’ve just become millions of dollars personally richer, to the extent we’re probably looking to buy solid gold furniture. We feel really bad about this. This is the hardest decision we’ve ever had to make.” As a result, people working for these companies, rather than feeling this is the place they’re going to do their best work. They start wondering when the next hammer is going to fall. They realize that their company is perfectly happy to move on without them. In fact, their company won’t even do them the simple human decency of a conversation to explain why it’s happened, because they’d rather not take the risk that somebody might do something bad. If that’s not telling your people that you don’t trust them, I do not know what is.

Corporate Takeover

Then, corporate takes over. People start coming up with meaningless phrases like, we’re an AI-first company. People are unable to answer questions directly. Townhalls stop becoming about honest and vulnerable engagement from executives, and start becoming exercises in box tickings, that we’ve given people an opportunity to be upset with us. Now we’re just going to go on with what we’re trying to say. A friend of mine was telling me about an initiative to change people’s desk spaces to be hot desking in one team, and it was phrased as workplace evolution. Which, if it’s not trying to gaslight people, I do not know what is. Then, because people don’t like living in an environment where they have little certainty, people fall back on process. Leaders impose process so that they can centralize dashboards of everything and manage it. Because if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. People fall back on processes because they’re living in a world where they have very little decision-making power. Therefore, they try and use the process to preempt decisions being made against them, all of which further slows things down and destroys innovation.

What We Can Do

What can we do about it? Not a whole lot, it turns out, but there are some things which we can all do. First is, start with why? Understand what problem you’re trying to solve. Understand what success actually looks like. Success is not chasing after vanity metrics. We should stop seeing jobs as a family. Your employer does not care about you. They will go on without you quite happily. Your team is not your family. We need to be understanding that we’re building systems for people who aren’t very nice, and we need to protect other people from them. We need to continuously invest in our culture, because if we stop investing in who we are, we forget it because we hire and we dilute it. We need to flatten our hierarchies so that decisions can be made by people doing the work and it’s clear how to get things done.

What Companies Can Do

What can companies do? Continue investing in your culture. Promote leaders from within wherever possible. Look at business models which work for everyone, not just your shareholders. Work with government on regulation because it needs to be a partnership. One of the best sets of tech laws over recent years is GDPR. That was an active participation by government and technology companies. In fact, to the extent where government was slightly concerned of how involved technology companies were. Reaffirm your mission. If it’s not relevant, you may need to change it. Understand that your leaders’ responsibilities grow as they become more senior, and you need to invest in them. Please stop cargo culting. You don’t have to continuously grow your workforce. Learn to do more with less.

See more presentations with transcripts

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

© Reuters. QUALCOMM, McKesson And 2 Other Stocks Insiders Are Selling

Benzinga – by Lisa Levin, Benzinga Editor.

The Nasdaq 100 closed higher by over 1% on Monday. Investors, meanwhile, focused on some notable insider trades.

When insiders sell shares, it could be a preplanned sale, or could indicate their concern in the company’s prospects or that they view the stock as being overpriced. Insider sales should not be taken as the only indicator for making an investment or trading decision. At best, it can lend conviction to a selling decision.

Below is a look at a few recent notable insider sales. For more, check out Benzinga’s insider transactions platform.

Blackstone

• The Trade: Blackstone Inc. (NYSE: BX) Director William Parrett sold a total of 3,874 shares at an average price of $112.47. The insider received around $435,709 from selling those shares.
• What’s Happening: Public Storage penned a deal with Blackstone’s Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust, Inc. (BREIT) to acquire Simply Self Storage from BREIT for $2.2 billion.
• What Blackstone Does: Blackstone is one of the world’s largest alternative asset managers with $991.3 billion in total asset under management, including $732.0 billion in fee-earning asset under management, at the end of March 2023.

Have a look at our premarket coverage here

MongoDB

• The Trade: MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ: MDB) Chief Revenue Officer Cedric Pech sold a total of 16,143 shares at an average price of $378.86. The insider received around $6.12 million from selling those shares.
• What’s Happening: MongoDB reported better-than-expected second-quarter financial results and issued FY24 guidance above estimates.
• What MongoDB Does: Founded in 2007, MongoDB is a document-oriented database with nearly 33,000 paying customers and well past 1.5 million free users. MongoDB provides both licenses as well as subscriptions as a service for its NoSQL database.

McKesson

• The Trade: McKesson Corporation (NYSE: MCK) CEO Brian Tyler sold a total of 25,246 shares at an average price of $422.58. The insider received around $10.67 million from selling those shares.
• What’s Happening: McKesson posted upbeat quarterly results.
• What McKesson Does: McKesson Corp is one of three leading pharmaceutical wholesalers in the U.S. engaged in sourcing and distributing branded, generic, and specialty pharmaceutical products to pharmacies (retail chains, independent, and mail order), hospitals networks, and healthcare providers.

QUALCOMM

• The Trade: QUALCOMM Incorporated (NASDAQ: QCOM) Chief Commercial Officer James J Cathey sold a total of 1,000 shares at an average price of $111.27. The insider received around $111,270 from selling those shares.
• What’s Happening: Wells Fargo maintained Qualcomm with an Underweight and raised the price target from $95 to $100.
• What QUALCOMM Does: Qualcomm develops and licenses wireless technology and designs chips for smartphones.

Check This Out: Wall Street’s Most Accurate Analysts Say Hold These 3 Financial Stocks Delivering High-Dividend Yields

© 2023 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Read the original article on Benzinga

Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB – Get Free Report) shares dropped 2.7% on Tuesday following insider selling activity. The company traded as low as $382.00 and last traded at $383.59. Approximately 138,156 shares were traded during trading, a decline of 92% from the average daily volume of 1,689,532 shares. The stock had previously closed at $394.28.

Specifically, CRO Cedric Pech sold 16,143 shares of MongoDB stock in a transaction on Thursday, September 7th. The shares were sold at an average price of $378.86, for a total transaction of $6,115,936.98. Following the completion of the sale, the executive now directly owns 34,418 shares in the company, valued at $13,039,603.48. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available at this link. In other MongoDB news, CRO Cedric Pech sold 16,143 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction dated Thursday, September 7th. The shares were sold at an average price of $378.86, for a total value of $6,115,936.98. Following the completion of the transaction, the executive now owns 34,418 shares in the company, valued at $13,039,603.48. The sale was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which is available at this hyperlink. Also, Director Hope F. Cochran sold 2,174 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction dated Thursday, June 15th. The stock was sold at an average price of $373.19, for a total transaction of $811,315.06. Following the completion of the transaction, the director now owns 8,200 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $3,060,158. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Over the last three months, insiders have sold 99,694 shares of company stock valued at $39,991,889. 4.80% of the stock is currently owned by insiders.

Analyst Ratings Changes

MDB has been the topic of several recent analyst reports. Morgan Stanley boosted their target price on shares of MongoDB from $440.00 to $480.00 and gave the company an “overweight” rating in a report on Friday, September 1st. 22nd Century Group reiterated a “maintains” rating on shares of MongoDB in a report on Monday, June 26th. Mizuho boosted their target price on shares of MongoDB from $240.00 to $260.00 in a report on Friday, September 1st. Canaccord Genuity Group boosted their target price on shares of MongoDB from $410.00 to $450.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a report on Tuesday, September 5th. Finally, 58.com restated a “maintains” rating on shares of MongoDB in a report on Monday, June 26th. One investment analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, three have issued a hold rating and twenty-one have assigned a buy rating to the stock. Based on data from MarketBeat.com, the company presently has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and a consensus target price of $418.08.

Read Our Latest Stock Report on MongoDB

MongoDB Stock Down 5.0 %

The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.29, a current ratio of 4.48 and a quick ratio of 4.19. The firm’s fifty day moving average is $387.78 and its 200-day moving average is $313.60. The stock has a market capitalization of $26.44 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of -108.26 and a beta of 1.11.

Institutional Trading of MongoDB

A number of large investors have recently modified their holdings of the company. Simplicity Solutions LLC boosted its position in shares of MongoDB by 2.2% during the 2nd quarter. Simplicity Solutions LLC now owns 1,169 shares of the company’s stock valued at $480,000 after purchasing an additional 25 shares in the last quarter. AJ Wealth Strategies LLC boosted its position in shares of MongoDB by 1.2% during the 2nd quarter. AJ Wealth Strategies LLC now owns 2,390 shares of the company’s stock valued at $982,000 after purchasing an additional 28 shares in the last quarter. Assenagon Asset Management S.A. boosted its position in shares of MongoDB by 1.4% during the 2nd quarter. Assenagon Asset Management S.A. now owns 2,239 shares of the company’s stock valued at $920,000 after purchasing an additional 32 shares in the last quarter. Veritable L.P. boosted its position in shares of MongoDB by 1.4% during the 2nd quarter. Veritable L.P. now owns 2,321 shares of the company’s stock valued at $954,000 after purchasing an additional 33 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Choreo LLC boosted its position in shares of MongoDB by 3.5% during the 2nd quarter. Choreo LLC now owns 1,040 shares of the company’s stock valued at $427,000 after purchasing an additional 35 shares in the last quarter. Institutional investors and hedge funds own 88.89% of the company’s stock.

About MongoDB

(Get Free Report)

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.

Read More

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

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Introducing Smartkarma TL;DR

Snackable servings of Smartkarma, delivered directly to your inbox

Give it a spin:

No Fuss, No Fee, 100% Insight. Unsubscribe anytime.

Introducing Smartkarma TL;DR

Snackable servings of Smartkarma, delivered directly to your inbox

Give it a spin:

No Fuss, No Fee, 100% Insight. Unsubscribe anytime.

Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Introducing Smartkarma TL;DR

Snackable servings of Smartkarma, delivered directly to your inbox

Give it a spin:

No Fuss, No Fee, 100% Insight. Unsubscribe anytime.

Introducing Smartkarma TL;DR

Snackable servings of Smartkarma, delivered directly to your inbox

Give it a spin:

No Fuss, No Fee, 100% Insight. Unsubscribe anytime.

Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

MongoDB (MDB Quick QuoteMDB – Free Report) has introduced its Academia program in India to train more than 500,000 students in utilizing MongoDB Atlas, a leading multi-cloud developer data platform. This initiative offers training for students, educational resources for teachers, credits for using MongoDB technology at no cost and certifications to help students enter into the tech industry.

MongoDB is also partnering with ICT Academy, a government-supported organization in Tamil Nadu, India, with a mission to enhance technology skills in higher education. This partnership will aid MDB in upskilling students and training over 1,000 educators in collaboration with more than 800 educational institutions.

In collaboration with ICT Academy, the company plans to conduct various joint activities, including sessions to empower educators, academic summits, learnathons, technical bootcamps and other educational initiatives.

The MongoDB for Academia program is a component of MDB’s broader strategy to support India’s expanding developer community. The company regularly hosts online and virtual workshops, webinars and live events in India to equip developers with the necessary skills to pursue careers in the tech industry, where there is a high demand for their expertise.

MongoDB’s Education Partnerships & Initiatives to Boost Service Revenues

MongoDB has revealed fresh educational partnerships and programs designed to support and empower upcoming developers through education, with the aim of addressing the growing gap in software development skills on a global scale. These are expected to boost service revenues as well as the number of customers in the upcoming quarters.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for MDB’s fiscal 2024 service revenues is pegged at $1.48 billion, indicating year-over-year growth of 19.9%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for total customers is pegged at 47,667, indicating a year-over-year increase of 16.8%.

MongoDB has established distribution collaborations with Coursera and Microsoft’s (MSFT Quick QuoteMSFT – Free Report) LinkedIn Learning, both boasting an extensive network of global learners. Furthermore, to ensure that developers from traditionally marginalized communities have an access to MDB Atlas skills, new partnerships with organizations like Women Who Code, MyTechDev and Lesbians Who Tech & Allies will grant free certification opportunities to 700 developers.

Additionally, the company’s Academia program now offers additional benefits to educators, including free MongoDB Atlas credits and certifications. MongoDB University is launching fresh online learning courses to retrain database administrators and SQL users, enabling them to harness the benefits of non-relational database technologies.

MongoDB University’s developer courses are now available on LinkedIn Learning, offering a broad range of software development skills to a global audience. LinkedIn Learning, which sees millions of users seeking career-enhancing skills daily, provides an avenue to expand the reach of MongoDB University’s content, introducing MDB to new learners who are looking to pursue a career in software development.

After the recent revamp of MongoDB University in November, more than 50,000 developers per month have been benefiting from the freely accessible courses and over 600 individuals have achieved MongoDB certification.

Zacks Rank & Key Picks

Currently, MongoDB carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold).

Shares of MDB have gained 100.3% year to date compared with the Zacks Computer and Technology sector’s rise of 38.7%.

ACM Research (ACMR Quick QuoteACMR – Free Report) and NVIDIA (NVDA Quick QuoteNVDA – Free Report) are some better-ranked stocks from the broader sector that investors can consider. Currently, ACMR and NVDA sport a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.

Shares of ACM Research have jumped 140.5% year to date. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for ACMR’s 2023 revenues is pegged at $558.83 million, indicating year-over-year growth of 43.72%. The consensus mark for earnings is pegged at 35 cents per share, which has remained unchanged over the past 30 days.

Shares of NVIDIA have surged 209.1% year to date. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for NVDA’s 2023 revenues is pegged at $53.07 billion, indicating a year-over-year increase of 96.74%. The consensus mark for earnings is pegged at $3.24 per share, which has increased by $1.02 over the past 30 days.

Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Analytics India Magazine chronicles technological progress in the space of analytics, artificial intelligence, data science & big data by highlighting the innovations, players, and challenges shaping the future of India through promotion and discussion of ideas and thoughts by smart, ardent, action-oriented individuals who want to change the world.

Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Cedric Pech, Chief Revenue Officer at MongoDB MDB, reported a large insider sell on September 11, according to a new SEC filing.

What Happened: A Form 4 filing from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday showed that Pech sold 16,143 shares of MongoDB. The total transaction amounted to $6,115,921.

MongoDB shares are trading down 3.18% at $381.75 at the time of this writing on Tuesday morning.

Now trade stocks online commission free with Charles Schwab, a trusted and complete investment firm.

Why Insider Transactions Are Important

Insider transactions shouldn’t be used primarily to make an investing decision, however an insider transaction can be an important factor in the investing decision.

In legal terms, an “insider” refers to any shareholder who owns at least 10% of a company. This can include executives in the c-suite and large hedge funds. These insiders are required to let the public know of their transactions via a Form 4 filing, which must be filed within two business days of the transaction.

When a company insider makes a new purchase, that is an indication that they expect the stock to rise.

Insider sells, on the other hand, can be made for a variety of reasons, and may not necessarily mean that the seller thinks the stock will go down.

Important Transaction Codes

Investors prefer focusing on transactions that take place in the open market, indicated in Table I of the Form 4 filing. A P in Box 3 indicates a purchase, while S indicates a sale. Transaction code C indicates the conversion of an option, and transaction code A indicates the insider may have been forced to sell shares in order to receive compensation that had been promised upon being hired by the company.

Check Out The Full List Of MongoDB’s Insider Trades.

This article was generated by Benzinga’s automated content engine and reviewed by an editor.

Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news