Victory Capital Management Inc. lowered its position in MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB – Free Report) by 0.5% in the second quarter, according to the company in its most recent disclosure with the SEC. The firm owned 58,721 shares of the company’s stock after selling 310 shares during the period. Victory Capital Management Inc. owned about 0.08% of MongoDB worth $14,678,000 at the end of the most recent quarter.
Other hedge funds have also modified their holdings of the company. Transcendent Capital Group LLC purchased a new position in MongoDB during the fourth quarter valued at $25,000. MFA Wealth Advisors LLC purchased a new position in MongoDB in the 2nd quarter valued at about $25,000. J.Safra Asset Management Corp boosted its holdings in MongoDB by 682.4% in the 2nd quarter. J.Safra Asset Management Corp now owns 133 shares of the company’s stock worth $33,000 after buying an additional 116 shares during the last quarter. Hantz Financial Services Inc. purchased a new stake in MongoDB during the 2nd quarter worth approximately $35,000. Finally, YHB Investment Advisors Inc. acquired a new position in shares of MongoDB during the first quarter valued at approximately $41,000. 89.29% of the stock is owned by hedge funds and other institutional investors.
In related news, CAO Thomas Bull sold 138 shares of MongoDB stock in a transaction that occurred on Tuesday, July 2nd. The shares were sold at an average price of $265.29, for a total value of $36,610.02. Following the completion of the transaction, the chief accounting officer now owns 17,222 shares in the company, valued at $4,568,824.38. The sale was disclosed in a legal filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which can be accessed through this hyperlink. In related news, Director Dwight A. Merriman sold 3,000 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Tuesday, September 3rd. The stock was sold at an average price of $290.79, for a total value of $872,370.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the director now directly owns 1,135,006 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $330,048,394.74. The sale was disclosed in a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is accessible through the SEC website. Also, CAO Thomas Bull sold 138 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Tuesday, July 2nd. The stock was sold at an average price of $265.29, for a total transaction of $36,610.02. Following the sale, the chief accounting officer now directly owns 17,222 shares in the company, valued at approximately $4,568,824.38. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Insiders have sold 33,179 shares of company stock valued at $8,346,169 in the last quarter. Corporate insiders own 3.60% of the company’s stock.
NASDAQ MDB opened at $290.09 on Friday. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.84, a current ratio of 5.03 and a quick ratio of 5.03. The company has a market cap of $21.28 billion, a P/E ratio of -103.23 and a beta of 1.15. The stock has a 50-day moving average of $255.85 and a two-hundred day moving average of $304.22. MongoDB, Inc. has a 1-year low of $212.74 and a 1-year high of $509.62.
MongoDB (NASDAQ:MDB – Get Free Report) last released its earnings results on Thursday, August 29th. The company reported $0.70 earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, topping analysts’ consensus estimates of $0.49 by $0.21. MongoDB had a negative net margin of 12.08% and a negative return on equity of 15.06%. The company had revenue of $478.11 million for the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $465.03 million. During the same period in the prior year, the business earned ($0.63) EPS. The firm’s quarterly revenue was up 12.8% on a year-over-year basis. As a group, analysts anticipate that MongoDB, Inc. will post -2.46 EPS for the current year.
MDB has been the subject of several research reports. Piper Sandler boosted their price target on MongoDB from $300.00 to $335.00 and gave the stock an “overweight” rating in a research report on Friday, August 30th. Bank of America boosted their price target on shares of MongoDB from $300.00 to $350.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a research report on Friday, August 30th. Barclays decreased their target price on shares of MongoDB from $458.00 to $290.00 and set an “overweight” rating on the stock in a research note on Friday, May 31st. Canaccord Genuity Group dropped their price target on MongoDB from $435.00 to $325.00 and set a “buy” rating for the company in a research report on Friday, May 31st. Finally, Monness Crespi & Hardt upgraded MongoDB to a “hold” rating in a report on Tuesday, May 28th. One analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, five have issued a hold rating and twenty have issued a buy rating to the company. According to MarketBeat, the stock has an average rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average price target of $337.56.
Check Out Our Latest Stock Report on MongoDB
MongoDB, Inc, together with its subsidiaries, provides general purpose database platform worldwide. The company provides 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-premises, 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.
Want to see what other hedge funds are holding MDB? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB – Free Report).
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.
The Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Bodh Gaya has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Bihar Transport Department to provide training aimed at enhancing the management and leadership skills of its officials. This initiative will cover a range of personnel, including Additional District Transport Officers (ADTO), Motor Vehicle Inspectors (MVI), and Enforcement Sub-Inspectors (ESI). The training will be conducted in phases, with each batch participating in a six-day residential program hosted at IIM Bodh Gaya.
Transport Secretary Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal explained that the partnership seeks to improve the department’s work culture, office management, and revenue generation while also contributing to better transport services and reducing road accidents. He emphasised that the training will introduce modern management techniques to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of transport officials.
Dr. Vinita Sahay, Director of IIM Bodh Gaya, highlighted that the program would focus on leadership and skill development to enable transport officials to perform their duties with greater competence. Transport Minister Sheela Kumari also expressed her support, stating that the initiative is a significant step toward strengthening the department’s commitment to improving transport services in the state.
Also Read: IIT Ropar, Excelsoft Collaborate on AI-Focused EdTech Lab
The Bihar Transport Department oversees road transport services, traffic regulation, and vehicle compliance, prioritising safety and citizen-centric governance. The training program is expected to sharpen decision-making abilities and assist officials in better data analysis and strategising, especially in efforts to reduce road accidents.
Be a part of Elets Collaborative Initiatives. Join Us for Upcoming Events and explore business opportunities. Like us on Facebook , connect with us on LinkedIn and follow us on Twitter , Instagram.
Many thanks to USENIX for publishing their outstanding USENIX Security ’23 Presenter’s content, and the organizations strong commitment to Open Access. Originating from the conference’s events situated at the Anaheim Marriott; and via the organizations YouTube channel.
*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from Infosecurity.US authored by Marc Handelman. Read the original post at: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/A3Kw3qhN3OI?si=xLh_giLwESbUP9yJ
The team at Datanised are turning heads with its PRO+ managed service, aiming to provide competitive around-the-clock support for NoSQL databases and a range of benefits that have gained the trust of clients globally.
Datanised said enterprises are often caught in the conundrum of having to increase their IT side while keeping costs as low as possible. Datanised intends to helps its clients reach both goals with its cost-effective, effective solutions that offer comprehensive database management across multiple databases including ScyllaDB, Aerospike, MongoDB, Cassandra, Elasticsearch, and more.
The company stressed it suite of solutions covers clients for the entire life cycle of their data stack with 24/7 continuous monitoring and support to ensure problems are solved before they negatively impact the client’s enterprise. As part of this continuous monitoring, the Datanised team fine tunes database and architecture settings as needed to ensure the fastest query speeds possible, reduced latency, and elevated overall performance.
Datanised emphasised its solutions are delivered with cost-effectiveness in mind. With their team managing NoSQL databases, clients save on the costs associated with doing such themselves when it comes to hiring and training in-house employees.
Datanised leverages open source technology to eliminate licence costs, and PRO+ managed service pricing is tailored to the needs of the client to ensure they only pay for what they need.
Datanised also aligns with compliance, providing the services clients need to meet regulatory compliance set forth by various entities. This ensures the risk of legal and financial penalties are highly reduced. The company intends to pave the way for better managed data stack solutions, offering services that are tailored to the needs of each client.
Analysis It is 1996 in terms of the business adoption of AI if it were put on the dotcom era timeline, according to MongoDB CEO Dev Ittycheria.
Speaking to investors at a Goldman Sachs event earlier this week, the boss of the NoSQL database company argued the tech industry was still early in the rise of AI, a development which – we’re all told – will transform business and enterprise technology.
“I believe that AI is not a question of if, but when. I view the world we’re in today [compared with] circa 1996, maybe 1997. Netscape was just launched a couple of years earlier. People were excited about the web, but the web was still very basic, static web pages, and it wasn’t that interesting. People [were] starting businesses on the internet, maybe Amazon, eBay and a few others, but you weren’t seeing a plethora of companies exploding onto the market,” he said.
“I think in some ways, we’re kind of at the same stage with the AI era,” Ittycheria said.
The CEO’s view on the trajectory of the AI boom is not in line with that of other observers.
In its Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2024 edition, released last month, analyst company Gartner said GenAI is about to enter the dreaded “trough of disillusionment.” Arun Chandrasekaran, Gartner distinguished VP analyst, told The Register at the time that expectations and hype around GenAI were “enormously high,” but maintained it would have a “long term impact.”
Meanwhile, ServiceNow chief financial officer Gina Mastantuono admitted last week there may be a spending bubble surrounding GenAI.
Enterprises are also struggling with the business case for GenAI projects more than a year after the boom started, global datacenter and colocation provider Equinix recently found.
MongoDB’s Ittycheria told investors at the Goldman Sachs event there are three groups of use cases for GenAI at the moment: chatbots, research, and summarization and automation.
Quite where we are on the analogy with the dotcom boom and bust remains open to question. The CEO is correct in saying that as of 1996, Netscape Navigator – the browser which quickly dominated the nascent worldwide web – was a couple of years old, more or less. Amazon and eBay had also been formed in the previous two years.
Of course, the early dotcom era didn’t end well. In early 2000, the Nasdaq Composite stock market index peaked after gaining 400 percent in the previous five years. It then went into a thundering crash, losing nearly two-thirds of its value in a year.
Whether we’re heading for the same kind of crash, Ittycheria did not say. Still, he maintained people tend to “overestimate the impact of a new platform or technology in the short term but underestimate it in the long term.”
Nonetheless, it could well be a bumpy ride, even if any dramatic changes for the worse are still five years off. In 2001, networking giant Cisco wrote off $2.2 billion in inventory owing to stalled spending during the dotcom crash.
If you’re making the picks and shovels for the current AI gold rush, the tough call is going to be figuring out when to stop. ®
On CNBC’s “Mad Money Lightning Round,” Jim Cramer said IonQ, Inc. IONQ is losing “too much money.”
On Aug. 7, IonQ said its second-quarter revenue increased 106% year-over-year to $11.4 million. The quantum computing company reported a quarterly loss of $37.6 million, or 18 cents per share, and an adjusted EBITDA loss of $23.7 million.
Garmin Ltd. GRMN is going higher, Cramer said. “They have unbelievable fishing equipment. I’ve got to tell you, Garmin is the real deal.”
On July 31, Garmin reported fiscal second-quarter 2024 revenue growth of 14% year-on-year to $1.51 billion, beating the analyst consensus estimate of $1.41 billion.
Cramer said CommScope Holding Company, Inc. COMM has been on a “real tear” and he doesn’t know the reason behind that.
On Sept. 3, Nokia disclosed a collaboration with CommScope’s RUCKUS Networks to develop a solution for seamless in-building and campus-wide connectivity.
The “Mad Money” host said MongoDB, Inc. MDB is at the “right price.”
On Aug. 29, MongoDB reported better-than-expected second-quarter financial results and issued strong guidance. MongoDB reported quarterly earnings of 70 cents per share, which beat the analyst consensus estimate of 49 cents by 42.86%. Quarterly sales came in at $478.1 million, which beat the consensus estimate by 3.03% and represents growth of 12.82% from the same period last year.
Price Action:
Read Next:
Image: IonQ
Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Prudential PLC cut its position in shares of MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB – Free Report) by 90.4% during the second quarter, according to the company in its most recent disclosure with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The institutional investor owned 2,209 shares of the company’s stock after selling 20,704 shares during the quarter. Prudential PLC’s holdings in MongoDB were worth $552,000 at the end of the most recent quarter.
A number of other institutional investors have also added to or reduced their stakes in the company. Norges Bank acquired a new stake in shares of MongoDB during the 4th quarter valued at about $326,237,000. Jennison Associates LLC boosted its position in MongoDB by 14.3% in the first quarter. Jennison Associates LLC now owns 4,408,424 shares of the company’s stock valued at $1,581,037,000 after buying an additional 551,567 shares in the last quarter. Swedbank AB boosted its position in MongoDB by 156.3% in the second quarter. Swedbank AB now owns 656,993 shares of the company’s stock valued at $164,222,000 after buying an additional 400,705 shares in the last quarter. Axiom Investors LLC DE acquired a new position in MongoDB in the fourth quarter valued at about $153,990,000. Finally, Clearbridge Investments LLC boosted its position in MongoDB by 109.0% in the first quarter. Clearbridge Investments LLC now owns 445,084 shares of the company’s stock valued at $159,625,000 after buying an additional 232,101 shares in the last quarter. 89.29% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.
MongoDB stock opened at $295.18 on Friday. The stock has a market capitalization of $21.80 billion, a PE ratio of -105.05 and a beta of 1.15. MongoDB, Inc. has a twelve month low of $212.74 and a twelve month high of $509.62. The company has a quick ratio of 5.03, a current ratio of 5.03 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.84. The company has a 50 day moving average of $255.38 and a 200-day moving average of $305.33.
MongoDB (NASDAQ:MDB – Get Free Report) last released its quarterly earnings results on Thursday, August 29th. The company reported $0.70 earnings per share for the quarter, beating the consensus estimate of $0.49 by $0.21. The company had revenue of $478.11 million during the quarter, compared to analysts’ expectations of $465.03 million. MongoDB had a negative net margin of 12.08% and a negative return on equity of 15.06%. The business’s quarterly revenue was up 12.8% compared to the same quarter last year. During the same quarter in the prior year, the company earned ($0.63) earnings per share. On average, equities research analysts anticipate that MongoDB, Inc. will post -2.46 EPS for the current fiscal year.
In related news, Director Hope F. Cochran sold 1,174 shares of the stock in a transaction on Monday, June 17th. The shares were sold at an average price of $224.38, for a total transaction of $263,422.12. Following the completion of the transaction, the director now owns 13,011 shares in the company, valued at $2,919,408.18. The sale was disclosed in a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is accessible through the SEC website. In other news, Director Hope F. Cochran sold 1,174 shares of the stock in a transaction dated Monday, June 17th. The shares were sold at an average price of $224.38, for a total value of $263,422.12. Following the transaction, the director now directly owns 13,011 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $2,919,408.18. The sale was disclosed in a legal filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available through the SEC website. Also, Director John Dennis Mcmahon sold 10,000 shares of the stock in a transaction dated Monday, June 24th. The shares were sold at an average price of $228.00, for a total transaction of $2,280,000.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the director now directly owns 20,020 shares in the company, valued at $4,564,560. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Over the last 90 days, insiders sold 33,179 shares of company stock worth $8,346,169. 3.60% of the stock is owned by insiders.
MDB has been the topic of a number of recent analyst reports. Piper Sandler boosted their price target on shares of MongoDB from $300.00 to $335.00 and gave the company an “overweight” rating in a research report on Friday, August 30th. Loop Capital reduced their target price on shares of MongoDB from $415.00 to $315.00 and set a “buy” rating on the stock in a research report on Friday, May 31st. JMP Securities reiterated a “market outperform” rating and set a $380.00 target price on shares of MongoDB in a research report on Friday, August 30th. Guggenheim upgraded shares of MongoDB from a “sell” rating to a “neutral” rating in a research report on Monday, June 3rd. Finally, Monness Crespi & Hardt upgraded shares of MongoDB to a “hold” rating in a research report on Tuesday, May 28th. One investment analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, five have issued a hold rating and twenty have issued a buy rating to the company. Based on data from MarketBeat.com, the company currently has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and a consensus target price of $337.56.
MongoDB, Inc, together with its subsidiaries, provides general purpose database platform worldwide. The company provides 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-premises, 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.
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.
MongoDB is significantly expanding its MongoDB for Academia initiative in India by partnering with the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), under the Ministry of Education, and leveraging the SmartBridge SmartInternz learning platform. This collaboration aims to equip over 150,000 Indian students with virtual internships and the skills needed to use MongoDB Atlas, the leading multi-cloud developer data platform.
The expansion also includes a new partnership with GeeksforGeeks, a popular platform for computer science resources in India. Through this collaboration, the MongoDB Developer Learning Path will be accessible to all of GeeksforGeeks’ 25 million registered users, offering them the tools and knowledge needed to develop modern, AI-powered applications.
Empowering the Next Generation of Developers:
Launched in September 2023, MongoDB for Academia in India offers student training, educator resources, free MongoDB technology credits, and certifications to help individuals launch careers in tech. This initiative addresses the skills gap in India, where many companies struggle to find developers proficient in building modern applications and utilizing emerging technologies like generative AI.
According to the National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM), India’s tech sector will need over a million engineers with advanced AI and other tech skills in the next three years. By 2028, the demand for digital roles is expected to reach six million, while the available talent pool is projected to be only 4.7 million. This discrepancy highlights the urgent need for industry-academia collaboration to upskill students and educators, ensuring the Indian workforce can meet the needs of the nation’s rapidly growing economy.
Aligning with the Skill India Initiative:
MongoDB’s partnership with AICTE and SmartBridge’s SmartInternz platform aligns with the Indian government’s Skill India Initiative, focusing on providing full-stack development skills to over 150,000 students. The program includes 60 hours of experiential learning through hands-on bootcamps, courses, project work, and simulated corporate environments. This approach allows students to apply their skills, collaborate with peers, and receive mentorship.
“We’ve seen great interest in modern database technologies like MongoDB on our platform. Our goal is to equip students with knowledge of in-demand technologies, making them job-ready candidates for India’s organizations,” said Amarender Katkam, Founder and CEO of SmartBridge and SmartInternz.
Impressive Progress and Future Goals:
Over the past year, MongoDB for Academia has made significant progress toward its goal of upskilling 500,000 students. The program has already partnered with over 200 educational institutions and various government and private organizations, onboarded hundreds of educators, and trained more than 100,000 students who have completed over 450,000 hours of learning.
In addition to the AICTE partnership, MongoDB is expanding its reach through its collaboration with GeeksforGeeks, which will syndicate full-stack development courses to learners both online and offline across India. The MongoDB Developer Learning Path will soon be available to all GeeksforGeeks users, expected to reach more than 100,000 aspiring developers.
“India loves developers, and so does MongoDB. I’m incredibly proud of our MongoDB for Academia team’s efforts to empower Indian developers and support the next generation of tech talent,” said Sachin Chawla, Area Vice President, India at MongoDB.
For more information on MongoDB for Academia, visit mongodb.com/academia.
MongoDB Developer Data Platform:
MongoDB Atlas is the leading multi-cloud developer data platform designed to accelerate and simplify data-driven application development. It offers a unified environment with integrated data and application services, enabling developer teams to build modern applications with the performance, capabilities, and scale required for success.
Disclaimer: Portions of this content were enhanced with the assistance of ChatGPT.
Andra AP fonden reduced its stake in MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB – Free Report) by 25.4% in the second quarter, according to the company in its most recent disclosure with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The firm owned 5,000 shares of the company’s stock after selling 1,700 shares during the period. Andra AP fonden’s holdings in MongoDB were worth $1,250,000 as of its most recent SEC filing.
Several other institutional investors also recently made changes to their positions in the stock. Vanguard Group Inc. grew its position in MongoDB by 2.9% in the 4th quarter. Vanguard Group Inc. now owns 6,842,413 shares of the company’s stock worth $2,797,521,000 after purchasing an additional 194,148 shares during the last quarter. Atalanta Sosnoff Capital LLC increased its position in MongoDB by 24.7% in the 4th quarter. Atalanta Sosnoff Capital LLC now owns 54,311 shares of the company’s stock valued at $22,205,000 after acquiring an additional 10,753 shares during the period. Artisan Partners Limited Partnership acquired a new stake in MongoDB in the 4th quarter valued at approximately $10,545,000. Prudential PLC increased its position in MongoDB by 2.4% in the 4th quarter. Prudential PLC now owns 21,169 shares of the company’s stock valued at $8,655,000 after acquiring an additional 489 shares during the period. Finally, Bornite Capital Management LP acquired a new stake in MongoDB in the 4th quarter valued at approximately $6,133,000. 89.29% of the stock is owned by institutional investors.
Shares of NASDAQ:MDB traded up $2.21 during midday trading on Friday, hitting $297.39. 24,066 shares of the stock were exchanged, compared to its average volume of 1,495,210. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.84, a quick ratio of 5.03 and a current ratio of 5.03. MongoDB, Inc. has a 52-week low of $212.74 and a 52-week high of $509.62. The business’s fifty day simple moving average is $255.38 and its two-hundred day simple moving average is $305.33. The company has a market capitalization of $21.81 billion, a PE ratio of -105.05 and a beta of 1.15.
MongoDB (NASDAQ:MDB – Get Free Report) last announced its quarterly earnings data on Thursday, August 29th. The company reported $0.70 earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, topping the consensus estimate of $0.49 by $0.21. MongoDB had a negative return on equity of 15.06% and a negative net margin of 12.08%. The business had revenue of $478.11 million during the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $465.03 million. During the same period last year, the company earned ($0.63) earnings per share. MongoDB’s quarterly revenue was up 12.8% compared to the same quarter last year. As a group, research analysts predict that MongoDB, Inc. will post -2.46 earnings per share for the current fiscal year.
Several equities analysts have recently issued reports on MDB shares. Wells Fargo & Company lifted their price target on MongoDB from $300.00 to $350.00 and gave the company an “overweight” rating in a research report on Friday, August 30th. Mizuho raised their price objective on MongoDB from $250.00 to $275.00 and gave the stock a “neutral” rating in a research note on Friday, August 30th. Barclays reduced their price objective on MongoDB from $458.00 to $290.00 and set an “overweight” rating for the company in a research note on Friday, May 31st. Needham & Company LLC raised their price objective on MongoDB from $290.00 to $335.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a research note on Friday, August 30th. Finally, Scotiabank raised their price objective on MongoDB from $250.00 to $295.00 and gave the stock a “sector perform” rating in a research note on Friday, August 30th. One equities research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, five have assigned a hold rating and twenty have issued a buy rating to the stock. According to data from MarketBeat.com, MongoDB currently has an average rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average target price of $337.56.
Read Our Latest Research Report on MDB
In other MongoDB news, Director Dwight A. Merriman sold 3,000 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction dated Tuesday, September 3rd. The stock was sold at an average price of $290.79, for a total transaction of $872,370.00. Following the transaction, the director now directly owns 1,135,006 shares in the company, valued at $330,048,394.74. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the SEC, which is available through this link. In other news, CAO Thomas Bull sold 138 shares of MongoDB stock in a transaction dated Tuesday, July 2nd. The stock was sold at an average price of $265.29, for a total value of $36,610.02. Following the transaction, the chief accounting officer now directly owns 17,222 shares in the company, valued at $4,568,824.38. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available at the SEC website. Also, Director Dwight A. Merriman sold 3,000 shares of MongoDB stock in a transaction dated Tuesday, September 3rd. The stock was sold at an average price of $290.79, for a total value of $872,370.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the director now owns 1,135,006 shares in the company, valued at $330,048,394.74. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Insiders have sold a total of 33,179 shares of company stock worth $8,346,169 over the last three months. Corporate insiders own 3.60% of the company’s stock.
MongoDB, Inc, together with its subsidiaries, provides general purpose database platform worldwide. The company provides 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-premises, 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.
Before you consider MongoDB, you’ll want to hear this.
MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street’s top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on… and MongoDB wasn’t on the list.
While MongoDB currently has a “Moderate Buy” rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys.
Market downturns give many investors pause, and for good reason. Wondering how to offset this risk? Click the link below to learn more about using beta to protect yourself.
Shane Hastie: Good day, folks. This is Shane Hastie for the InfoQ Engineering Culture podcast. Today, I have the privilege of sitting down with Declan Whelan. Declan, welcome. Thanks for taking the time to talk to us today.
Declan Whelan: Pleasure to be here, Shane, so nice to see and hear your voice again, and thank you for having me.
Shane Hastie: My pleasure. It’s been a while. You and I obviously know each other, but I suspect a fair bunch of our audience haven’t come across you and your work, so who’s Declan?
Declan Whelan: Fair, good question. I live in Canada and I’m an electrical engineer by training and I’ve been involved in software my entire career and I’ve opted for a career path that always kept me close to code, bits under my fingernails. Along that journey, I’ve been a coach, I’ve been a individual participator, or contributor, and I’ve been a CTO of two different start-ups and just love doing technical work, and especially in an agile context. I still do a lot of training and some coaching and a lot of coding whenever I can.
Shane Hastie: One of the things that you’ve been known for over the years, it must be a decade at least, that you and I have known each other and you’ve been in that whole time, you’ve been strong on strong technical practices in teams and talking a lot about technical health as opposed to technical debt. What does technical health look like?
Declan Whelan: It’s a good question. Well, let me start with technical debt, because as you know, and I suspect a lot of the listeners would know, that was a term invented by Ward Cunningham back in, I’m going to say the late 1990s. It was really around a mechanism to explain how if you take shortcuts in your software development in the short-term, you may get some immediate benefit such as you would for taking out a loan, you would have some cash in hand for which you could purchase something. If you took a bank loan, you might be able to buy a car or a house.
In technical terms, you might be able to deliver more features out to customers by taking shortcuts. Ward drew the metaphor, a financial metaphor for that action with your technical practices, you can choose to take shortcuts and you will have to pay back the reaper at some point in time.
I found that metaphor to be really strong, but also as any metaphor or any analogy has, it has its shortcomings. I initially wanted to start to have people think about technical debt in a more positive light because when we think about debt, it has a negative connotation to it. You’re in debt, I’m in debt, and being out of debt is a good thing. We know from technical work, you’re never out of debt. There’s always some work to be done. I decided that having a more positive term would be better. Then I started to realize, well, technical, so I invented the term technical health as really just a different way of reframing technical debt.
Since I’ve used the term, I found some unanticipated benefits to that term, and one of them is that you can think about, let’s say your own personal health. If you are just participating in the 2024 Olympics, if you’re a world-class athlete, your notion of what is healthy is going to be very different than say yours or mine, where maybe we’re just looking to stay fit and have our blood pressure at a certain level and so on.
The point being that different systems or different contexts can have different things that are applicable and important to them. I’ve been using the term technical health as a way to expand people’s thinking about their technical practices and what’s important to them in order for them to achieve the business outcomes that they want. Then recognizing that we all have health, it’s just regardless. You can choose to have debt or not, but we all have health, and I think that’s what happens when we build systems.
There’s always going to be some work that you wish you had done differently or would choose to do better now that you’ve done it once, you know how to do it better. That’s the technical health term. I wanted it to be more holistic and more relatable so that people could actually take more positive action with it. That was how I came up with the term and that’s where it led me. Does that make sense?
Shane Hastie: It does. Technical health is every system will have technical health and it is a result of the environment. You said result of the system they’re in. How do we improve that system to make, or should we improve that system to make the technical health of our products better?
Declan Whelan: Yes, great question. One of my more recent clients asked a similar question, how do we know that our technical practices are actually effective? A lot of companies would look at things like static code analysis and look at their cyclomatic complexity or code coverage and things like that, and those are good, but they’re not customer focused. Those things don’t matter to customers. What I think has shifted, and I think that I would credit the DevOps movement with a lot of that is really starting to think about things as they touch customers. Teams now are responsible for delivering to customers. The shift for me in terms of what you might do with me would first of all, to measure it. I think right now the metrics that I see that are most widely used and are available would be the DORA metrics, and they happen to be really useful.
In case anyone doesn’t know, those would be deployment frequency, lead time for change, change failure rate, and meantime to recovery. Now, those just happen to be four metrics you could choose a whole slew of other ones, but those four in particular have strength because of the DevOps’ work that has been done and these four metrics have bubbled out as being key differentiators for organizations that are delivering well. If you were to stick with DORA metrics, for example, and looping back to your question, how would you go about improving your technical health? It could be starting to measure these and decide, “Oh, wait, do we want to increase our deployment frequency? What’s standing in the way of deployment frequency? What’s slowing us down?”
Technical debt then just becomes the things in the code that slow you down and the technical health is more expansive. It’s about how well is our system working. When I’m asked that question that you asked, which is really a good, one is would be yes, start to measure. If you’re not measuring DORA metrics, DORA metrics to me are really a good indicator of how well you’re building things technically.
Then beyond that, I’ve become more recently interested in value streams and having overall flow metrics. For example, in SAFe® now they have six flow metrics and I don’t have a lot of experience with those. I’m now just starting to read a book called Flow Engineering from Steve Pereira and another author. It’s really expanding around the DORA metrics to really focus more on the overall flow.
For example, in DORA metrics the lead time for change is from the time you commit code to when it goes into production, doesn’t include the time for business analysis and product requirements understanding. An even better metric would be the overall cycle time or lead time, whatever works for you, but back earlier to when it actually comes from customers and touches customers, so the full cycle. Other times I’ve worked with companies where they sometimes would be all focused on their code coverage or something, and those are good, but they’re all internal. What’s really important is how frequently are you able to ship value to customers and focus on that, basically.
Shane Hastie: That shift from the internal metrics like cyclomatic complexity to the customer focus metrics more like DORA and then even thinking the end to end. Haven’t we talked about shift lift and shift right for a long time?
Declan Whelan: That’s true. We still need to do it. I think some of the leading companies are certainly doing well in that regard, but most companies I encounter really struggle with that shift left and shift right. Those are both big shifts to have. I still see, I don’t know if you see it, but I still see a lot of separation, for example, between QA and development. Some organizations, maybe even though they might have those members on their teams, they might report differently, they’re measured differently. I’ve even worked with teams where they say they’re a team, but the QA is working in a different repo than the rest of the team. It’s really, you may as well call them a team in name only because of the separation. Yes, it is a shift left, but I think that’s still a really challenging shift for many organizations, even though they’re trying to do that, they still struggle. At least that’s what I see. Do you see differently?
Shane Hastie: I do see it and I just wonder why. What is it in our systems that is making that shift left, that true value stream, the true team, what’s making it so hard?
Declan Whelan: I can only report on what I’ve seen, but where I’ve seen it, one thing is definitely, I worked with a company who was 150 years old, and I worked with them about 10 years ago. Then I was working with the development team and I was interested in talking to their testers, and I had to make an appointment to meet their, and as soon as I met the testers, I was asked for which project code are we going to bill this meeting to? I was refused, given a lot of passive aggressive resistance to talking to the testers, I guess, and it was because they reported differently up the organization. Fast forward, say seven years, and I went back, now that’s no longer true. I no longer need a project code to have a conversation with a tester, but they still report differently.
They’re still managing different repos, even though it’s been seven years of them working towards teams, they’re still not there. They physically are sitting on the same team in an org chart, but they’re still working on completely separate streams of work. If you want to shift left, you really need your QA and your devs working collaboratively together. Your QA team can’t do all the heavy lifting on its own. I see organizational barriers between QA and development still staying in the way, and I see that in banking and telecom, insurance, more traditional regulated environments where they’re used to being separated. I would say many of these companies would still have another decade or more to solve that problem.
Shane Hastie: Can they afford to wait a decade?
Declan Whelan: Well, in Canada, all of those types of companies do quite well. They don’t suffer. They’re probably more profitable than they’ve ever been, in general. Maybe that’s it, they could afford to do it. Shift right, I don’t have a lot of experience with shifting right, which is basically being able to chaos monkey things in production sort of idea. I would say, yes, until you can shift left, I don’t think you’re ready to shift right. Until you can reliably design, build, release, yes, it’d be awfully difficult to get into putting in appropriate safeguards to shift right in production. I still think we’re a ways from that in many places that I’ve worked, for sure.
Shane Hastie: If we go back to the beginnings of some of these practices, extreme program. Kent Beck gave us some great ideas in 1999, 2000. There was a period when XP was held up as this is the way to build software, and it seemed to then fade away. What’s happening with those practices now?
Declan Whelan: I grew up like you did, I think I got exposed to Agile through XP, so extreme programming and the technical practices in particular that it brought were very different than Scrum. I would say in my view, Scrum, because it specifically hasn’t had an opinion on technical practices, in fact, it’s the world of work, it’s not just software development. There was no guidance from Scrum or Scrum.org or any Scrum material around technical work. What I think has happened, and by the way, yes, so SAFe® and other frameworks, they’ll usually have something about technical and they’ll almost always include extreme programming as the technical practices. Where I’ve worked in SAFe®, I’ve worked in four different SAFe® organizations, I’ve never seen the extreme programming technical practices used, although they’re actually part of SAFe®. I think with Scrum, it doesn’t matter. They had no opinion.
With SAFe®, even though it does have an opinion, what I’ve seen is it’s so low in the order of things that they should take care of, there’s so much to save. It’s just another line item of things that you may or may not do or could not do. I’ve just seen just companies get overwhelmed with SAFe® so much that they actually don’t get to the technical practices. I was at the Agile 2024 conference in Dallas, and I had exactly the same question that I had you had. I was like, “Where is Agile going and where is extreme programming in particular going? Because I like to work in extreme programming. It’s the way I choose to work.” I think one of the silver linings on what I would say is the downturn on Agile, which is the people feeling Agile has perhaps run its course.
We have certainly in late majority type of framework situations with Agile now. One of the good things is that as people have seen the challenges with it, and a lot of them are because I feel that some of the challenges Agile has had is because the lack of technical practices have led companies to be accruing technical debt at a rate that just overwhelms them at some point. Certainly, the more traditional companies I’ve seen, they just struggle so hard to be able to put out something every week or two is an extremely stressful situation, and they haven’t shifted their technical practices to enable them to deliver at a more rapid rate. I think in that way, I feel like the lack of engineering practice has been a contributor to what is perceived as the downfall or certainly the perception of a downfall in Agile.
One thing that really made me feel better when I was in Dallas was, I went to a session on FAST, which is the fluid scaling technology. There, it was really interesting, but one of the things that they are really quite strong about is really being opinionated about using extreme programming practices as the core practices. I think there’s an opportunity for a resurgence in some of the technical practices precisely because some of the traditional Agile approaches haven’t panned out as well as people had hoped. I’m somewhat optimistic about the technical practices right now, so we’ll see. Maybe I’m just a wishful thinker.
Shane Hastie: What are the good technical practices that if I’m setting up an engineering team, this is the way we do things? What does that solid technical core look like today?
Declan Whelan: Well, certainly it’s shifted since Kent Beck came up with extreme program, but if we start back in that day, there are really four core technical practices at extreme programming and pair programming, which now I would probably throw ensemble or mob programming in as an extension to that test driven development, always been a sort of controversial practice. Refactoring, I would say, has been entrenched in the industry, even though people may not be doing it, everyone would know what it is and everyone does it to some extent, and the last one will be simple design, the four rules of simple design.
That is what I usually, if I’m coaching or training, those would be things that I would be introducing to teams. Those are the core, if you’re doing Scrum and you were to add those four practices, I think you would be in really good shape. What it doesn’t include in that is some of the more modern practices around DevOps and being able to get to continuous delivery and having really good observability in your production systems is now going above and beyond what extreme programming had in mind.
We’re into things like feature flags and things like that to achieve it. I would say the big shift from say extreme programming has been this notion of continuous delivery. The other part of it, which I’m only becoming more recently exposed to, is this notion of real stewardship of the services that we build.
Instead of having extreme programming, which was really focused on building what we’re building the here and now, but really thinking about how do I build my services so that they’re maintainable indefinitely into the future? What do I need to be building in so that others that follow can maintain them as well as we can? That’s a powerful notion. I think that’s really coming from team topologies and that notion that we’re now building a more service-oriented systems than we were in the past, and stewardship, I think is a really nice addition to the way of thinking about technical practices.
Shane Hastie: That’s some of the architectural shifts, the pendulum that seems to swing back and forth – from large monolith to microservice to too many microservices to distributed monoliths.
Declan Whelan: Most of the companies I’ve worked with have really gone down the microservices or service-oriented approaches, for sure. I think one of the problems with service-oriented architectures that I’ve seen is that usually people will design their service boundaries pretty early. You have to, if you’re going to spin up these services. You have to make decisions about what is their domain and what do they do.
It turns out with service-oriented systems like that, changing those service boundaries is going to be where you’re going to have a lot of friction because whoever’s using your service, those changes would potentially need to be coordinated to roll those out. I think architectures that allow you to defer your service boundaries or encapsulate your service boundaries perhaps within a monolith, seem to me to be good approaches. I’m not an expert.
One technology I’m always drawn to for this is Elixir and Erlang because they were built so that when you build something, it’s not just a single service, but it’s actually a set of cooperating services, making it much easier to roll out changes that might touch multiple parts of your system. Outside of say, Elixir or something like that which handles that internally would be moving towards mono repos where even though I’m changing multiple services, I just have one mono repo, and so when I make my change, I can actually change and eventually, deploy systems together or close together in time.
A mono repo with a single monolith which might have different services is certainly a direction that some companies are going. I’ve not actually worked, well, I’ve worked with one client who was just in the middle of doing a mono repo, so I haven’t actually seen how well they work in the wild, but I can see the value in it for companies struggling with microservice boundaries.
Shane Hastie: This is the Engineering Culture podcast, we’ve been talking a lot about practices in here. What are the cultural influences that allow us to get into good technical practices? What is a good team?
Declan Whelan: For a good team, I’m not sure that technical practices would be different, or if I have a good team, it wouldn’t matter whether they were doing technical work or not, I guess is what I’m trying to say. It would be about certainly the collective, having an idea that we’re in this together and the extreme programming had the idea of whole code ownership. It’s our team that owns this code, so having that idea of we’re in this together, I really liked the idea of stewardship from, I think I mentioned it already from Matthew Skelton and the team topologies, that idea that we need to take care of this not just now, but for ourselves in the future. We don’t want to be woken up at 3:00 AM with beeper calls if we can avoid it, so that idea of high-quality work. I love the word stewardship, really taking care of the products that we’re releasing and recognizing that we’re not just building for now, but we’re building for the future as well.
Your horizon might differ, it could be three months or a year or whatever, but we need to be cognizant of not accruing too much technical debt by taking care of our future. Certainly, I’ve always been on a culture perspective, this sort of learning organization ideas from, just rereading the fifth discipline actually, and that idea that we’re always, especially in our field in tech, things are always changing, so we need to be in a position and a culture of continuous learning.
That’s one thing that I’ve always been attracted to the agile extreme programming practices, because they really focus on using pair program and ensemble programming to share and learn together as a team. The rising tide raises all boats. We’re all going to learn together and that we learn from each other. I may know some keyboard shortcuts that you don’t know, Shane, and Shane, you might possibly know a little bit more about business analysis than I do.
We could learn a lot by working together on things, so this team culture of true collaboration. What I see in a lot of companies, I started to say, yes, we need collaboration over cooperation and coordination. I often see teams being really good at coordinating their work. Oh, I’ve got this story. You’ve got that story, and they coordinate that. Then once they’ve figured it out, they divide and separate. They don’t actually work together to solve the problems. I think teams that focus more on collaborative work rather than cooperative or coordinating work are also really positive cultural aspects that I would see.
Shane Hastie: If I can dig in a little bit to pair programming and ensemble programming, one of the core XP practices that was there from the beginning that is consistently told and shown, there’s metrics that show that we get better quality product, but organizations still, but you’re getting two people to do one person’s work. How do you challenge that?
Declan Whelan: Well, I think there is data that shows it, but it’s not super strong. The evidence is there, but it’s not order of magnitude improvement. In fact, most of the work I’ve seen says something like, say, pair programming, you will be as productive as you would be if you had done it singly, but your defects will go down. That’s usually, the work is higher quality, but it’s not going to impact you speed-wise either faster or slower, to boil down most of the literature I’ve seen on pairing. For that, it would be just try it, just experiment, and if it works for you, then go for it. If it doesn’t work for you, then try something else. I think mob programming is more challenging because it’s not just, you could probably get two people that would agree to pair program, but getting a whole team would be even more challenging.
Again, the idea would be, well try it, let’s try it, but you have to try it for long enough. It might be six weeks or more. A lot of my coaching work, I will coach as a learning hour if I have an opportunity, or you wouldn’t have to be a coach, you could be a team lead or something and say, “Okay, let’s every Friday get together for an hour. Let’s work on a coding problem together.” It could just be a toy exercise just to improve the skills. Finding ways to make small changes, small moves, and finding ways to incorporate that learning into the day-to-day work. For example, one thing I don’t like are the improvement sprints or something at the end. Instead of doing that, why don’t you try to have something that might be more regular? Experiments, quick, rapid feedback, and if it doesn’t work, try something different.
Shane Hastie: An experiment. Declan, thanks very much. A lot of good advice, good ideas in here. If people want to continue the conversation, where do they find you?
Declan Whelan: Probably the best place is on LinkedIn. It’s just Declan Whelan, all one, on LinkedIn. I’m easy to find. It’s funny, Shane, I tore off my badge in half. Apparently, I do not know how to separate a beer ticket from a conference pass. I was ripping out a drink ticket and I ripped my ticket in half, so it only said Declan. Then I realized, that’s probably all I need in the Agile community. It’s Declan Whelan, and LinkedIn is probably the best way to reach me.
Shane Hastie: Wonderful. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us today.
Declan Whelan: Oh, it’s always a pleasure, Shane. Always lovely to chat with you.
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.
