Needham Reiterates Buy on monday.com (MNDY), Sets $250 Price Targe
The firm revealed how its post 3Q investor call with the company's VP of IR Byron Stephen and IR Manager Paige Newman helped gain clarity on Monday's performance marketing shortfall. It also helped explain how their reliance on Google should further reduce moving forward.
The firm believes that Google pricing change will result in a small but minor near-term impact. This may force the company to reduce its mid-term growth target from 30% to 25% at its September investor day.
However, the company's overall dependence on Google has decreased and now represents less than 30% of net customer additions. Moreover, self-service sales have also decreased to 40% of total sales. This reveals how the company is shifting toward larger, higher-quality deals in upmarket segments.
SFIO CRACHO/Shutterstock.com
'We came away believing this Google pricing change will have a small, but minor near-term impact which we expect will force MNDY to reduce its 30% mid-term growth target down to 25% at its Sept. investor day. Google now represents <30% of net customer adds and self-service sales have decreased to 40% of sales highlighting the up market GTM shift to larger, higher quality deals. Other key topics include AI monetization, a $300mm CRM ARR target, NRR stabilization, and confidence in accelerating 4Q growth. Reiterate Buy after a large share decline seems overdone for a 5pt change in growth assumptions.'
monday.com Ltd. (NASDAQ:MNDY) develops software applications globally, offering a cloud-based Work OS for creating work management tools.
While we acknowledge the potential of MNDY as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.
READ NEXT: and
Disclosure: None.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
a few seconds ago
- The Verge
Google reveals it isn't making tablets, smart rings, flip phones, or glasses (yet)
Google's new Pixel 10 and Pixel 10 Pro Fold and Pixel Watch 4 may compete with Samsung, but it's happy to let Samsung explore other parts of the Galaxy on its own. In interviews with Bloomberg, Google just revealed a lot of devices it isn't currently working on. Here's Bloomberg: Despite its partners Samsung and Motorola getting into flip-style phones where the screens opens up vertically like an old school Motorola Razr, Google says it intends to sit out that race. It's also not currently working on a smart ring and has paused development on a tablet overhaul until it figures out a meaningful future for the category, executives said. Pretty sure that's the first true confirmation that the Pixel Tablet 2 was canceled! Remember when Google was done with tablets in 2019? And though Google has repeatedly teased its own prototype glasses and even let us try them on, it appears that Google devices boss Rick Osterloh isn't sure it'll actually manufacture any glasses for sale: Osterloh says it's still 'TBD' whether Google itself will release glasses again, but he's intent on the category being part of the company's future. To be fair, Google has almost always shown off those glasses prototypes alongside the XR headsets it's co-developing with Samsung, and — like Meta — it seems more interested in making Android XR a platform for other glasses partners too. If Google were to release glasses again, though, Bloomberg did get one interesting hint about how they might work. Osterloh and his deputy Shakil Barkat suggested in the interview that display-free glasses might pair nicely with a smaller phone, one that could unfold for your entertainment needs as well. But, again, it sounds like Google wants to 'sit out' Razr-style folding flip phones for now. Google would hesitate before announcing glasses, I bet, because of its infamous fails with the original Google Glass. We ranked it near the very top of the list in our 84 biggest flops of the past decade in tech, though I imagine a modern version would get a less frosty reception in the post Meta Ray-Ban world. Lastly, if you're curious when Pixel phone design might change again, perhaps away from big camera bumps, design chief Ivy Ross told Bloomberg that the company tries on new design languages 'every two to three years.' That means it's due. Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Sean Hollister Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Gadgets Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Google Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Google Pixel Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Mobile Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Samsung Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tech Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Wearable
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
Are Gas Prices Falling Because U.S. Oil Production Is Surging?
Simple answers are easy, but often wrong. The real ones take context, and a little more work. Below I provide the context for the question in the title, if you put in the work to read and understand. I was recently forwarded a link to a story at an NBC affiliate in Montana--'Drill, baby, drill': Gas prices might drop below $3 by end of 2025--that purports to connect the recent drop in gasoline prices with President Trump's pro-energy policies. The first line of the article states: "There has recently been a surge in oil and gas production thanks to President Donald Trump's pro-energy policies." Before we zoom in on recent oil production, it may be helpful to step back and look at the major oil production events of the past 24 years, shown in the following graphic. There were many events that have impacted oil production since 2000. During President George W. Bush's two terms, oil production continued that gradual decline that had been ongoing since the early 1970s. However, oil and gas producers were perfecting the marriage of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which would usher in the 'shale boom', or 'fracking boom' that would soon follow. The price of oil steadily rose during Bush's presidency--cracking $100 a barrel in February 2008--and that provided significant economic incentive for the fracking boom. President Obama's two terms oversaw the largest expansion of U.S. oil and natural gas production in history. Even though Obama was largely seen as being hostile to oil and gas, technology and market forces were the most significant factor in driving oil production higher during his presidency. One exception during his term took place in late 2014, when Saudi Arabia led OPEC in increasing output despite falling prices, aiming to undercut U.S. shale producers and defend market share. This led to an oil price collapse in 2015 and 2016 from over $100 to below $30 per barrel. U.S. shale ultimately cut costs and improved efficiency, but U.S. oil production was negatively impacted for a while. Nevertheless, by November 2016 it was clear that the U.S. shale industry would survive, so OPEC reached a landmark agreement with Russia and other non-OPEC producers to cut production by 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd), marking the end of the price war and the birth of the OPEC+ alliance. This subsequently led to a price recovery, and a rebound of U.S. oil production growth. President Trump took office in January 2017, and oil production returned to the growth mode seen during Obama's first seven years in office. Producers broke the previous monthly oil production record set in 1970 in October of Trump's first year in office. Trump did pass pro-oil policies, but the OPEC+ production cuts that began raising oil prices were the biggest factor that returned growth back to pre-OPEC price war levels. Often lost in the discussion is that as a result of rising oil prices, the average gasoline price in the U.S. actually increased during Trump's first three years in office--until the COVID-19 pandemic arrived. The pandemic famously collapsed both oil prices--which briefly turned negative as stay-at-home orders were implemented--and oil production, which dropped by a staggering 3 million barrels per day in April and May 2020. When people fondly remember gasoline prices that dropped below $2.00 a gallon under President Trump, that was the only time it happened. When President Biden assumed office in January 2021, oil production had recovered back to 11.2 million bpd, which was still 1.8 million bpd below the pre-pandemic peak. But oil production growth would resume in Biden's second year. In each of his last two years in office, the U.S. would again set production records for both oil and natural gas production. Oil production growth was significantly helped by the price surge that took place in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, demonstrating once again the power of macro factors to move production. Before we zoom in on President Trump's second term, let's review. There have been major factors moving the oil markets over the past 24 years, but few of them are related to actions by the president. It is true that Presidents Obama and Biden passed green policies, and were generally hostile to oil and gas production. Nevertheless, Obama saw the greatest expansion of oil and gas production in U.S. history, while Biden oversaw production records in natural gas all four years he was in office, and oil production records his last two years in office. Note that this isn't to give credit but rather highlight the importance of macro factors in setting oil prices and influencing oil production. Yes, each president, including President Trump, passed policies that likely had some impact on oil and gas production. But those policies have relatively small impacts against macro factors like a fracking boom or an OPEC price war. The one exception one could argue would be the long-term implications of fracking that were primarily developed under George W. Bush. President Trump's Second Term 'Surge' Returning to the claim from the NBC affiliate, let's zoom in on the first seven months of President Trump's second term, and contrast this with President Biden's term. If there is a surge, we should see it in the following graphic, which starts in February 2021--Biden's first full month in office--and extends through mid-August 2025. Supporting data can be found at the EIA here and here. The first thing to note is that there are a number of weather-related impacts. The jump right at the beginning of Biden's term was recovery from the impacts of Winter Storm Uri. Thus, the initial surge was really just bouncing back to where production was just before the storm. Likewise, in January 2024, a severe winter storm drastically slashed oil production in Texas. And in January 2025, cold weather once again negatively impacted production in North Dakota and Texas. Following each of these events, production bounced back. The first full month of President Trump's second term was February 2025. Production rebounded that month from the previous decline, as it had following previous bad weather events. But even if you want to give President Trump credit for the February bump--when his policies hadn't had time to take effect--there's still no surge when viewed over the course of the past 4.5 years. In fact, you see significantly larger 'surges' during serious periods of Biden's presidency. Oil production in 2023 set a record that was 7.9% higher than 2022 production, and 5.0% higher than the previous 2019 record. The new record in 2024 was 2.1% higher than in 2023. Production did rise slightly to a new monthly record in March 2025, and year-to-date production is running about 2.0% ahead of last year's record pace (although it has fallen over the past two months). So, indeed we are on pace to set a new production record this year, but the pace of production is slowing. There's certainly no surge as claimed. Further, the NBC article linked previously cites former White House economic advisor Steve Moore as stating, 'Trump is into, as you called it, 'Drill, baby, drill,' and we're seeing some of the fruits of that.' In fact, the number of rigs drilling for oil has steadily fallen this year, which is the exact opposite of what Moore implies. He is correct that we are likely to set another production record this year, but it should be clear that this is a continuation of a long-term trend that appears to be slowing. Note that I didn't address natural gas, but the trends are much the same. Production has grown steadily since about 2005, but there has been no surge at any point. Why Are Gasoline Prices Falling? Gasoline prices have slipped noticeably this year, tracking the broader decline in crude oil. That's raised a familiar political talking point: some Trump supporters insist the drop is thanks to a surge in drilling unleashed by the president's policies. But the reality is more complicated. Energy markets are global, and prices move according to supply, demand, and inventories—factors that rarely hinge on the occupant of the White House. The biggest driver right now is surging global supply. OPEC+ announced that it will fully unwind its 2.2 million barrels per day of voluntary production cuts by September 2025—a full year earlier than planned. At the same time, non-OPEC producers like the U.S., Brazil, and Guyana continue to ramp up output. Altogether, global supply is set to rise by 2.5 million barrels per day this year, outpacing demand and putting clear downward pressure on prices. On the demand side, growth has been softer than expected. Consumption in China, India, and Brazil has underwhelmed, while in the OECD countries, demand is essentially flat. Japan is hitting multi-decade lows, and U.S. GDP growth has slowed to just 1.4%, which has translated into weaker fuel consumption at home. Finally, oil inventories are swelling. Stockpiles have risen for five straight months, hitting a 46-month high of 7.8 billion barrels worldwide. Rising inventories are a textbook sign of oversupply, and history shows that sustained builds like this often precede sharper price declines. In short, today's lower gasoline prices aren't the result of any single politician's actions. They're the outcome of a global supply surge colliding with tepid demand growth and rising stockpiles. The political spin may be irresistible, but the market forces at work are far larger than any administration. In the past, falling oil prices were a clear win for the U.S. economy. Back in 2005, the country imported around 12.5 million barrels per day of crude oil, so cheaper oil meant a smaller import bill and more money in consumers' pockets. But the U.S. has since flipped from being the world's largest importer to a net exporter of crude and refined products. That changes the calculus. Lower oil prices still benefit consumers at the pump, but they also strain one of America's most important industries, reduce export revenues, and widen the trade deficit. For a country that now relies on energy exports as a pillar of economic strength, cheap oil is a double-edged sword. Conclusion It's tempting to give too much credit or blame to a president for what's happening at the pump. But the reality is that gasoline prices are dictated by forces much bigger than any one administration. Technological shifts like fracking, geopolitical decisions by OPEC+, weather disruptions, and global demand trends shape oil markets far more decisively than executive orders or campaign slogans. That doesn't mean policy is irrelevant—it can tilt the playing field at the margins. But the recent slide in prices is a reminder that energy is a global business, and the U.S. is both a beneficiary and a casualty of its volatility. Consumers welcome relief at the gas station, yet as an energy-exporting nation, we also absorb the downside of weaker prices. The bottom line: partisans may spin the price of gasoline, but the true story lies in the global interplay of supply, demand, and investment. And that story is always bigger—and more complicated—than Washington.
CNBC
a few seconds ago
- CNBC
Fed Chair Powell set to deliver big Jackson Hole speech Friday. Here's what Wall Street expects
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is set to deliver what almost certainly will be his last keynote address at the central bank's annual conclave during one of the most tumultuous times in its history. What's at stake is the near-term sentiment for financial markets, the longer-term path of the Fed's policy trajectory, and a not insignificant dose of trying to preserve vestiges of independence at a time when the normally sacrosanct institution is facing enormous political pressure. If Friday's speech at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, goes at all like Powell's first seven-plus years in office, it will feature a calm and collected veneer even if masking the weight that he and his colleagues have been under all year. "He's done a good job in terms of keeping the Fed's independence, ignoring the noise and some of the questions he gets, and keeping it focused on the data dependency and the Fed's dual mandate," said Michael Arone, chief investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors. "He's taken the high road as it relates to the Fed's independence and some of the pressure he's clearly getting from the Trump administration. So I think that he'll continue to kind of walk that line." Indeed, President Donald Trump has kept up a near constant drumbeat against Powell and his colleagues. As he did during much of his first term, Trump has badgered Powell to lower interest rate cuts. But in recent days the president's attacks on the Fed have gone past mere monetary policy. Earlier this summer, the White House lashed out at the Fed for a major reconstruction project at its Washington, D.C. headquarters. That coincided with a period when Trump toyed with removing Powell, though he later backed off the idea. Then this week the administration trained its focus on Fed Governor Lisa Cook, accusing her of mortgage fraud regarding two federally backed loans she took. Amid the controversies, Powell could use the speech to at least take a swipe at the political distractions, even if he holds to past practice of not taking direct aim. "He's going to take a jab and talk about fed independence, because what does he have to lose really at this point?" said Dan North, senior economist at Allianz Trade North America. "It seems pretty clear that Trump can't legally fire him. He can certainly put all kinds of tremendous pressure on him. And I think it's an opportunity for Powell to say the central bank's got to stay independent, and that's what we're going to do." Beyond the politics there's policy, and that also will be challenge. The speech is billed as an "Economic Outlook and Framework Review," indicating Powell will take time to provide his views on broad conditions as well as discuss the Fed's long-term policy goals, a review that occurs every five years. Markets are expecting Powell to tee up a September rate cut. At each of his previous Jackson Hole speeches, starting in 2018, he indicated significant policy shifts. From pushing for quarterly cuts in that first speech to a pivotal switch in how it would view inflation in 2020 to last year's nod towards an aggressive September move, markets have taken their cues from the chair's keynote. Wall Street commentary reflects similar expectations this time around, if in somewhat subtler terms. "We do not expect Powell to decisively signal a September cut, but the speech should make it clear to markets that he is likely to support one," Goldman Sachs economist David Mericle said in a note. Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid, whose district hosts the Jackson Hole event, told CNBC on Wednesday that he isn't sold yet on a September cut and will need to see more data. In fact, only Governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman have overtly signaled they favor a move next month. "We suspect that most FOMC participants who have expressed mixed feelings about cutting in September will be willing to support a cut if Powell pushes for one, but that he will think it more reasonable to make that case to them closer to the meeting with more data in hand," Mericle said. Key points to watch will be how Powell characterizes the labor market and his view on the inflation pass-through from Trump's tariffs. Shortly after the July Fed meeting, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced meager job growth for July and even weaker gains for May and June. However, multiple policymakers have used the word "solid" to describe the labor market, indicating they see less urgency for rate cuts. Minutes from the July meeting indicated most FOMC members see a greater worry over inflation. Regional presidents Beth Hammack from Cleveland, Atlanta's Raphael Bostic and Schmid in Kansas City have expressed skepticism about the need for a September cut, a position that could rile Trump and upset the market. Powell "is likely to remain careful and not pre-commit in advance to a September cut, which could disappoint some investors," wrote Krishna Guha, head of global policy and central bank strategy at Evercore ISI. "Much of his speech may try to provide a steady medium- to longer-term framing for policy strategy and inflation control." That framing could be critical as well, and is getting little attention from Wall Street so far. Five years ago, against a backdrop of the Covid pandemic and protests over police brutality, the Fed adopted what it called "flexible average inflation targeting." Essentially, the framework change would allow the Fed to let inflation run hot if unemployment was higher, particularly for underrepresented groups. Over the next couple years, the Fed stood pat while inflation hit its highest level in more than 40 years. While most officials say the inflation targeting change did not play a role in the widely-held view that inflation was "transitory," the policy is likely to get a retooling, with the Fed returning to its previous inflation stance that included preemptive action if inflation appeared to be rising. "While the adoption of the new framework in 2020 was not the primary factor behind the Fed's delay and the substantial inflation overshoot, it contributed to this outcome," Matthew Luzzetti, Deutsche Bank chief U.S. economist, said in a note. "For this reason, we expect Powell's speech in Jackson Hole to highlight changes to the Fed's statement on longer-run goals that will reflect this reality. Specifically, we expect the speech to call for rolling back the 2020 modifications and restoring a primary role for preemption." Luzzetti added that the Friday speech "could arguably not come at a more important time" and he expects Powell to change his tone on the labor market. Powell's speech will be presented at 10 a.m. ET. The conference wraps up Saturday.
