CRM
Salesforce, Inc.
stock NYSE

\- MSFT
\- CRM
\- SIVE
\- IBM

I don't know why people include CRM and ADBE but leave aside value stock like SAP? Is it just because it's European?

I'm writing this post so I can encourage discussion so that everyone can help me and others understand economic moats better.
Literal Definition:
An "economic moat" is a company's ability to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage that protects its market share and profits from rivals.

Since AI is so hype, let talk about semiconductors.
TSMC holds near effective monopoly on advanced semiconductor manufacturing, where nearest competitor Intel are way too behind with nowhere near efficient scale and cost-advantage. Regardless who make the best design or favorable chips like NVIDIA, Broadcom, AMD, Marvell, Cerebras, Apple, ARM everyone end up at TSMC, therefore structurally they possess a wider moat than NVIDIA who have more formidable competitors.
Comparing AMD and ARM on CPU, AMD is better positioned to profit as they already have full scale CPU servers on x86 and "acceptable" (despite unnatural deal making OpenAI & Meta) GPUs therefore their stock perform better. However, if we examine business model, ARM CPU architecture have monopolistic market share on smart phone, it preferred design for data center CPUs extremely high barrier to entry due to IP and power efficiency. Therefore, even though AMD is better positioned they automatically have narrower moat than ARM, because their CPU is inferior (losing market share to ARM-based design) and GPUs is inferior to NVIDIA, so they are narrow moat, and ARM is wide moat.
Memory-wise let talk about HBMs players so Micron Technology, SK Hynix, Samsung. Memory in the past is a commodity, but now people argue that HBMs with technological advancements are no longer a commodity. However, I argue it still commodity-like, because even though there are differences between HBMs made by these players, it is negligible and marginal to the point it almost doesn't even matter. The argument about whether Micron or SK Hynix make better HBMs can be extremely subjective and indifferentiable. As three companies that can make almost the same thing, none of these companies can have a wide moat, AT MOST it is a narrow due to scale arguably NONE. These stocks benefit from supply shortage, as that become increasingly resolved in future, there will be less pricing power and long term cash flow compared to NVIDIA, Broadcom, TSMC, ASML. Differentiable meaning like NVIDIA Blackwell is objectively better than the best AMD stuff because computing power and CUDA moat. Server sales like Dell or HPE arguably worser moats than all of these above here.

Semiconductor equipment like ASML, LRCX, AMAT, KLAC all have wide moats, but they are all cyclical businesses as foundries like TSMC, Intel, Samsung, Memory-makers invest large sum for these machines, they will only have servicing revenue for a bit of time. Cyclicality is a minus in investing.

Let move into construction and energy infrastructure, since natural gas is the leading energy form to power data centers this will benefit gas turbines maker like GE Vernova, Siemens Energy, and Mitsubishi this business is narrow moat and somewhat lower form of cyclicality because these turbines take a long time to build. Same thing apply to nuclear reactors maker like BWXT and Westing House, these are narrow moat and lower form of cyclicality, but you could argue that BWXT have wide moat from military nuclear reactors monopoly. Constellation Energy, Vistra Corporation, and other utilities are low quality businesses because of high CAPEX (debt) creating a commodity (electricity not differentiable), so all of them have no moat. However, since the energy demand is tremendously increased it can rerate their valuation similar probably not the same scale as memory.
Construction companies like Sterling Infrastructure, Comfort Systems, and many more are all heavily cyclical. Caterpillar and Deere are also cyclical but less so because of wider moat in construction equipment and backup generators (diesel).

Overall, you absolutely can be extremely successful investing in low moat companies, I bought MU at $100 avg for $2,500 at the age of 20 I found my almost 10 bagger. However, weak moat companies are susceptible to disruption and substitution. Most importantly without pricing power it will be met with margin compression and lower profits, or simply stock will tank.

Wide moat with no pricing power or high level of cyclicality is also a negative mark in investing. For example, ASML is arguably the widest moat company in semiconductor (I bought near $700 sold when it ran up 100%). However, you have to criticize ASML in the cyclical component that is the worse trait about the company creating unpredictable level of cash flows in the future. No pricing power example would be a company creating a commodity. For example, McDonald's or Coca Cola creating food and beverage, Micron Technology creating HBMs, Vistra Corp creating electricity, United Healthcare offering insurance, Costco and Walmart in consumer discretionary. These are all example of commodities or like-commodities, without differentiable products and substitution these no moat (VST), narrow moat (UNH, MU), wide moat (MCD, KO, COST, WMT) have weak pricing power.

The highest quality play like NVIDIA, AVGO, ASML, TSMC are all exposed to CAPEX cyclicality.
This leaves us with a very small universe of the highest quality stocks meaning wide moat, consistent demand (lesser cyclicality), and pricing power (not a commodity). Chris Hohn, TCI management, arguably have one of the strictest guidelines for moat even more than Warren Buffett who coined the term. Even if these stocks are not well known they are or at least the same width of moat as the world biggest companies GE Aerospace (GE), Visa (V), S&P Global (SPGI), Moody's (MO), Ferrovial (FER), Railroads, Google (GOOGL). Some additions, I think follow his guideline would be TSMC (TSM).

Let talk about software companies, since it is frequently mention in this subreddit. I would argue that some software companies that have seen major correction in valuations is completely justified, because the risk of disruption increased dramatically dangering the moat, therefore I think rerating lower is completely appropriate. You could argue that the rerating is overdramatic creating room to run, but to say that it should fully recover is unreasonable. I think Adobe (ADBE), Salesforce (CRM), and Oracle (OCRL) falls into this category where substitution can be a huge factor. I argue that these software plays have wider and durable moats I bought the dips on these and were extremely successful, first is big player cybersecurity (PANW, CRWD, FTNT), chip software (CDNS, SPNS) national security and switching cost, and Microsoft (networking effect, switching cost, but their software subscription is relatively cheap that creating your own is unreasonable).

Thank you for reading my thoughts, if you disagree with me please leave an informative comment arguing against or make your case.

Intuit, CRM, acn , adobe, service now and charter communications

I believe it will end.
However, watching the speed my company is replacing features of CRM, Anaplan, Loveable….
With all internal tools or internal platforms enhanced by AI is staggering.
So there is a repricing event that is real.

lol CSU is down like 50%, same with CRM, and other stuff

CRM ADBE VEEV

I think NOW is the strongest play out there. I can see workday and success factors swapping clients, I can see a better CRM coming along, I don’t see another NOW that is as complete and dynamic.

I opened a $570,00 position in CRM today. Guess I'll find out...

# SaaS is NOT dead
**TLDR;** The “SaaS is dead” narrative is everywhere right now. Satya Nadella said it first, VCs ran with it, and now it’s the default position online. After watching this play out for months… I think the whole debate is confused. People are conflating two things: the ability to *create* software and the ability to *operate* software inside an organisation. They’re not the same thing. Not even close. And the gap between them is where the “SaaS is dead” argument quietly falls apart.
Every time I see someone tweet “*SaaS is dead, just vibe code your own....*” I think: this person has never had to hand a tool to a new starter on their first Monday morning.
I have. Many times. And the operational reality of running software inside a team is so far removed from the “just build it yourself” fantasy that I genuinely don’t know where to start.
Actually, I do.
**Where the narrative started**
Back in December 2024, Satya Nadella went on the BG2 podcast and said something that amounted to “business applications as we know them will collapse in the agent era” ([here’s the link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NtsnzRFJ_o) in case you want to watch it). His argument was that SaaS apps are just CRUD databases with business logic on top, and AI agents will absorb that logic layer. 
>
Anyway. That clip spread everywhere. The twitter economy did its thing. Suddenly “SaaS is dead” became the default position of every VC, AI influencer, and weekend hacker on the internet.
Then in early February this year, Anthropic released Claude Cowork, and software stocks lost nearly $1 trillion in market value in a week. Jefferies called it the “SaaSpocalypse.” The iShares Software ETF dropped over 20% from its peak. Mad.
So the narrative is loud. And I think it’s fundamentally wrong… or at the very least, it’s answering a question that doesn’t matter while ignoring the one that does.
**The question everyone’s answering: “Can you BUILD software with AI?”**
Yes. Obviously. I’m building a product right now using AI coding tools. Cursor, Claude Code… they’re extraordinary. I’ve been coding on the side for years but I actually feel like an engineer now and AI is a massive part of why that was even possible. Things that would have taken months, I can prototype in days. Mad.
But here’s where the logic falls apart. The “SaaS is dead” crowd has taken “you can build software faster” and “you can build software yourself” and leapt to “**therefore nobody needs to buy software**.” 
That’s… not how any of this works.
**The question nobody’s answering: “Can you OPERATE that software inside a real team?”**
This is where I disagree with the narrative. And it’s the part that people who’ve never run a team of 20+ people completely miss.
**The onboarding problem**
I’ve onboarded and managed over 100 people across sales, marketing, cs, partnerships and engineering. Every single one needed to learn the tools **on day one**. CRM, dialler, sales engagement platform, call recording, prospecting tools… the stack.
When you’re using Salesforce or HubSpot, there’s documentation. There are YouTube tutorials. There’s a community. There’s a support team. There’s an onboarding flow built into the product. Your new hire can Google “how do I log a call in Salesforce” and get 400 results.
Now imagine you’ve vibe coded a bespoke CRM for your team. Your new hire starts Monday. Who’s training them? Where’s the documentation? There isn’t any, because the app was built by prompting Claude and nobody wrote docs for it. So now *you* have to walk them through it. Personally. Every time someone joins.
I can’t think of anything I’d want to do less than personally onboard every new hire onto an internal tool that only I understand. That doesn’t scale. 
**The maintenance problem (which nobody talks about)**
Jason Lemkin at SaaStr put it well: shipping a v1 is maybe 2% of the work. That resonates with anyone who’s operated software at scale.
Even if you could build a basic version of Salesforce in a weekend… who’s going to maintain it? Who’s adding the features your team needs in Q3 that didn’t exist in Q1? Who’s handling the security patches, the integrations, the edge cases that only surface six months in?
Software evolves. That CRM you vibe coded 18 months ago? It’s already dated. Your competitors have adopted new engagement features. Your team wants pipeline analytics you never built. A compliance requirement dropped and your app doesn’t handle it. The dialler integration broke because they updated their API.
With a SaaS product, that’s the vendor’s problem. With your vibe coded tool, that’s *your* problem. And you’re a CRO, not a software engineer. You’ve got a number to hit.
Arvid Kahl (who bootstrapped and exited FeedbackPanda) made a related point. Vibe coded projects hit a wall because the codebase grows beyond anyone’s ability to understand it… including the AI. Nobody (not even the person who prompted it into existence) fully knows what the software does anymore. And unreliable software creates a business with high churn and low retention.
**The “who owns this when someone leaves” problem**
Here’s a scenario I’ve watched play out multiple times, long before AI was involved: someone on the team builds an internal tool. A spreadsheet, a script, a dashboard. It works great. Then that person leaves. And suddenly nobody knows how to maintain it, modify it, or fix it when it breaks.
Now multiply that by an entire application stack built through vibe coding. Your ops lead prompted a custom reporting tool into existence. Your sales manager built a commission calculator. Your SDR team lead made a prospecting workflow. Each of those people leaves, as people do, and you’re left with a graveyard of tools that nobody can maintain.
SaaS products survive employee turnover. Bespoke internal tools do not.
**The liability question**
This one’s underrated. When Salesforce has a data leak, that’s Salesforce’s legal problem. They have a security team, compliance, insurance, SLAs. When your vibe coded CRM leaks customer data… and it might… that’s entirely your problem. 
**What the sharp people are actually saying**
Jensen Huang said at the Cisco AI Summit two weeks ago that the idea of AI replacing software is “the most illogical thing in the world.” His argument: AI uses tools, it doesn’t reinvent them.
Mike Cannon-Brookes at Atlassian ($6B+ revenue, *and* *accelerating*) was blunt about surviving the AI era. His answer wasn’t to pivot to agents. It was “We have to be good.” Atlassian grew cloud revenue 26% and RPO 44% in the middle of the supposed SaaS apocalypse.
Niki Scevak at Blackbird Ventures said it directly: “The human ego has driven large companies to create their own software since the start of computing, and that has been a very bad idea.”
And Lemkin made the most concise version of the argument: “Nobody is building a homegrown CRM in Replit to replace their Salesforce instance. I’ve built 10+ apps with vibe coding in the past few months. Things that would have taken a team six months, I did in hours. But none of them replace enterprise systems of record.”
**Where SaaS actually IS vulnerable**
To be clear. I’m not saying nothing changes. Of course it does. 
>
Enterprise IT spending is getting reallocated toward AI initiatives. Fewer new seat purchases. Slower expansion deals. Harder conversations at renewal. The pie isn’t growing. It’s being resliced.
And SaaS products that are essentially thin UI layers over a database… the “dumb CRUD app” that Nadella was actually describing… are genuinely at risk. If your product is a form that writes to a database and a dashboard that reads from it… yes, an AI can replace that.
But SaaS with deep domain logic, real-time capabilities, proprietary data models, integrations across complex ecosystems, and institutional knowledge embedded in the product? Those aren’t going anywhere. Because the value was never in the UI. It was in the accumulated understanding of the problem space, shipped as working software, maintained by a dedicated team.
**What this means if you’re building right now**
I’m building a SaaS product. Right now. In 2026. And it’s kinda funny… it took me four months to start because I was convinced OpenAI or Google would just kill everyone anyway. 
But after actually thinking it through, I’ve never been more confident SaaS has a future. The arguments against it fall apart the moment you’ve operated real software inside a real team.
What’s changing is the *bar*. The low-effort, feature-light, “slap a dashboard on a database” SaaS product is dead. Good riddance. What survives is software that embeds itself so deeply into a workflow that ripping it out would be more painful than paying for it.
The tools I’m using to build have never been better. AI coding assistants mean a solo builder can ship what used to require a team. That doesn’t mean SaaS is dead. It means it’s never been easier to *build* SaaS… which is the opposite of what the doomsayers are arguing.
The thing nobody seems to want to say out loud: the same AI tools that supposedly kill SaaS are also making it dramatically cheaper and faster to *create* SaaS. That’s not a death sentence. That’s a faster path to innovation.
SaaS isn’t dead. Lazy SaaS is dead. And honestly… good.
Anyway, I'd be interested in other peoples take. Am I wrong? Would you be happy if your teams started vibe coding their own apps? Are you struggling to sell your product because the customer has DIY'd it?

So buying falling knives like PYPL, ADBE, CRM makes more sense? ADBE was value when 300$, PYPl was value in 50s. What about their recovery? ADBE is not going back to 300$ soon. I am not even talking about the people who paid more than that for ADBE

Just the engineering department? Support, AEs...its hard to find decent people at CRM anymore.
Source: also cannot reveal.

I did the same thing last November or so. Then I felt bad and started easing back in. I'm glad I did. There are some things that are not quite panning out yet, like I noticed that Walmart and COSTCO were labeled as a strong buy, and had recent dips. Hoping that they grow before their next earning calls.
Other than that, things like NVDA, MU, TSM just keep growing.
I'm reading some of the other posts here, and its true. You are young. I am close to retiring. Even if you lost a bunch in a crash, it would recover. Just look at the market growth over time.
If you don't want to watch your portfolio everyday, and swing trade a bit, then pick something like BRK-B (Omaha guy here). It will slowly grow. ARK, QQQ, SPY... You can relax a bit and look at it quarterly.
Sometimes we pick losers. I've twice thought CRM could not get any lower, and I took the loss and rolled it into something better. I lost a lot in Crypto because I didn't understand when to get in and out. If I had left it there, I would have it back.
I have made the mistake of panicking too many times. You can not time the markets. You can pick things in hot sectors and hope for the best. I wish I was looking forward like you when I was your age.

I agree, they are much safer, but still at threat from dwindling investor interest. But I would bet on CRM and now to make it in the end, but may be a choppy ride.

closed my CRM 7/17 150p early yesterday for a small loss, glad I did, what a turd. every other trade I have going is up and a bunch expired today. hoping for a reversal monday to re-enter a few things (not CRM)

I actually like the idea of leap calls. You invest tiny portion and basically bought an insurace. If CRM recovers, you exercise the call and will not miss the ride, otherwise just a tiny loss which will get offset by putting your big money into ETF or even bonds. It's way better than holding the bag, especially on this historical bull run like QQQ already 20% up YTD.

Why is CRM even in Dow. It’s such a random ticker to have in there

14 straight red days for CRM and counting

CRM just jumped off a cliff towards the end of the day lol

CRM and NOW are winners and will literally benefit and grow from AI
Adobe has issues but is mega value and its not yet clear there is an AI threat (zero evidence in financials), just hyperbole right now.
Intuit has big issues with AI