contentSlug

type

ContentSlug_ContentQuery

slug

ContentPageContentQuery

content

trendingContent

query ContentSlug_ContentQuery(
  $contentSlug: String!
  $type: [ContentType!]
) {
  ...ContentPageContentQuery_13QmVO
}

fragment CompanyDetails_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  companies {
    name
    description
    pageUrl
    id
  }
}

fragment ContentBasicInfo on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  id
  type
  title
  lang
  companies {
    viewerIsFollowing
    id
    name
    pageUrl
  }
  tags {
    viewerIsFollowing
    id
    name
    pageUrl
  }
  ...PublishingDetails
  ...Reactions
}

fragment ContentMetadata on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  type
  title
  lang
  pageUrl
  alternatePageUrls: translations {
    __typename
    pageUrl
    lang
  }
  imgUrl
  description
  ... on Video {
    liveTime
    videoUrl
  }
  ... on Webcast {
    liveTime
    videoUrl
  }
}

fragment ContentPageContentQuery_13QmVO on Query {
  content(slug: $contentSlug, type: $type) {
    __typename
    id
    type
    title
    isPremium
    lang
    htmlBody
    summary
    companies {
      forum {
        latestPosts {
          ...ForumPosts
        }
      }
      name
      id
      viewerIsFollowing
      pageUrl
      defaultInstrument {
        isin
        id
        marketOpen
        marketClose
        marketplace {
          region
        }
        returns {
          total
        }
      }
    }
    tags {
      viewerIsFollowing
      id
      name
      pageUrl
    }
    createdAt
    ... on Video {
      liveTime
    }
    ... on Webcast {
      liveTime
    }
    slug
    ... on CompanyReport {
      reportUrl
    }
    ... on ThirdPartyCompanyReport {
      reportUrl
    }
    ... on StockExchangeRelease {
      reportUrl
    }
    ...ContentBasicInfo
    ...ContentMetadata
    ...PriceAndRecommendation_Content
    ...CompanyDetails_Content
    ...ReportLink_Content
    ...KeyFigures_Content
  }
  ...TrendingContent_1jQ2Cn
}

fragment ForumPosts on ForumPost {
  text
  likesCount
  url
  author
  postedAt
  authorImgUrl
}

fragment KeyFigures_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  companies {
    defaultInstrument {
      estimateData {
        modelType
        reportingCurrency
      }
      snapshot {
        transaction {
          date
          actualized {
            year
            quarter
            revenue
            revenueGrowth
            ebitAdjusted
            ebitReported
            ebitda
            enterpriseValue
            epsAdjusted
            dividend
            dividendYield
            sharePrice
          }
          estimates {
            year
            quarter
            revenue
            revenueGrowth
            ebitAdjusted
            ebitReported
            ebitda
            enterpriseValue
            epsAdjusted
            dividend
            dividendYield
            sharePrice
          }
        }
      }
      id
    }
    id
  }
}

fragment PriceAndRecommendation_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  createdAt
  companies {
    name
    pageUrl
    defaultInstrument {
      priceData {
        tradeCurrency
      }
      snapshot {
        priceData {
          date
          lastPrice
          tradeCurrency
        }
        transaction {
          date
          recommendation
          targetPrice
        }
        prevTransaction {
          recommendation
        }
      }
      id
    }
    id
  }
}

fragment PublishingDetails on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  createdAt
  publishers {
    name
    imgUrl
  }
  authors {
    __typename
    id
    name
    slug
    imgUrl
    jobTitle
  }
  ... on Video {
    liveTime
  }
  ... on Webcast {
    liveTime
  }
}

fragment Reactions on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  id
  reactionGroups {
    reactionType
    reactionsCount
    viewerReacted
  }
}

fragment ReportLink_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  type
  isPremium
  ... on CompanyReport {
    reportUrl
  }
  ... on ThirdPartyCompanyReport {
    reportUrl
  }
  ... on StockExchangeRelease {
    reportUrl
  }
}

fragment TrendingContent_1jQ2Cn on Query {
  trendingContent(type: ARTICLE) {
    __typename
    id
    title
    lang
    pageUrl
    createdAt
    type
    imgUrl
    companies {
      squareLogoUrl
      name
      id
    }
    authors {
      __typename
      imgUrl
      id
    }
    publishers {
      imgUrl
    }
  }
}


__typename

title

isPremium

lang

htmlBody

summary

companies

createdAt

publishers

authors

reactionGroups

pageUrl

translations

imgUrl

description

Analyst

Joni Grönqvist

Frans-Mikael Rostedt

Gofore operates in the IT sector. The company specializes in offering digital solutions and consulting in lead and process design, as well as cloud-based solutions. The greatest knowledge is found in the construction and development of software systems and associated project management. The company's customers are found among corporate customers and institutions. The largest operations are found around the European market.

Here are Joni’s comments regarding the change negotiations related to the Huld integration. Gofore announced yesterday that the change negotiations related to the Huld integration program resulted in the termination of employment for 14 individuals in administrative roles. Overall, the elimination of overlapping roles, reduction of other administrative redundancies, and streamlining of administration are estimated by the company to bring annual savings of approximately EUR 1.3 million. In the November change negotiation announcement, the company estimated that the negotiations would lead to the dismissal of a maximum of 17 individuals, which would result in savings of approximately EUR 1.4 million. Thus, the negotiations appear to have proceeded largely as planned.                   Inderes              Goforen Huld-integraatioon liittyvät muutosneuvottelut päätökseen melko...    Yhteensä tehostamistoimenpiteet tuovat noin 1,3 MEUR:n vuotuiset säästöt.

Thanks @pörssipiia for your observations and tips for our strategy table, including regarding literature references. Regarding Huld, it’s worth waiting a moment longer before making bigger conclusions about the profitability of the parts that have joined the group or the change in profitability drivers as part of the group. As @Hippos mentioned, there’s probably no reason to treat and evaluate Huld as a one-dimensional entity that now either changes or doesn’t change the entire group’s value creation fundamentals. In itself, a commendable reflection on the integration of different cultures and earning logics, but the diversity of companies adds a bit of complexity to this matter. We should return to this matter at some point later.

Good point. It is undeniably true that in the “physical world” design represented by Huld (mechanics, industrial design), market salary and billing rates are typically lower than in demanding software consulting. This explains part of the difference. From an investor’s perspective, however, the question is not merely operational, but strategic. If the situation is examined within the framework of established strategy theories, several potential risks can be identified that management must control in a heterogeneous portfolio: 1. Positioning and Competitive Advantage  At the core of strategy is choice. If Gofore shifts from premium-priced digital transformation towards a broader industrial service house, there is a risk of a “stuck in the middle” situation as described by Michael Porter. In this scenario, the company would not compete purely on cost-efficiency but might lose the pricing power gained from specialization. 2. Customer Relationship Management  In B2B marketing theories (e.g., Hutt & Speh or George S. Day), the differences in purchasing processes and so-called “buying centers” structures are emphasized. A CIO and a Head of Product Development value different qualities in a supplier. Prahalad & Hamel would speak here of core competence (core competence): is Gofore’s core competence credibly scalable to these new buyer personas without blurring the brand promise and sales focus? 3. Resource Allocation and Dynamic Capabilities  Following Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma, it is worth considering whether lower-margin business diverts resources away from higher value-added consulting. In the terms of Teece, Pisano & Shuen, this concerns dynamic capabilities: can two different cultures and earning logics be integrated into a value-creating whole (Stabell & Fjeldstad), or will they remain separate silos? Financial Implications Even if we accept lower billing as a characteristic of the industry, it has a direct impact on Gofore’s investment narrative and objectives:   Profitability Burden: If a significant portion (e.g., 10-20%) of revenue were to operate permanently at a lower EBITA level, it would be mathematically more challenging for the group to achieve its overall 15% target without significant overperformance from its core business.   Financing Capacity (M&A): The financial market values absolute cash flow (EBITDA). Lower productivity per FTE means weaker accumulation of EBITDA euros relative to revenue. This directly impacts the company’s debt servicing capacity and thus its investment capacity for future acquisitions.   It would therefore be essential to understand whether Gofore’s profile is permanently shifting from a “high value-added boutique firm” towards a “broad-based volume firm,” and how this might reflect in the company’s long-term valuation multiples. Thank you for your important observation.

You omit from that revenue per FTE comparison the fact that Huld also has much more than traditional software development. These business areas naturally also have lower salaries.

Thank you for your answers, Timur! I greatly appreciate the Chairman of the Board participating in the discussion so actively. It is a rare treat on the Helsinki Stock Exchange and strengthens confidence in the company’s open culture. You mentioned that the question regarding the effects and timeline of the integration was difficult to grasp, so I will elaborate a bit on my back-of-the-napkin calculation, which I use as an investor to try and understand the performance of the new entity. Additionally, I would like to reflect Gofore’s current situation against a couple of classic theories of strategic growth. 1. Productivity difference per employee between Huld and Gofore Based on the October business review and acquisition data, the figures look roughly like this:  Gofore (excluding Huld): Revenue per FTE was approximately 12,800 € / month in October. Huld: Revenue per FTE was approximately 9,000 € / month, which is in line with Huld’s corresponding parameter for 2024.  The calculated difference is significant: Huld’s billing per expert is about 30% lower than in Gofore’s business. This currently dilutes the efficiency figures of the entire group. My refined question is: Is this lower level (below 10k€/FTE) accepted as the “new normal” in this business (industrial R&D), or is the strategic goal to close this gap towards Gofore’s levels, for example, through cross-selling? The co-determination negotiations announced now focus on costs, but as an investor, I am interested in whether there is a prospect of increasing Huld’s top line, for example, during 2026? 2. Growth ceilings and strategic risk Gofore is at a historical turning point where organic growth has stalled. Matthew Olson’s classic article “When Growth Stalls” (HBR, 2008) shows with data that when a strong growth company’s revenue stalls or turns to decline, in 87% of cases the reason is internal (e.g., strategy complexity or organizational model) rather than external market conditions. Furthermore, Bain & Company’s study Barriers and Pathways to Sustainable Growth (2016) emphasizes that at a critical stage of scaling, organizational complexity often stifles growth (“Growth Paradox”). Gofore is now transitioning from a capability-driven organization to a customer-centric model while integrating a large acquisition. Do you recognize the risk that organizational restructuring and integration simultaneously increase internal complexity so much that the initiation of organic growth is delayed despite market recovery? How do you ensure that Gofore does not fall into the “stalling” spiral described by HBR, from which recovery has historically been difficult? Thank you again for your openness and answers! I look forward to Gofore’s return to the path of earnings growth in 2026.

Not by itself, but together with the declining course, it might have even happened this way. But it didn’t. I won’t speculate further.

Of course, that sum is just over a percentage of Gofore’s market value, so should its recommendation really be changed much?

Gofore

Goforen liikevaihto kasvoi vahvasti orgaanisesti Q3:lla ja kannattavuus ylitti hieman odotuksemme. Heikko talousnäkymä yksityisellä ja tiukka kilpailutilanne julkisella sektorilla jarruttavat...

<p>Goforen liikevaihto kasvoi vahvasti orgaanisesti Q3:lla ja kannattavuus ylitti hieman odotuksemme. Heikko talousnäkymä yksityisellä ja tiukka kilpailutilanne julkisella sektorilla jarruttavat yhtiön menoa lyhyellä aikavälillä, mutta arvioimme yhtiön pärjäävän sektoria keskimäärin paremmin ja jatkavan kannattavaa kasvua myös vaikeammassa syklissä. Arvostuskuva (2023 EV/EBIT oik. 12x) yhdistettynä vahvaan orgaanisen kasvun ajamaan arvonluontinäkymään puoltaa mielestämme vahvaa positiivista näkemystä osakkeesta. </p> 

	2022	23e	24e
Revenue	149.9	190.5	210.0
growth-%	43.5 %	27.1 %	10.2 %
EBIT (adj.)	22.0	25.3	27.3
EBIT-% (adj.)	14.7 %	13.3 %	13.0 %
EPS (adj.)	1.13	1.29	1.39
Dividend	0.34	0.50	0.58
Dividend %	1.5 %	3.9 %	4.5 %
P/E (adj.)	19.6	9.9	9.2
EV/EBITDA	14.1	6.4	5.4

Strategia puree

Key Estimate Figures19.10.2023

Forum discussions