Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

Ultimate Software Group, Inc. (The) (NASDAQ:ULTI)

February 12, 2013 6:20 pm ET

Executives

Mitchell K. Dauerman - Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Executive Vice President and Treasurer

Analysts

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

Okay, thanks. Welcome, guys, and thank you, Mitch Dauerman, for -- CFO of Ultimate Software, for coming. I greatly appreciate it. I think probably the group knows Ultimate, but I think -- for those who don't, I think you guys have a good story in terms of your evolution of where you started and where you came to today. And just maybe give a little bit of background of what the goal was originally, how it's evolved through the course of time and kind of where you are today and what you do.

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Okay, thanks, Greg, and thanks for having me. I guess for the purpose of just making sure everyone understands what we do and what we're going after, Ultimate Software focuses on human capital management. We were formed 23 years ago, what, 1990. Scott Scherr founded the company, still with the company, still running it. We target companies in the U.S. and Canada that have 200 employees or more. We go to market with a direct sales force. We believe in growing average productivity per salesperson. We believe the strength of our company is our culture, our product and our support.

From a culture side, we invite everybody to come down and -- come down to our new hires and meet the people. We're very happy to be ranked the ninth best company to work for in America. Being in the HRMS business, it means a lot because the people that are looking to partner with us are trying to bring that same type of culture back to them. It also creates the passion that everybody at Ultimate has in doing their job.

From the products side, the barrier to entry are the 13,000 tax jurisdictions in the U.S. If you look back over 20 years, there really aren't any meaningful new entrants with very strong payroll-centric applications. It's hard to do. And the product has received third-party accreditations from industry analysts and so on, so -- and if you talk to our customers, I think they'll tell you the same thing.

As far as service, we pride ourselves on having very high retention rates. We run right now 96% retention on a revenue basis, and we've run that for a long time. We have about 2,500 customers. We have about 10 million records in the cloud, 1,650 employees and families to take care of.

From the financial side, we chose the path of growing at a -- what we think is a reasonable rate. We target trying to grow recurring revenue at 25% year-over-year. We focus on new business, which makes up 20% of that growth, 20% to 25%. We focus, I said before, on retention. We do believe operating margin should be positive, and they should expand. So this year, on a non-GAAP basis, we expect our operating margins to expand 200 basis points to 17%. I'm sure we'll get into talking about it. We are going to be required to cap -- continue capitalizing software cost. On an as-expense basis, our operating margins still expand. No one customer accounts more -- for more than 1% of revenue. The top 10 don't account for 5% of revenue. We go into the year with 97% visibility into our recurring revenue target, which is a nice place to be. And it's kind of a segue back to the past.

Ultimate Software started as a perpetual license company, and that's all we sold. We sold the DOS product. We then delivered a client server product, but it's all perpetual license. We went public June 2 '98. We're doing well. Middle of 2000, as some of you remember, the dot-coms blew up. And even though we didn't do business with them, they changed the way people bought license software.

So we had companies who wanted to buy our software, wanted to use it but couldn't afford to. So what we did is we look at whether we could re-architect the software in a multi-tenant environment and how long it would take, which took 2 years. And in 2002, we began what everybody calls today, SaaS or cloud. So for the last 10 years, 12 years, we've been in the cloud, delivering to our customers. We have a 30% compounded annual growth rate and recurring revenue over those 12 years, and we focus on our associates taking care of each other and taking care of the customers. And if we do all that, all of you, as investors, should be taken care of.

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

And one of the common questions that I get is you've managed to grow consistently 25% of recurring revenue growth. There's a lot of other companies in the SaaS space that decided to grow a lot more aggressively and so one of the pushbacks is why don't -- why not invest more? Why not grow more aggressively? What are the things you think about in terms of the puts and takes as why you came out to say, "Hey, we're going to run this at a consistent kind of [indiscernible]."?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

I think, part of it is, we evolved into this 25% growth rate. When we started this thing called -- we called it inter-sourcing. But then, it became -- what allows us to -- well, one, we're not in a land grab environment. Every company that has 200 employees or more is using some type of payroll HR system. So we don't have to be the first ones in it. Secondly, we really believe our culture is important. And we believe there's a methodology to acculturating people and bringing them on board and finding the right people, understanding -- having them understand what they need to do and do it. We think, if I have my slides, I'd show you that 12-year chart. I think most people would be happy, if we came back 10 years from now and said, "We grew at 25% consistently for another 10 years." It's a different pace. When you grow faster, it's not just adding more salespeople. You have to add managers. You have to add consultants. You have to add customer support people. You have to add infrastructure. So if you plan to grow faster, well, one, you have to know how fast. And if you say, "Well, let's go 50%." If you come in at 40%, which is pretty good, what do you do with that 10%. We've never had a lay off at Ultimate Software, even back in 2000 when, again, the dot-coms blew up. We never stopped paying benefits for 100% of our associates and their families. What do you do when you have that growth rate but you don't get there? And I think, more importantly, we do believe companies should make money. We generate cash. We don't believe in acquisitions, so it's a balance. It's just not for us. And I think, again, if you look at consistent performance, generating cash, minimizing risk, maintaining a passionate team, culture, that's what drives us.

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

No. I mean, I want to say that you brought up the 2 key points, though, is that not every -- no one of those compares that I'm talking about, they're not going after the 16 -- the market is very big and it's a replaceable [ph] market. So it affords the more consistent growth. But we have seen, or at least in the last 1.5 years, a lot more awareness around SaaS table. Can you talk about how that's changed your business, how that changed kind of what you're seeing from maybe the size of enterprise that is coming to you or the inbound lead flow that you're seeing? Can you talk about that dynamic at all?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Sure. Well, I think it's fair to say, in 2002, nobody knew what SaaS was. Of course, we didn't know it, because we called it inter-sourcing. So we were wrong there. Even through probably 2008, 2009, SaaS was -- we're still a first mover. And most companies are still trying to explain to people what SaaS is. But I think now, it's fair to say we're on the other side. When you talk to most CIOs, the preferred delivery mechanism is SaaS. They can't get the quality of what they're looking for. They'll go to on-premise. So I think that's created a little bit of a pull environment. I think, for us, it's a help because we've been doing it for a long time. So we can point to 2,500 customers that we've been in the SaaS business with for 10 years and keeping them satisfied. I think it's more a bigger pull around SaaS. There's a lot of talk about human capital in SaaS. But when you look at payroll, which is the really hard part to do and what we think is the anchor in the business, it's what we do well. The idea of SaaS has helped create more awareness. We're getting into more deals. We have won some very large deals. We announced it, I think, on our last call, Outback went live, 85,000 employees. We don't go out looking for the big deals, but it shows that, as we have always said, we can handle scale. We can get them live. We can keep them happy, and that helps to keep drawing in more opportunities. So our pipeline continues to get stronger. The average size of deals continue to increase. Back in 2006, we only had one sales team. The average customer size was 1,800 employees. We developed work place, which was our lower-end sales force. Now our average-sized customer is over 3,000 employees that we're selling. More people are getting to know our name. Marketing team does a great job and being #9 is not bad.

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

Yes. Well, on the -- if you look at the payroll market, I guess, service bureaus make up the big chunk of it. And you've seen a couple of those service bureaus talk about how they're going to do SaaS just as well. Can you maybe talk about maybe the differences between what you guys do, and not anyone individually in the name, but just generally how a SaaS offering is really differentiated from what a service bureau potentially may call SaaS?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Well, I differentiate in my mind what's the difference between SaaS and service bureau. I don't think I'm qualified to tell you what either the primary service bureaus are calling their own SaaS products or what they do. But I think when you think about it conceptually in a SaaS environment, you're serving as the company's IT function. You're making the application available to the customer 24 by 7. You're giving them complete use of that software to do as much or as little work they have control over it as much as they want. They can use strong business intelligence tools to slice and dice the information. They're able to have the system upgrade and more functionality pushed out without having to have an IT department scheduling upgrades or having a database administrator or backups to make sure that they're -- they don't have to worry about that. They don't enjoy -- they would enjoy by using us the benefits of scale in terms of cost of the equipment and supporting and licenses. So I think it's -- I think SaaS, a lot of it, is about rapid delivery, the quality of the product everyone on the same version, control and being charged -- in our case, we charge per employee per month. So you pay a fair price per employee per month, use it as much as you want, and we deliver all the functionality. In a service bureau model, there's some aspects where you're entering data but then you get to a point where you lose control, if you will. The payroll person has to send the file over to the service bureau, who then creates the payroll and sends back the information. That's when you get to see, did you make any mistakes? If you did, you have to fix them. They print the checks. They send them to you. In terms of self-service, in the -- in our SaaS world, all your information, roll [ph] base, is available on the web. Go paperless. I think when you look at some of the service bureaus, there's limitations in what you can do in self-service. You might be able to look at your pay stub, but could you go back 5 years and see your W-2? Could you see your current pay if you're doing a mortgage application? Could you go in and decide that you want to take a part of your paycheck and send it to your son who's going to college, so that you don't have to write him a check? Do you -- or do you have to call HR to have that done? I think those are all -- those are differences. That, that...

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

That covers it, okay. Switching gears, you mentioned ATM vendors, right? And in terms of, I guess, how you introduced Ultimate. But then the payroll is a key component. The last earnings call, you announced fairly -- very good attach rate and some enterprise talent management offerings like recruiting. Can you talk about where you are in terms of the penetration of some of those solutions, how much that can increase your opportunity outside of the scope of payroll?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

So it's funny I -- while I don't like to be -- to have us thought about as a payroll company. The reality is payroll is the hard thing to do, which becomes the anchor for whatever you're going to do in human capital management. So we sell a core unified HR payroll product, around that product. So anybody buys us, they're not buying just payroll. So I appreciate the opportunity to clear that up. But they're getting HR and all the functionalities. And then around it, we have modules. We have a recruitment module, an on-boarding module, performance management, succession management, salary planning, compensation, time and labor and then global HR tracking. What happens with our customers is once we're able to address the pain that the prospect is having and why they're considering leaving their current provider -- let's say one of the top reasons is poor business intelligence tools. So we get them. We explain to them here's what we do, here's how we use the IBM Cognos' business intelligence tools that we embed. Talk to some of our other customers, they love that. They love what our customers are doing, then we show them the entire product suite. What we can do -- and it ends up that those customers do prefer to buy a suite of product. So we have, in Workplace, I may get these percentages just a little bit off from the transcript but recruitment, the attach rate was 80% last year. Performance Management and Workplace was 70%. This is percentage of new customers that are taking the application. On-boarding, I'm going to guess, probably around 80%. Hopefully, you have that there. You can help me. Time and labor, I think, was 83% or 81%. So we have very high attach rates. In Enterprise, which are our larger customers, the attach rates are just a little bit lower. Recruitment, performance, probably around the 60% range. Time and labor is around 50%, which seems low but most large companies probably have a solution they've been using. It could Kronos, for those of you who remember. So they're not as likely to have to change, wherein the smaller environment, they are -- they have to change. So when we think of our business, we think about the vast majority of our growth does come from selling new customers, because they have high attach rates. Let's say, if you took our 25% recurring revenue growth target, about 20% of that is going to come from new customers with those attach rates. Will they go up a little? Hope so. Probably not a lot more to go. Will we increase what we can realize in price per employee? We should as we add more functionalities, we add more modules. We did a press release on global HR and some of the functionality improvements we've done there. So I think that happens. And then, say, 2% to 4% of our recurring revenue growth rate comes from selling back to our existing customers. Right now, the primary thing we're trying to do is move all our customers off on-premise and onto SaaS. We have about 240 left, representing about 5% of our annual recurring revenue. And then they sell that. They sell additional products, tax filing and so on.

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

Yes. I mean, you highlighted on the call, actually, an install base sale. When you have that transition, then there was an upsell of account management solutions. Recruiting, I think, it was. How often does that happen? And why not have a team more aggressively go after the install base and sell some of these [indiscernible]?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Well, we do. I mean, just to clarify, we do have a team. We have 70 quota carriers today. Of them, 7 are client-based salespeople in Enterprise. Their annual bookings probably are somewhere around 8% of our total bookings. So there is focus there. That team has exceeded quota both of the last 2 years. So it's a balance.

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

Yes. On capacity, one of the things that you've said is you're planning to -- I think you exit -- entered last year at 60%, you're at 70% now, plan to go to 80%. Where are you adding capacity? And what kind of drove the decision to say, "Hey, we need to add more people."? [indiscernible].

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Yes. So we started 2012 with 62 quota carriers. We should end 2013 with 80 or 82. We're adding an Enterprise sales team, principally in the West Coast over the course of the last couple of years. One of our sales persons, she was phenomenal and had manager capability. So we decided to kind of split up the West, so that John Van Wyckhouse didn't have to run the West from Houston. And she built a team. She's already hired several really good salespeople at our sales club this past weekend. Several of them already, they made club. They came in, they sold deals. So Enterprise will grow a little bit up in Canada. We've had one person who's been selling all of Canada. What a great deal that is, huh? We're going to split that up. We'll may probably promote him and add 3 salespeople there. And then in Workplace, Workplace is always a plan that we would start going around the country again adding more salespeople. Today, a Workplace salesperson has about 1,000 targets each. In order to make quota, which enables us to drive our recurring revenue growth objectives, they need to sell 12 deals a year. So it's not -- it's nothing that's surprising them, but we're going to add more Workplace salespeople. And then at some point, we'll add the sales team -- a Workplace sales team into Canada.

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

Okay. Switching years a little bit, recurring revenue in the last couple of quarters came a little bit light of your expectations. You lowered guidance for next year by a point in terms of growth. What changed? What -- why the -– the slight shorter for us [ph]...

Mitchell K. Dauerman

It's the first time I got this question. I can't believe it. So let me take the opportunity to state the things that you should focus on. 20% of the growth rate comes from new sales. 2% to 4% comes from selling to the existing customers. All the rest of the assumptions that go into the model, whether it's attrition, seasonality, employment behavior, they account for 1%, 2%. They're not the driver of the business of where we're going. The other thing I'd say, we're 97% visible into our recurring revenue guidance. Now what happened? In the beginning of the year, our recurring revenue ran a little bit higher than we expected. In the third quarter, we ran about $300,000 under, but our customers were still going live. The product was going live as expected. At the time, we gave preliminary guidance, we didn't know what was going to happen in the fourth quarter. So we modeled for 2013 the same way we did for 2012, which was an assumed amount of revenue that would come from growth in employees. We also assumed we'd have certain seasonal behaviors like we've had in the past. We do a lot of hospitality, a lot of retail. When we got to the end of the year, candidly, we were $1.8 million off our recurring revenue forecast against planned for the second half of the year. Now for the full year, we were fine. Because we're ahead a little bit. We went through when we analyzed, did the clients go live as expected? The answer was yes. Did we lose any customers we didn't expect to lose? The answer was no. So therefore, it had to have been the impact of what happened with employment and how it turned into revenue or seasonality. We used the same business plan internally as we talk to Wall Street about. There is no difference. So from building a plan that everybody in the company was going to strive to achieve, I thought the prudent thing to do was to adjust our assumptions. Try to learn from those things, even though they are noise. They're not material to what we do. And the result was 1%. I can take you through how we really built the model from the beginning, maybe I'll do that at the...

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

No, we can do that later. But I do want to open up to questions in the room. I have several.

Unknown Analyst

[indiscernible]

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Sales force growth? So we started this year with -- 2012 with 62 sales people quota carriers. We're at right about 70 now. And I think about half and half between Enterprise and Workplace, and we expect to end the year somewhere around 80 or 82.

Unknown Analyst

[indiscernible] is that the part of making it a 25% [indiscernible]? Is that based on [indiscernible]?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Right, right. And that goes to the point that we're 97% visible into this year because of what was sold in the past. And now we're seeding the feature. But yes, that's correct.

Unknown Analyst

[indiscernible] the growth rate is coming from sort of the [indiscernible]

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Well, I guess, if I said that 20% of the growth rate is new customers, and of a new customer's fee, maybe 1/3 of it comes from the additional modules. You could probably back in to the percentage. Does that help?

Unknown Analyst

I apologize. I don't know very much about the company but of those 200-plus [indiscernible], what kind of market share [indiscernible]? Where is the [indiscernible]? How do you [indiscernible]?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Okay, okay. So if you didn't hear the question it's about, I think, the competitive landscape and the market opportunity. In the U.S., there are roughly 57,000 companies that are above 200 employees. I think it's about 10,000 above 1,000 and 47,000 below. So that breaks out our Enterprise and our Workplace sales force. We have, on a company count basis, about 11% of the Enterprise market and 3% of the Workplace market and aggregate 5%. If you were to monetize that based on what we sold and at the - what we could sell them based on our modules, we have about 3% of the monetized market. As we try to grow 25% year-over-year, we have to add about 300 to 400, maybe 500 customers as we go further on a year. That will translate into probably a little bit less than 1% additional penetration per year. Our goals are $400 million in revenue for this year, 2013; $600 million in 2015; and $1 billion in 2018. So we believe there's enough opportunity to do that. Now from the competitive landscape, 2/3 of -- 2/3, 3/4 of our business comes from service bureaus. They really have not changed that much. The rest will come from people who are in house. Did I answer the whole question?

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

I think, yes, [indiscernible] addressed it. Competition. You get the Workday question probably all the time. And there's a lot more way in this around SaaS, HCM. They have a payroll offering. Can you just level set everybody, how often do you actually compete head to head against Workday? And what deal -- should you be in that deal or should you not be in that deal?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Right. Again, just put the focus that most of our business comes from the service bureaus. So let's not lose sight of the fact of that. I think, if Workday and Ultimate Software compete 10%, 13% of the time in the Enterprise market, so we're going to see each other. And if you think about Workday as kind of following the PeopleSoft model, they started in human capital management. So we're going to see them there. But I think if you look down the road, where we all -- where each of us is going, Workday in their -- they're going upmarket. They're going ERP. They're going international. 50% of their R&D budget is on financials. In order to attain the growth rates they're looking for and -- that's where they have to go. They have to go big. So if somebody is looking multinational, global company, that's not Ultimate's company. But on the other hand, if you're somebody who is, and this goes back to, I guess, where our roots are, our payroll. If you're looking for a robust payroll, you have compliance matters that are important to you, then that's where we're going to win. And that's why we won Outback, which is 85,000 employees. So you could say, if we're both there, one of us is in the wrong room. That's probably the case. I think the great thing about Workday is they're really increasing awareness about SaaS. They're getting people, perhaps in the service bureaus to think about maybe there's something else out there. So if our marketing hasn't reached them, those companies are going to -- they're not just going to go right to Workday without looking for who else is in SaaS, and we're the only 2.

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

I mean, have you seen that in RFPs?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Yes. Well, we see -- look, with -- it's hard to discern who caused what. We have the largest sales force, more people know us. The more customers we sell, the more marketing we do. The pipelines get bigger. The average size of the customers get bigger. There's a mix of some large ones, some larger ones. I think it just comes with time. But again, I think, when we look down the road about few years from now, Workday will be probably similar to PeopleSoft was to us. So it's always about 5% to 7% of our competitive landscape. But again, we don't compete with SAP. We don't compete with Oracle, and I think that's where they're going.

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

Yes. What's the scope of what you guys want to do globally? I know in the upcoming platform release, you're investing a lot double-byte capabilities. You're doing more on the global front. What's the limit or how broad globally do you need to have?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Well, I think on a -- so our focus, because of the penetration rate and the opportunity we have here in the U.S. and Canada, is to continue to do payroll only in those jurisdictions for the near term. But I would say some of the limitation we have is, in our global HR tracking, we don't have double-byte languages. If you read the recent press release, we're adding localizations. So we started to add more countries and more languages and localizations around the world, looking at where our clients are. That will allow us and allow our clients to track all of their information from all of their subsidiaries, divisions, wherever they are, and do it in their local languages. Today, if you're in China, you going to have put in English, French or Spanish. That's not what companies want to do. So I think as we enhance that, we'll enhance that global capability of Ultimate Software. And I think then, people -- they'll look at us as strategic global HR provider.

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

I want to open it up to others. I got a few more.

Unknown Analyst

[indiscernible]

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Well, when we started SaaS in 2002, the most we could sell was $5 per employee per month. Today, we're at about $26 per employee per month. Our goal would be to get close to $30 in the next couple of years. I'm not 100% sure where it's going to come from. Development knows that. Don't really want to get into specific prices that we're realizing from our customers for competitive reasons. But you can walk through -- if you think through the attach rates we've had on these additional modules, that will give you a sense of where we are relative to those price targets. I do know when we add product, right, obviously, we've increased the realized per employee per month from a sale. But of course, that's going to come because we apply attach rates when we add a new product.

Unknown Analyst

[indiscernible] The second question is, do you know [indiscernible] your attach rates [indiscernible]?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

That's a good question. So as far as learning management, we have a very thin learning management, but we don't market it. Is it an area that we go to where you could add $1 per employee? Yes. I have no idea if it's something we're going to do or not. Is it an impediment to sales? Absolutely not, so the -- or I should say, the lack of it, is it an impediment? No. Second question.

Unknown Analyst

Was [indiscernible]?

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Oh, within the bad times. Well, probably most of us can remember bad times being 2008, 2009, right? Maybe 2010 or maybe they're still bad, but they're really bad at the end of '08. Our recurring revenue grew 22% in '08, 24.5% in '09 and 28.7% in '10, driven by new sales because we helped customers solve their problems. The macro did -- doesn't drive somebody's decision to make a change from a service bureau. If they're having problems with functionality, lack of unified product, poor business intelligence or poor customer support, which are the top reasons why people change. So I would tell you that our attach rates did not fall off during that time. And again, I think, once somebody realizes they have a problem they need to solve and that we can solve it, they do favor the suite approach. Of course, you're going to get some people who might be looking for best of breed. But not in the case. The flip side is, well, what happens if people do decide hard economic times mean they have to cut something? If they cut one of our products, you're talking about $1 per employee per month, we don't lose them as a customer. So that's why having core HR payroll is so important to the relationship, and it makes it sticky. You have to do payroll. So if we do our jobs right, if we keep the customer happy, if we lose the Performance Management, we lose a recruitment -- a succession [indiscernible]. So we don't want to lose anything, but we don't lose the customer.

Gregory Dunham - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

I think we'll close there, unless there's any last-minute questions? Mitch, thanks so much.

Mitchell K. Dauerman

Thank you, Greg. Thanks for having me. Thank you, everyone.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: The Ultimate Software Group, Inc. Presents at Goldman Sachs Technology & Internet Conference 2013, Feb-12-2013 03:20 PM
This Transcript
All Transcripts