ServiceNow is down more than 50% in the SaaS selloff, so instead of building a forecast and arguing for a price target, I ran a reverse DCF. I took today’s $107 share price and solved for the FCFF growth rate the market is actually implying.
I started with FY2025 free cash flow and adjusted it for stock-based compensation, since I treat SBC as a real cost rather than a non-cash add-back. From there I used a 9.5% WACC, a 4.35% terminal growth rate (set to the risk-free rate), and a 10-year explicit forecast, then solved for the growth rate that makes the model’s output equal the current price. The answer came out to **11.2% annual FCFF growth for the next decade.**
ServiceNow has grown SBC adj. FCFF at **26.8% over the last five years, 40.6% over ten, and 37.7% over three.** So on every historical time frame, the company has compounded 2-3x faster than what the market is now pricing in.
(I tried importing a sensitivity table here with implied share price based on WACC and implied FCFF growth rate but for some reason I can’t, or don’t know how to.)
Anyway, my two cents: I think the pessimism baked into the price is exaggerated, and while there’s a real threat from AI, I think it’s too early to call. When the market assumes a company will slow its FCFF growth to less than half its historical levels, much of the downside may already be priced in, and that’s kind of the setup I’m happy to own a little of and wait on.
Genuinely curious what everyone thinks, is 11.2% FCFF growth rate too pessimistic or actually fair for the next 10y or so?
Reverse DCF yields 11.2% implied FCFF growth; historical growth is 26-41%, suggesting market is overly pessimistic. If NOW grows FCFF anywhere near its historical rate, the current price offers significant upside; the market has already discounted a severe slowdown. Buy NOW at ~$107, betting that the company can sustain growth above the implied 11.2% over the next decade. AI disrupts ServiceNow’s platform; macro slowdown pressures enterprise spending; SBC dilution is higher than modeled; terminal growth assumption may be too high.