Seeking Alpha

Bill Maurer

View Bill Maurer's Comments BY TICKER:
  • Cisco's Head Is In The Clouds [View article]
    I didn't criticize Cisco for making this move at all. I just said it won't move the needle in the short term, and that's bad since revenues are declining. My poin is that until revenues start to turn, you have to look at the company only for its capital returns.
    Mar 26 12:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: The Status Quo Has Changed [View article]
    Yes, the 6-month is going to be higher because the Q1 was so much higher this year. But it still came down in Q2, and that is important.

    Cisco's overseas money can be used for other things, like acquisitions.

    And Apple has the most money overseas right now, but yet Google is valued much more on an EV.
    Feb 18 04:01 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: The Status Quo Has Changed [View article]
    They have plenty of money, just not inside the US. You make it sound like they are going bankrupt. Also I noticed you didn't talk about the fact that the diluted share count went down this quarter.
    Feb 18 01:37 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: What Should Investors Do Now? [View article]
    Okay, so let me address some points because you are all over the place.

    1. What does a lot of M&A activity have to do with operating income? When Google acquired Motorola Mobility, its operating income plunged, and it still is to a point because that segment is losing money on an operating income basis.

    2. Sourcefire was profitable in its most recent quarter before the acquisition. You left that point out.

    Additionally, buying a company that is not profitable when you are looking at future benefits - would be like someone buying Twitter right now. You'd have to pay tens of billions for a company losing money, but it is the future you are looking at, not the past.

    3. In terms of the Sourcefire acquisition, what does it have to do with the past four years? I showed you how it accounts for a large portion of the LAST YEAR'S growth. I gave you the M&A page to show how Cisco makes a lot of acquisitions, and if you read the page you'll know why goodwill is soaring. Maybe take a look at the NDS deal as well.

    4. As for the Sourcefire revenues, you can't just necessary connect the two points with a line. First, maybe Cisco's other security revenues are dropping, which is why they made the acquisition. Second, maybe part of those revenues will be classified as a different business line.
    Dec 4 12:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: What Should Investors Do Now? [View article]
    Accounts receivable of $5 billion on $45-$50 billion a year plus in net sales. That's not exactly an issue. Let me know if they get to like $20 billion on that sales number.

    As for goodwill, again, this is a company that makes a lot of acquisitions. Therefore, they are likely to have a lot of goodwill. Sourcefire, NDS, etc. etc. are large acquisitions and most of those "assets" go into goodwill. I showed you above how Sourcefire alone accounted for $1.8 billion of the goodwill increase in the last year.

    Check out the SA market current page for Cisco's M&A activity. There's a lot of acquisitions.
    Dec 3 05:46 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: What Should Investors Do Now? [View article]
    Brad, I think you are nit-picking a bit here.

    First, I guess you missed the Sourcefire acquisition, which alone was $1.8 billion in goodwill. Cisco makes a lot of acquisitions, and therefore, goodwill is going to increase a bit. This is not an issue.

    Second, in regards to receivables. This is a company that does $45 billion plus in sales a year. They have less than $10 billion in receivables. So they were up 21.5% year over year? Apple's accounts receivable were up 20% year over year? Are you going to panic about them too? No way.

    And just because you want to know about something doesn't mean the company has to divulge it. I want to know all sorts of stuff, but doesn't mean a company is going to tell me about it.
    Dec 3 03:32 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: What Should Investors Do Now? [View article]
    I'm leaning more towards not liking INTC than the side of liking CSCO, if you can see a difference there.

    Both names issued bad forecasts, but CSCO's was much much worse. The question for both is do the forecasts go even lower. If so, INTC at a premium is a bit riskier.
    Dec 3 09:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: A 3% Yield Is Not Enough [View article]
    But yet I've given you all the proper links so you can find out, which most contributors wouldn't even do after you accused them of intentionally trying to provide mislead investors, when you yourself were wrong.

    You might also want to consider the fact that during fiscal Q4, Cisco announced a fairly sizable acquisition of Sourcefire. That includes retention-based benefits, which most likely means they are paying executives in stock.

    Additionally, because Cisco's share price had risen so much this year, it made the likelihood of certain options being exercised, and they probably had to account for some of those as well.

    In the end, looking at one quarter's diluted share count is not wise. Intel usually has a rise in Q2, but then it drops the rest of the year. Cisco's diluted share count has been coming down for multiple years now, and that is improving EPS.

    If you're really concerned, please contact their investor relations.
    Oct 24 12:51 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: A 3% Yield Is Not Enough [View article]
    Yes, it's called timing of payments and options exercise. If you look at the Q1, Q2, and Q3 numbers, they all show year over year decreases.

    It's probably just payments in the fourth quarter that cause the Q4 number to rise.

    Of course, you'll find a red flag with anything, without examining the numbers overall. Perhaps you should read through the 10-K to find out why there was a one-quarter issue.
    Oct 24 12:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: A 3% Yield Is Not Enough [View article]
    For the YEARLY numbers, they are down. I'm not arguing about a one-quarter diluted share count. I'm talking about the fiscal year, so yes, you are wrong.

    Please, read the 10-K.
    Oct 24 11:46 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: A 3% Yield Is Not Enough [View article]
    Please see page 75 of the 10-K filing, linked below. Also, I would appreciate it if you next time could ask a civil question and not accuse me of misleading and providing inaccurate information, especially when you are wrong.

    You'll notice that both the basic and diluted share count go down from FY2011 to FY2012 to FY 2013

    http://1.usa.gov/17eDfx9
    Oct 24 09:29 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: A 3% Yield Is Not Enough [View article]
    It's $0.68 per year, not quarter! If it was at $0.68 per quarter, it would be a screaming buy!
    Oct 23 01:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: A 3% Yield Is Not Enough [View article]
    I was concerned because the markets had been going up, while Cisco had not. We're down again this morning almost 1%, so if we get a slight pullback in the markets $22 may be possible.

    Again, I did say investors could start a position here, but not to go all-in at the moment.

    Also, I believe a lot of the earnings growth in FY13 was due to a large charge or one-time issue in FY12.
    Oct 23 09:55 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: A 3% Yield Is Not Enough [View article]
    Well, they have a $40 billion cash position outside the US. Microsoft used their foreign cash for the Nokia deal, Cisco has also made some deals but they can make more.
    Oct 23 09:14 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cisco: A 3% Yield Is Not Enough [View article]
    Make sure your words are correct. There is "diluted shares" and "outstanding shares". Yes, the outstanding share count was up, but the diluted share count, used to measure EPS was down.

    Cisco has plenty of room to increase the dividend, and most investors would probably prefer a fixed payout rather than management try to buy back stock over a time period.
    Oct 23 09:13 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
More on CSCO by Bill Maurer
COMMENTS STATS
3,975 Comments
2,825 Likes