Ciba Gator's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/2817/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/43849-wipro-s-infocrossing-acquisition-could-herald-a-new-age-of-buyouts?source=feed#comment-93264 93264
Anyway, if I understand your story correctly, you are suggesting that WIT will take the infrastructure assets and people they just acquired and redeploy them to do what--applications work?

Based on your story, are you saying that Company X with huge margins and growth rates should buy Company Y that has lower margins and growth because they can redeploy Company Y's assets such that Company Y delivers margins and growth in-line with Company X?? So Microsoft should buy Patni and all of a sudden Patni will become a cash machine because they are going to develop software in the Microsoft model?]]> Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:22:18 -0400
Anyway, if I understand your story correctly, you are suggesting that WIT will take the infrastructure assets and people they just acquired and redeploy them to do what--applications work?

Based on your story, are you saying that Company X with huge margins and growth rates should buy Company Y that has lower margins and growth because they can redeploy Company Y's assets such that Company Y delivers margins and growth in-line with Company X?? So Microsoft should buy Patni and all of a sudden Patni will become a cash machine because they are going to develop software in the Microsoft model?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/43849-wipro-s-infocrossing-acquisition-could-herald-a-new-age-of-buyouts?source=feed#comment-93139 93139
Net income in 2006 was $8 million, you wrote. You didn't provide a free cash flow number, but let's assume that it is in-line with net income (growing companies usually have lower free cash flow than net income since they have to spend more to grow, but let's take the optimistic view here). If so, then a 20% annual return would yield:
9.6+11.5+13.8+16.6=$51... million of cumulative cash in the next four years, not $400 million.

If you are just multiplying 20% each year times the book value of the company, that makes no sense. A 20% "ROI" implies that Infocrossing will earn roughly $25 million in 2007 (20% of $127 million "net worth"). Take a look at the income statement or analyst estimates -- is IFOX going to earn $25 million this year (triple the 2006 level!!!)? Or next?

By the way, perhaps the companies you look at have 20% ROI, but most companies earn only a slight premium to their cost of capital, which is often much lower than 20%.]]> Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:48:59 -0400
Net income in 2006 was $8 million, you wrote. You didn't provide a free cash flow number, but let's assume that it is in-line with net income (growing companies usually have lower free cash flow than net income since they have to spend more to grow, but let's take the optimistic view here). If so, then a 20% annual return would yield:
9.6+11.5+13.8+16.6=$51... million of cumulative cash in the next four years, not $400 million.

If you are just multiplying 20% each year times the book value of the company, that makes no sense. A 20% "ROI" implies that Infocrossing will earn roughly $25 million in 2007 (20% of $127 million "net worth"). Take a look at the income statement or analyst estimates -- is IFOX going to earn $25 million this year (triple the 2006 level!!!)? Or next?

By the way, perhaps the companies you look at have 20% ROI, but most companies earn only a slight premium to their cost of capital, which is often much lower than 20%.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/43283-cognizant-s-growth-begins-to-tail-off?source=feed#comment-92663 92663
Uh, what exactly is wrong with CTSH growing faster than expected while keeping their costs in check? Sounds like a REALLY GOOD thing to me.

Your EPS analysis is predicated on growth equaling headcount growth, but the utilization increases are allowing CTSH to grow faster than headcount growth. Therefore, your EPS estimates (assuming only 15k headcount/year) understates the true leverage.

What else makes you think that headcount growth will flatten out (except for "evidence" that it will be flat this year)?]]> Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:40:16 -0400
Uh, what exactly is wrong with CTSH growing faster than expected while keeping their costs in check? Sounds like a REALLY GOOD thing to me.

Your EPS analysis is predicated on growth equaling headcount growth, but the utilization increases are allowing CTSH to grow faster than headcount growth. Therefore, your EPS estimates (assuming only 15k headcount/year) understates the true leverage.

What else makes you think that headcount growth will flatten out (except for "evidence" that it will be flat this year)?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/40763-infosys-weak-outlook-appreciating-rupee-rising-wages-to-blame?source=feed#comment-90970 90970
I think your analysis is short-sighted, focusing on a handful of current data points without looking at the whole picture. Any industry or business has a collection of challenges, but there may be ways to offset those risks. Anyway, where else will you find this growth, margin, and multiple combination in the markets?

By the way, Infosys reported 13.7% attrition. Accenture, a high quality global company, recently reported 18% attrition. Hard to say that Infosys has employee retention issues--if anything they have an advantage in this area.]]> Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:16:04 -0400
I think your analysis is short-sighted, focusing on a handful of current data points without looking at the whole picture. Any industry or business has a collection of challenges, but there may be ways to offset those risks. Anyway, where else will you find this growth, margin, and multiple combination in the markets?

By the way, Infosys reported 13.7% attrition. Accenture, a high quality global company, recently reported 18% attrition. Hard to say that Infosys has employee retention issues--if anything they have an advantage in this area.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/40763-infosys-weak-outlook-appreciating-rupee-rising-wages-to-blame?source=feed#comment-90946 90946
Also care to quantify the employee retention problem with some numbers? Say, compare INFY's employee attrition rate with other industry players such as Accenture or BearingPoint or IBM Global Services?

The headlines say that wage hikes and retention are bad, but looking beyond the headlines at the actual numbers might produce some different conclusions....]]> Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:42:59 -0400
Also care to quantify the employee retention problem with some numbers? Say, compare INFY's employee attrition rate with other industry players such as Accenture or BearingPoint or IBM Global Services?

The headlines say that wage hikes and retention are bad, but looking beyond the headlines at the actual numbers might produce some different conclusions....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/39381-the-truth-behind-accentures-high-return-on-equity?source=feed#comment-89864 89864
"Debt" hasn't really increased at all--liabilities have increased (as have assets).]]> Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:00:41 -0400
"Debt" hasn't really increased at all--liabilities have increased (as have assets).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/39381-the-truth-behind-accentures-high-return-on-equity?source=feed#comment-89863 89863 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:41:16 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/39381-the-truth-behind-accentures-high-return-on-equity?source=feed#comment-89704 89704
From an investor's point of view, Accenture has returned $100 million of capital to them. They can then reinvest that elsewhere. If the investor can get 15% returns on an alternate investment, then they are better off. Second, Accenture cannot (would not) invest in marketable securities that return 10% -- they must invest in high quality (safe principal) instruments. Accenture is not an investment company and has no business trying to obtain high yields from marketable securities.

Bottom line: Investors are very sensitive to ROE because they want companies to produce high returns on the equity that has been entrusted to them. By returning capital to shareholders via buyback and still earning the same net income (as you state above), Accenture will earn a higher ROE, which (and this is the Important Conclusion) will be VIEWED AS MORE VALUABLE BY INVESTORS than if the company earned income on marketable securities.]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:10:57 -0400
From an investor's point of view, Accenture has returned $100 million of capital to them. They can then reinvest that elsewhere. If the investor can get 15% returns on an alternate investment, then they are better off. Second, Accenture cannot (would not) invest in marketable securities that return 10% -- they must invest in high quality (safe principal) instruments. Accenture is not an investment company and has no business trying to obtain high yields from marketable securities.

Bottom line: Investors are very sensitive to ROE because they want companies to produce high returns on the equity that has been entrusted to them. By returning capital to shareholders via buyback and still earning the same net income (as you state above), Accenture will earn a higher ROE, which (and this is the Important Conclusion) will be VIEWED AS MORE VALUABLE BY INVESTORS than if the company earned income on marketable securities.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/39381-the-truth-behind-accentures-high-return-on-equity?source=feed#comment-89694 89694
I have no idea why you are suggesting that investors look at the lower ROE figure when comparing Accenture's ROE to other companies. Are you saying that the share buybacks are irrelevant or unusual in nature?]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:54:41 -0400
I have no idea why you are suggesting that investors look at the lower ROE figure when comparing Accenture's ROE to other companies. Are you saying that the share buybacks are irrelevant or unusual in nature?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/39381-the-truth-behind-accentures-high-return-on-equity?source=feed#comment-89686 89686
You already grossed up the denominator -- that was the $725 million you calculated and added back to book value. So you need to add the approx $25 million to the numerator to complete your analysis.

That boosts ROE by 1%.

You never answered the question--is your conclusion from your analysis that Accenture's ROE would be lower if they didn't buy back stock?]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:16:17 -0400
You already grossed up the denominator -- that was the $725 million you calculated and added back to book value. So you need to add the approx $25 million to the numerator to complete your analysis.

That boosts ROE by 1%.

You never answered the question--is your conclusion from your analysis that Accenture's ROE would be lower if they didn't buy back stock?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/39384-which-it-outsourcing-company-gives-maximum-return-on-covered-calls?source=feed#comment-89685 89685 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:07:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/39384-which-it-outsourcing-company-gives-maximum-return-on-covered-calls?source=feed#comment-89679 89679
Dan, dude, what the heck are you talking about?!?! You can't ignore time value of money "assuming" that one will hold a stock for the next six months and that capital losses in that time will be erased!!!! The central idea with options is that there IS a time value to ownership and capital. Jeez, man, quit it with the inane ramblings, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Of course Satyam looks great in your "analysis". You used a high strike price and ignored all the other variables!! Here's another look at your "analysis"--

Stock price on June-25 $24.50
Call premium for $25 for Jan-08 = $2.60
If one buys 200 shares one would invest $4,900
Max return is ($2.60 * 200) + (($25 - $24.50) * 200) = $620 = 12.7%
Min return is $2.60*200 = $520 = 10.6%

THE ACTUAL MIN RETURN IS:
-4,900 + ($2.60 * 200) = -$4,380 IF THE STOCK GOES TO $0.00

Dan, you can't IGNORE the value of the underlying stock. You can't ignore time value of money--of course if you pick a $30 strike price you will make "more money" at the "max". If you had run the analysis with a strike price of $50, you would have calculated an even greater "max" return.

This is beyond sloppy, it's just ignorant. Please try to understand what you are saying befor you say it.]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:41:56 -0400
Dan, dude, what the heck are you talking about?!?! You can't ignore time value of money "assuming" that one will hold a stock for the next six months and that capital losses in that time will be erased!!!! The central idea with options is that there IS a time value to ownership and capital. Jeez, man, quit it with the inane ramblings, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Of course Satyam looks great in your "analysis". You used a high strike price and ignored all the other variables!! Here's another look at your "analysis"--

Stock price on June-25 $24.50
Call premium for $25 for Jan-08 = $2.60
If one buys 200 shares one would invest $4,900
Max return is ($2.60 * 200) + (($25 - $24.50) * 200) = $620 = 12.7%
Min return is $2.60*200 = $520 = 10.6%

THE ACTUAL MIN RETURN IS:
-4,900 + ($2.60 * 200) = -$4,380 IF THE STOCK GOES TO $0.00

Dan, you can't IGNORE the value of the underlying stock. You can't ignore time value of money--of course if you pick a $30 strike price you will make "more money" at the "max". If you had run the analysis with a strike price of $50, you would have calculated an even greater "max" return.

This is beyond sloppy, it's just ignorant. Please try to understand what you are saying befor you say it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/39384-which-it-outsourcing-company-gives-maximum-return-on-covered-calls?source=feed#comment-89678 89678
Of course Satyam looks great in your "analysis". You used a high strike price and ignored all the other variables!! Here's another look at your "analysis"--

Stock price on June-25 $24.50
Call premium for $25 for Jan-08 = $2.60 ]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:34:28 -0400
Of course Satyam looks great in your "analysis". You used a high strike price and ignored all the other variables!! Here's another look at your "analysis"--

Stock price on June-25 $24.50
Call premium for $25 for Jan-08 = $2.60 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/39381-the-truth-behind-accentures-high-return-on-equity?source=feed#comment-89676 89676 In the interests of my sanity I will not harp on about how you have mangled the share count/class structure of ACN's shares. I will just say that when calculating your ROE figure, you have to reduce equity by the value of the minority interest equity value when using the lower share count. That aside....

If I understand the conclusion of your analysis correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), you are saying that if Accenture had not bought back any shares since 2004 (thereby increasing treasury shares and reducing equity), then their ROE would be lower. Is that right? Two thoughts:

1) You neglected to add back interest income on the substantial amount of cash used to buy back shares. If you are making the assumption that treasury shares should remain at 6 million, then you have to assume that the cash used to buy those 30 million net shares would be throwing off substantial interest income, which would boost ROE.

2) OF COURSE if the company lets cash sit in a bank account its ROE will be lower than if it gives that cash back to shareholders. Classic capital allocation decision--maximize returns on capital. If they could take that cash and invest it in business operations or investments that would be accretive to ROE, then they would not buy back shares. But since the company does not need cash to run its operations, they give it back to shareholders.

A little too much analysis to come to a very basic answer.]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:05:47 -0400 In the interests of my sanity I will not harp on about how you have mangled the share count/class structure of ACN's shares. I will just say that when calculating your ROE figure, you have to reduce equity by the value of the minority interest equity value when using the lower share count. That aside....

If I understand the conclusion of your analysis correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), you are saying that if Accenture had not bought back any shares since 2004 (thereby increasing treasury shares and reducing equity), then their ROE would be lower. Is that right? Two thoughts:

1) You neglected to add back interest income on the substantial amount of cash used to buy back shares. If you are making the assumption that treasury shares should remain at 6 million, then you have to assume that the cash used to buy those 30 million net shares would be throwing off substantial interest income, which would boost ROE.

2) OF COURSE if the company lets cash sit in a bank account its ROE will be lower than if it gives that cash back to shareholders. Classic capital allocation decision--maximize returns on capital. If they could take that cash and invest it in business operations or investments that would be accretive to ROE, then they would not buy back shares. But since the company does not need cash to run its operations, they give it back to shareholders.

A little too much analysis to come to a very basic answer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-89232 89232
Garbage In Garbage Out. I'm disappointed.]]> Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:14:03 -0400
Garbage In Garbage Out. I'm disappointed.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/13175-increasing-taxes-should-keep-indias-it-biggies-at-bay-infy-wit?source=feed#comment-89231 89231
No argument here. Your original article quoted an analyst who suggested that the tax rates would shoot up, but did not cite the timeframe. Since later in the article his growth commentary is based on quarter-to-quarter growth (I assume this--once again it is not mentioned in the article), one might believe that the tax rate is going to jump up this quarter as well.

As you rightfully point out, the tax rates do not change until fiscal 2010.

Yes I believe in FACTS and I do my homework. I simply found your original post to be misleading and I posted a question to obtain a public clarification. Well done!]]> Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:10:22 -0400
No argument here. Your original article quoted an analyst who suggested that the tax rates would shoot up, but did not cite the timeframe. Since later in the article his growth commentary is based on quarter-to-quarter growth (I assume this--once again it is not mentioned in the article), one might believe that the tax rate is going to jump up this quarter as well.

As you rightfully point out, the tax rates do not change until fiscal 2010.

Yes I believe in FACTS and I do my homework. I simply found your original post to be misleading and I posted a question to obtain a public clarification. Well done!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-89228 89228 I cannot speak for Accenture IR. Unfortunately there are many, many data services out there (Thomson, Reuters, Yahoo, Google, Excite, AOL, CapitalIQ, Bloomberg, First Call, The Markets.com, etc.) and on any number of companies there will be material errors in their databases, especially since those databases are increasingly being populated automatically or by (otherwise intelligent) people who are not experts in the subject matter. If I look at 100 companies, I will probably be able to find 100 errors, some perhaps minor, in their data on the various data services. I can't speak for Accenture's IR, but I suspect that they don't have the time or desire to hunt down and correct every error. But perhaps they would care. Perhaps in the course of your conversation with them, when they are helping you understand their share count, you can point Yahoo's error out.

By the way, Yahoo Finance is free. You get what you pay for.]]> Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:03:46 -0400 I cannot speak for Accenture IR. Unfortunately there are many, many data services out there (Thomson, Reuters, Yahoo, Google, Excite, AOL, CapitalIQ, Bloomberg, First Call, The Markets.com, etc.) and on any number of companies there will be material errors in their databases, especially since those databases are increasingly being populated automatically or by (otherwise intelligent) people who are not experts in the subject matter. If I look at 100 companies, I will probably be able to find 100 errors, some perhaps minor, in their data on the various data services. I can't speak for Accenture's IR, but I suspect that they don't have the time or desire to hunt down and correct every error. But perhaps they would care. Perhaps in the course of your conversation with them, when they are helping you understand their share count, you can point Yahoo's error out.

By the way, Yahoo Finance is free. You get what you pay for.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-89218 89218 Total Shares Outstanding: 778.2
Diluted Shares Outstanding: 867.3

Mike, I am in AGREEMENT with you that Accenture's market cap is greater than Infosys, contrary to this article. That was my original argument, which the original writer has been vehemently denying. I'm also saying that your calculation is incorrect and that the correct Market Cap is closer to $36 billion based on 867 million shares.

Like I said, you did NOT check your numbers with Accenture investor relations as you claimed. Here's the number: 917-452-5106.

No Fiction, just the FACTS.]]> Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:22:35 -0400 Total Shares Outstanding: 778.2
Diluted Shares Outstanding: 867.3

Mike, I am in AGREEMENT with you that Accenture's market cap is greater than Infosys, contrary to this article. That was my original argument, which the original writer has been vehemently denying. I'm also saying that your calculation is incorrect and that the correct Market Cap is closer to $36 billion based on 867 million shares.

Like I said, you did NOT check your numbers with Accenture investor relations as you claimed. Here's the number: 917-452-5106.

No Fiction, just the FACTS.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-89213 89213 Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:56:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-89209 89209
The 778 million is the sum of Class A and Class X, but Class X shares, despite being listed on the cover of the filings for regulatory purposes, do not count as tradable shares. They do not have voting rights or economic rights. Only the SCA Class-1 shares are convertable 1-for-1 in to Class A shares, which are the ones that freely trade. The SCA shares have full voting and economic rights.

Here's a clue for you all. Look at the income statement. At the bottom there is a line called Income before Minority Interest. That is how much money the company is making. The "Minority interest" that is then subtracted to arrive at net income represents earnings attributable to the 263 million shares that are represented by SCA and Accenture Canada shares. This minority interest is what has you guys confused. It is nothing but the collection of thousands of Accenture investors (mostly employees/retured employees) who own SCA or Canada shares. They are shareholders like anyone else except that there are certain distribution restrictions on their shares (that lift gradually over time). Accenture cannot control those shares. They can buy them back like any other share if they can convince the owners to sell.

Class X is nothing. It was used as a stub in the past for certain tax issues. Accenture has been aggressively redeeming them for $0.0000225 each to get them off the books (41 million retired in the February quarter alone).]]> Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:07:46 -0400
The 778 million is the sum of Class A and Class X, but Class X shares, despite being listed on the cover of the filings for regulatory purposes, do not count as tradable shares. They do not have voting rights or economic rights. Only the SCA Class-1 shares are convertable 1-for-1 in to Class A shares, which are the ones that freely trade. The SCA shares have full voting and economic rights.

Here's a clue for you all. Look at the income statement. At the bottom there is a line called Income before Minority Interest. That is how much money the company is making. The "Minority interest" that is then subtracted to arrive at net income represents earnings attributable to the 263 million shares that are represented by SCA and Accenture Canada shares. This minority interest is what has you guys confused. It is nothing but the collection of thousands of Accenture investors (mostly employees/retured employees) who own SCA or Canada shares. They are shareholders like anyone else except that there are certain distribution restrictions on their shares (that lift gradually over time). Accenture cannot control those shares. They can buy them back like any other share if they can convince the owners to sell.

Class X is nothing. It was used as a stub in the past for certain tax issues. Accenture has been aggressively redeeming them for $0.0000225 each to get them off the books (41 million retired in the February quarter alone).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-89194 89194 For accounting purposes the SCA Class-1 shares are considered minority interest (even though, as a class, they are not controlled by a single entity). This is what is tripping you up.

Answer this: If a private equity firm wished to acquire 100% of Accenture, how much would they have to pay (ignoring acquisition premium, etc.)? If you beleive that $24 billion is the right number, then you should start assembling a group of investor IMMEDIATELY! This would be the bargain of the century.

Dan, I will stay subscribed to this thread in case you have anything else to say, but until you check your facts by calling investor relations (they are there to help investors and analysts--even the sensible ones) or by speaking to an investment professional who knows Accenture's stock, I cannot keep banging my head against your wall of ignorance. I gave you the number above--they are quite friendly.]]> Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:53:58 -0400 For accounting purposes the SCA Class-1 shares are considered minority interest (even though, as a class, they are not controlled by a single entity). This is what is tripping you up.

Answer this: If a private equity firm wished to acquire 100% of Accenture, how much would they have to pay (ignoring acquisition premium, etc.)? If you beleive that $24 billion is the right number, then you should start assembling a group of investor IMMEDIATELY! This would be the bargain of the century.

Dan, I will stay subscribed to this thread in case you have anything else to say, but until you check your facts by calling investor relations (they are there to help investors and analysts--even the sensible ones) or by speaking to an investment professional who knows Accenture's stock, I cannot keep banging my head against your wall of ignorance. I gave you the number above--they are quite friendly.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-89185 89185
Look, Dan Menashi, you are showing a great deal of ignorance on this subject and I am embarrassed for you. Please do your homework. Call Investor Relations and ask for some help on this subject: 917 452 5106.]]> Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:19:54 -0400
Look, Dan Menashi, you are showing a great deal of ignorance on this subject and I am embarrassed for you. Please do your homework. Call Investor Relations and ask for some help on this subject: 917 452 5106.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-89183 89183
Accenture does not OWN the SCA Class-1 shares. Those are already owned by third parties. They are ALREADY in the share count. Accenture cannot decide tomorrow to make those shares public -- they have no control over them.

I do agree that the share price could go down if all of the SCA shares were to suddenly go on the market tomorrow--that assumes that the owners (not Accenture) would want to sell all their shares tomorrow. But this assumption needs to be made about Infosys' shareholders too, in that case. Infosys management owns over 10% of their shares, Fidelity owns around 2%, etc. Should we be excluding all these shares since they are not "trading"?]]> Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:16:40 -0400
Accenture does not OWN the SCA Class-1 shares. Those are already owned by third parties. They are ALREADY in the share count. Accenture cannot decide tomorrow to make those shares public -- they have no control over them.

I do agree that the share price could go down if all of the SCA shares were to suddenly go on the market tomorrow--that assumes that the owners (not Accenture) would want to sell all their shares tomorrow. But this assumption needs to be made about Infosys' shareholders too, in that case. Infosys management owns over 10% of their shares, Fidelity owns around 2%, etc. Should we be excluding all these shares since they are not "trading"?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-89153 89153 1) The number of shares outstanding are 867 million. This has NOTHING to do with Class X. Please refer to my post above regarding SCA Class I and Accenture Canada shares. These shares have voting rights and share equally in the economics of the company (including participating in dividends).

2) There is no "opinion" required in calculating "Market cap". This is a well defined investing term that is simply the stock price times the total number of diluted shares outstanding. The number of shares publicly traded is referred to as the "float" and it has absolutely no bearing on the quantitative value of a company.]]> Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:53:29 -0400 1) The number of shares outstanding are 867 million. This has NOTHING to do with Class X. Please refer to my post above regarding SCA Class I and Accenture Canada shares. These shares have voting rights and share equally in the economics of the company (including participating in dividends).

2) There is no "opinion" required in calculating "Market cap". This is a well defined investing term that is simply the stock price times the total number of diluted shares outstanding. The number of shares publicly traded is referred to as the "float" and it has absolutely no bearing on the quantitative value of a company.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-89036 89036
Not to nitpick, but if you were really trying to compare the "market cap" for the publicly traded shares only, technically you should have used a much smaller number for Infosys' share count since very few of the shares actually trade as ADS' in the US (for an apples to apples comparison to the Accenture shares that trade in the US).]]> Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:09:04 -0400
Not to nitpick, but if you were really trying to compare the "market cap" for the publicly traded shares only, technically you should have used a much smaller number for Infosys' share count since very few of the shares actually trade as ADS' in the US (for an apples to apples comparison to the Accenture shares that trade in the US).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-88959 88959 Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:00:53 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-88903 88903 There is no substitute for doing the research instead of relying on automated tools populated by untrained employees like Yahoo Finance. Please refer to the latest Accenture SEC filing or earnings press release in which you can see that the actual diluted shares outstanding are 867,330,893. At the current price of around $40 per share, that gives the company a market cap of around $35.7 bn.

newsroom.accenture.com...
Ciba Gator]]> Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:19:00 -0400 There is no substitute for doing the research instead of relying on automated tools populated by untrained employees like Yahoo Finance. Please refer to the latest Accenture SEC filing or earnings press release in which you can see that the actual diluted shares outstanding are 867,330,893. At the current price of around $40 per share, that gives the company a market cap of around $35.7 bn.

newsroom.accenture.com...
Ciba Gator]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38200-why-is-accenture-s-market-cap-less-than-infosys?source=feed#comment-88446 88446 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:16:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/13175-increasing-taxes-should-keep-indias-it-biggies-at-bay-infy-wit?source=feed#comment-52692 52692 Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:43:36 -0400