Re: Chuzzlewit's Questions
Chuzzlewit,
Well I got your answers. Here they are:
1. Your figure of $3 MM is correct, but it's not exactly product returns. It was write off of work-in-process. You see MetaFrame version 1.8 was released in Q2. So they wrote off the previous version they had in process. If it's higher than one would expect, for tax purposes, that would be the goal. Right?
2. The $1.497 MM. This one was easy. They took some losses on their investment portfolio. You know better than I why they didn't transfer this over to the income side right away, but I'm sure there is a reason.
Speaking of investment portfolio, they have a substantial one because they have not done any stock buybacks. Remember the $300,000,000 they raised in March. Well remember none of us could figure out what it was going to be used for, then suddenly CTXS announced the $200,000,000 share buyback. It didn't happen. Nothing more was said other than that. BTW, for new investors to the market, this means nothing. Happens all the time.
I did find out more info about the 3% detail. Appears I was not the only one very confused about how they announced Q2's figures. The 3% on gross MetaFrame sale is accurate and it was sequential. But what is hard to decipher, is what it really means.
Basically(now some of this is my speculation), with the release of their new core product, not everyone rushes out and buys the full blown package. They just buy the basic version and do add on additional seats as needed. So I'm guessing that as soon as companies get the server product loaded and working, then options are soon to follow.
Options are substantial because if you take out all the breakdown garbage, "MetaFrame," did a 20% sequential quarterly growth!
The bottom line is, I believe, they understand they confused the heck out of everyone with their many, many, many, convoluted revenue breakdowns and will do a better job of conveying what is happening in Q3's CC. Doesn't appear to be any real concern. Just poor communicating.
Always appreciate your analysis of the numbers.
MikeM(From Florida)
PS Oh the source of my calculations was the tedious CC details. Let's hope Q3 communication is better. |
