>>If they lied about that, how do you know that they didn't lie about other stuff?
I don't, which is why I always look at cash flow. It's very heard to fake that. However, it's a fair question. The multiple departures and fear that other, more material shenanigans have occurred is the real reason why it's selling off.
>>I'm also having a bit of trouble believing Sanjay wasn't fully aware of what was going on.
No disagreement here. I'm surprised he's lasted this long.
>>Also, I didn't understand then how they could really be making money, and I still don't. If you've got this one figured out, more power to you.
It's really quite simple. They by software that's relatively mature in its life cycle, repackage it with something else, cut development expenses to the bone (maintenance mode) or even zero (WYSIWYG), discount it and milk the recurring revenue stream for the remainder of its life. That's why it's easy for IT administrators to have a low opinion of them... it's deserved.
But even if you're willing to accept dodgier financials, it just seems to me that companies like SYMC, NET, or INTU would be better choices.
I think CA is in decline, just like their products. But it's a slow death, with little chance of an Enron- or WorldCom-like fakery. I just trade the price swings. |
