Critical Examination Of Salesforce Vs. Cisco Systems

Financial data

Discuss About The Accounting Characteristics Pricing Models?

Financial analysis is a process of measuring viability and profitability of a business or a business project. It includes the analysis of the financial statements of the company, which are prepared at the end of fiscal year. It helps in assessing the liquidity, efficiency, profitability of its business and shows its overall finance structure (Vogel, 2014).This report contains a critical examination of the financial performance and position of Salesforce over the past three years and its comparison with its competitor company named as Cisco Systems. Both the companies are in the list of World’s best workplace 2017, according to Great Place to Work Institute. The evaluation is done to know about how the company is performing in financial aspects and what it is contributing to the overall development of the country (Lee, Lee & Lee, 2009). 

Salesforce is an American cloud computing company having its headquarters in San Francisco, California. Most of its revenue comes from Customer Relationship Management (CRM) product and is considered to be the world’s first CRM platform. Salesforce topped the list of best workplaces 2017 generated by the Great Place to Work Institute. The company sells products like sales cloud, Salesforce CPQ, service cloud, commerce cloud and many other commercial applications of social networking. It is listed on New York Stock Exchange with a symbol of CRM and is a component of S&P 500 Index ("Salesforce", 2018).

Cisco systems, Inc. is a multinational technology company operating in America. The headquarters of the company are situated in San Jose, California. Cisco deals in manufacturing and selling of networking hardware, telecommunications equipment and other products and services of high psychology. It ranked 19^th on the list of best workplaces, according to Great Place to Work Institute. The company is one of the competitor of Salesforce and its people and products helps in connecting the society securely and seizing tomorrow’s opportunity today ("Cisco - Global Home Page", 2018).

Consolidated income statement for past three years

Particulars	2015	2016	2017
	US$	US$	US$
Sales	5,373,586	6,667,216	8,391,984
Cost of Sales	1,289,270	1,654,548	2,234,039
Gross Profit	4,084,316	5,012,668	6,157,945
Operating Expenses	4,229,949	4,897,745	6,093,717
Income/loss from operations	-145,633	114,923	64,228
Investment income	10,038	15,341	27,374
Interest Income	-73,237	-72,485	-88,988
Other Income	-19,878	-15,292	9,072
Gain on sales of land and building improvements	15,625	21,792	0
Gains from acquisitions of strategic investments	0	0	13,697
Income before income tax	-213,085	64,279	25,383
Benefit from income tax	-49,603	-111,705	154,249
Net income/loss	-262,688	-47,426	179,632

("Salesforce", 2018).

Earnings Per Share
Basic	-                   0.42	-                 0.07	0.26
Diluted	-                   0.42	-                 0.07	0.26

Particulars	2015	2016	2017
	US$	US$	US$
Assets
Current Assets
cash and cash equivalents	908,117	1,158,363	1,606,549
Marketable securities	87,312	1,567,014	602,338
Accounts receivable	1,905,506	2,496,165	3,196,643
Deferred commissions	225,386	259,187	311,770
Prepaid expenses and other current assets	280,554	250,594	279,527
Land and Building improvements held for sale	143,197
Total current assets	3,550,072	5,731,323	5,996,827
Marketable securities, noncurrent	894,855
Property and Equipment, net	1,125,866	1,715,828	1,787,534
Deferred commissions, noncurrent	162,796	189,943	227,849
Capitalized software, net	433,398	123,065	141,671
Strategic investments		520,721	566,953
Goodwill	3,782,660	3,849,937	7,263,846
Intangible assets		490,006	1,113,374
Other assets	628,320	142,097	486,869
Restricted cash	115,015
Total assets	10,692,982	12,762,920	17,584,923
Liabilities and Stockholders' equity
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable	1,103,335	1,349,338	1,752,664
Deferred revenue	3,286,768	4,267,667	5,505,689
Total current liabilities	4,390,103	5,617,005	7,258,353
Deferred revenue, noncurrent	34,681	23,886	37,113
Convertible 0.25% senior notes, net	1,070,692	1,088,097	1,116,360
Term loan	0	0	497,221
Loan assumed on 50 Fremont		197,998	198,268
Revolving credit facility	300,000	0	196,542
Other noncurrent liabilities	922,323	833,065	780,939
Total liabilities	6,717,799	7,760,051	10,084,796
Stockholders' equity	3,975,183	5,002,869	7,500,127
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity	10,692,982	12,762,920	17,584,923

("Salesforce", 2018).

Consolidated income statement for past three years

Particulars	2015	2016	2017
	US$	US$	US$
Sales	49,161	49,247	48,005
Cost of Sales	19,480	18,287	17,781
Gross Profit	29,681	30,960	30,224
Operating Expenses	18,911	18,300	18,251
Income/loss from operations	10,770	12,660	11,973
Interest expense	-566	-676	-861
Interest Income	769	1,005	1,338
Other Income	228	-69	-163
Income before income tax	11,201	12,920	12,287
Provision for income taxes	2,220	2,181	2,678
Net income/loss	8,981	10,739	9,609

("Annual Report", 2017).

Earnings Per Share
Basic	1.76	2.13	1.92
Diluted	1.75	2.11	1.90

Particulars	2015	2016	2017
	US$	US$	US$
Assets
Current Assets
cash and cash equivalents	6,877	7,631	11,708
Investments	53,539	58,125	58,784
Accounts receivable	5,344	5,847	5,146
Inventories	1,627	1,217	1,616
Financing receivables, net	4,491	4,272	4,856
Other current assets	1,490	1,627	1,593
Total current assets	73,368	78,719	83,703
Financing receivables, net	3,858	4,158	4,738
Property and Equipment, net	3,332	3,506	3,322
Deferred tax assets	4,454	4,299	4,239
Goodwill	24,469	26,625	29,766
Intangible assets	2,376	2,501	2,539
Other assets	1,516	1,844	1,511
Total assets	113,373	121,652	129,818
Liabilities and Stockholders' equity
Current Liabilities
Short-term debt	3,897	4,160	7,992
Accounts payable	1,104	1,056	1,385
Income Tax payable	62	517	98
Accrued compensation	3,049	2,951	2,895
Deferred revenue	9,824	10,155	10,821
Other current liabilities	5,476	6,072	4,392
Total current liabilities	23,412	24,911	27,583
Income Tax payable	1,876	925	1,250
Deferred revenue, noncurrent	5,359	6,317	7,673
Long term debt	21,457	24,483	25,725
Other long term liabilities	1,562	1,431	1,450
Total liabilities	53,666	58,067	63,681
Stockholders' equity	59,707	63,585	66,137
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity	113,373	121,652	129,818

("Annual Report", 2017).

Ratio analysis is the most commonly used technique for doing the financial analysis of the company’s final accounts. There are different type of ratios which are used to measure the liquidity, efficiency, profitability and the capital structure of the company. A comparative analysis of company’s financial performance with the industry average or a trend analysis over the past years, can be done by calculating ratios (Fraser, Ormiston and Fraser, 2010). There are various ratios categorized as liquidity ratios, profitability ratios, efficiency ratios, activity ratios and capital gearing ratios. It is considered to be the most desirable method which includes evaluation of the financial performance by using current or historical financial data (Warren & Jones, 2018).

Consolidated income statement for past three years

These ratios indicates that how quickly a company can convert its assets into cash or liquid form. Calculation of these ratios is done to measure the liquidity of the company. They generally evaluate the company’s ability to pay off its short-term obligations. There are two types of liquidity ratios (Zainudin and Hashim, 2016).

Liquidity ratio	Years
	2015	2016	2017
Current ratio	0.81	1.02	0.83
Quick ratio	0.74	0.98	0.79

Current ratio: it is a type of liquidity ratio that determines company’s capability of paying off its short-term debts with its current assets. It measures the relationship between firm’s current assets and current liabilities. Cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities are the current assets that company have, which can be easily converted into liquid form. The ideal current ratio is 2:1 and is calculated by dividing CA with CL (Saleem and Rehman, 2011).

As per the calculations done, it can be said that the CR of Salesforce has increased in 2016 as compare to 2015 from 0.81 to 1.02, but the same has been reduced in 2017 to 0.83. The reason for this increase during 2015-2016 was a rise in the value of cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities. These assets can easily be converted into cash and can be used to pay the short term debt. In 2017, the ratio is reduced because a large portion of current assets was engaged in accounts receivables, which can or cannot be convertible into cash within one year. Moreover, the value of deferred commissions and prepaid expenses has also increased as compare to 2016. Overall, there was a slightest increase in total current assets as compare to the change in total current liabilities from 2016 to 2017.

Quick Ratio: it is also known as acid test ratio. It measures company’s potential to pay its current liabilities with its quick assets. Current assets like cash, marketable securities, cash equivalents and account receivables are considered to be quick assets as they can be easily converted into cash. The ideal ratio is 1:1 and is calculated by dividing QA with CL (Krantz & Johnson, 2014).

The same trend follows in case of Quick ratio. It has increased in 2016 and then decreased in 2017. The reasons for the fluctuations are same as of in case of current ratio. The quick ratio of Salesforce over the past 3 years remains less than the ideal ratio of 1:1. Having a ratio of 0.98 in 2016 means the company can pay off almost all of its liabilities with its quick assets. A ratio of 0.79 in 2017 implies that Salesforce can settle 80% of its current liabilities.

Consolidated balance sheet

These ratios indicates how efficiently, a company is utilizing its resources to set off its liabilities. The ratios indicates the potential of the company to use its assets and manage its liabilities in the most efficient and effective manner (Tracy, 2012). Following are the efficiency ratios:

Efficiency ratio	Years
	2015	2016	2017
Receivable turnover ratio		2.11	2.05
Creditor turnover ratio		1.35	1.44
Assets turnover ratio		0.57	0.55

Receivable turnover ratio: it presents how efficiently a company can collects its account receivables. A high DTR shows that the debt collection of the company is effective and that it is collecting cash from its debtors timely (Jindal and Jain, 2017).

The DTR of Salesforce has reduced from 2.11 to 2.05. This implies that company is not collecting its receivables efficiently and timely because of its slow paying debtors.

Creditor turnover ratio: it analyse the ability of the company to pay off its creditors. A high CTR is considered to be more desirable as it implies that the firm is paying off its liabilities frequently and regularly (Barman and Sengupta, 2017).

An increase was there in Salesforce’s CTR from 1.35 to 1.44 in year 2017. This indicates that company pay off to its creditors very often and have enough liquidity for making the payments, despite of having slow paying receivables. One of the reason for this rise can be an increase in the value of Cash and cash equivalents during the year.

Asset turnover ratio: it shows how well a firm utilizes its assets to generate revenue. The efficiency is measured by comparing net revenue with average assets. A high ratio indicates better performance of the company (Kieso, et.al. 2012).

Salesforce ATR is slightly reduced in 2017 from 0.55 to 0.57. It implies that the company’s ability making revenue with its assets is reduced in 2017 as compare to that of in 2016. Reasons being increase in purchases of fixed assets and in the value of strategic investment. Moreover, overall increase in total assets is more than the overall increase in total revenue during 2016-2017.

One of the main motive of conducting ratio analysis is to measure the profitability of the company or in other word to have an idea about its potential to earn profits from its operations. These ratios give an overview of firm’s profits made during a financial year. Following are the profitability ratios (Camilleri and Camilleri, 2017).

Profitability Ratios	Years
	2015	2016	2017
Operating Profit Margin	-                   0.03	0.02	0.01
Net Profit Margin	-                   0.05	-                 0.01	0.02
Return on Equity	-                   0.07	-                 0.01	0.02

Operating Profit ratio: it indicates company’s systematic cost control and profit earning after meeting all its operating expenses. A high operating profit ratio is more desirable than the lower one (Jenter and Lewellen, 2015).

Cisco Systems, Inc.

Calculation of this ratio gives an idea that OPR of the company was negative in 2015 and during 2016-17, it reduces from 0.02 to 0.01. One reason for declining operating profits is increasing operating expenses throughout the year. The operating expenses of Salesforce were continuously increasing from 2015.

Net Profit Ratio: it is the most commonly used profitability ratio that represents the relationship between net profit after tax and total revenue. It shows the percentage of profit earned by the company with its operations after meeting all the expense including operating expenses, interest expense, taxes and preference share dividend (Kartio, Mirza and Shaikh, 2017).

During the year 2015 and 2016, the net profit margin of Salesforce was negative 0.05 and 0.01 respectively, reasons being company was making loss during these years because the revenue earned during these years was not sufficient enough to meet all the operating and non-operating expenses. The trend changes in 2017, where company earned a profit of $179,632 with a positive ratio of 2%. The gain from the strategic investments and positive value of other income are added to the value of operating income, making Salesforce capable to meet all its expenses with revenue earned and make profits.

Return on Equity: this ratio shows the efficient use of shareholders’ investment, by the company in order to generate profits. A high ROE is favourable for the company.

Looking at the calculation of ROE, it can be said that, during first two years the trend was negative and it got reversed in 2017 when company had a positive ROE of 2%. Clearly the net income earned in 2015-16 was negative, making the ROE negative. Having a positive ratio in 2017 indicates that the company has earned profits and is performing better. It will be now able to give positive return to its shareholders (Penman, Reggiani, Richardson and Tuna, 2017).

The ratios which tells about the overall capital structure of the company are known as capital structure ratios. In other words, these ratios refer to the degree of long term financing of a business (Bragg, 2012).

Capital structure ratio	Years
	2015	2016	2017
Debt- equity	1.69	1.55	1.34
Interest coverage ratio	1.99	-                 1.59	-              0.72

Debt-equity ratio: it compare the total debt of a firm with its total equity. A high D/E ratio indicates that the company has raised funds more from creditors rather than investors (Levi and Segal, 2015).

A constant decrease was there in the ratio over the past three years which means that the portion of debt is reduced to an extent and Salesforce is raising funds from its investors.

Interest coverage ratio: it indicates the capability of the company regarding its interest payments. Creditors generally used this ratio to know about the risk taking factor of the business (Ferrarini, Hinojales and Scaramozzino, 2017).

In year 2015, Salesforce had a coverage ratio of 1.99 that means it was paying its interest timely. But the trend changed in 2016-2017 and the company reported negative ICR. Reason was the lack of income to pay the required interest expense.

Liquidity ratio	Years
	2015	2016	2017
Current ratio	3.13	3.16	3.03
Quick ratio	3.06	3.11	2.98

The current ratio of Cisco is far better than Salesforce. It has increased during year 2015-2016 and in 2017, the ratio was 3.03 which slightly lower than that of 2016. This implies that company has enough current assets to meet its current liabilities. A large portion of its assets is in the form of cash and less amount is engaged in inventory. Cisco is much more capable in meeting its short term debt than Salesforce.

Cisco’s Quick ratio is also higher than Salesforce, although declined in 2017. The ratio is more than the ideal ratio of 1:1, reason being it has more liquid cash in proportion to its liabilities and also the company is capable of utilising its assets in making investments rather than holding them in inventories.

Efficiency ratio	Years
	2015	2016	2017
Receivable turnover ratio		5.96	5.70
Creditor turnover ratio		16.93	14.57
Assets turnover ratio		0.42	0.38

The debtor turnover ratio of Cisco is much higher than that of Salesforce. It means it collects its debtors more efficiently and effectively. It can convert its receivables into cash faster than Salesforce as the debtors do not take long time to make the payments.

Cisco has higher CTR because it has enough total revenue to pay off its creditors timely. Increase in its total revenue is much more in proportion to that of in its total creditors. From creditors’ point of view, a company who can pay them back regularly is much better than the one who make delays in payment.

Asset turnover ratio of Cisco is lower than Salesforce which implies that the company is not good at generating revenue with its assets. Increase in purchase of fixed asset can be one of the reason for lower ATR.

Profitability Ratios	Years
	2015	2016	2017
Operating Profit Margin	0.22	0.26	0.25
Net Profit Margin	0.18	0.22	0.20
Return on Equity	0.15	0.17	0.15

Cisco has positive OPR throughout the years as compare to Salesforce. It has high operating profit margin that shows its potential to make more profits with its operations. From investors’ point of view, it is better to invest in it as the company manages its ongoing operations so effectively and efficiently.

It will be obvious that the NPR of Cisco will be more than Salesforce, because the company had not occurred any losses in the previous three years like Salesforce. It is able to maintain its profits very well.

In comparison to Salesforce, return on equity of Cisco is higher and has also increased during 2015-2016. Looking at the profits earned, it can be said that the company is performing better and is providing high returns to its investors.

Capital structure ratio	Years
	2015	2016	2017
Debt- equity	0.90	0.91	0.96
Interest coverage ratio	14.01	12.60	8.95

Cisco has low debt equity ratio as compare to Salesforce, which means the company is favourable to both creditors and investors. Having a low ratio indicates that most of the funds are raised through investors rather than creditors. There has been an increase in the stockholders’ equity of Cisco whereas accounts payables remains almost same over the past three years.

The interest coverage ratio of Cisco has decreased during the years that is from 14.01% to 8.95% in 2017. This implies that company’s ability of paying its interest expenses has reduced because of the increase in the interest expenditure over the periods and lack of funds. Though the ratio is more than the ratio of Salesforce.

Conclusion

As per the above analysis and interpretation, it can be said that the performance of Salesforce has improved in the year 2017. In the previous years, the company was occurring losses, but the trend changed in 2017 where it made a profit of $179,632. Though the company topped the list of best workplaces but, financially its performance was not promising in the past three years. Moreover, comparing it with Cisco systems, Inc., the latter company performed pretty well in its past years. Cisco is performing better than Salesforce at all grounds including profitability, efficiency and liquidity.

References

Annual Report. (2017). Cisco.com. Retrieved 17 January 2018, from https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/annual-report/2017-annual-report-full.PDF

Barman, A.N. and Sengupta, P.P. (2017). DETERMINANTS OF PROFITABILITY IN INDIAN TELECOM INDUSTRY USING FINANCIAL RATIO ANALYSIS. International Journal of Research in Management & Social Science, p.25.

Bragg, S. M. (2012). Business ratios and formulas: a comprehensive guide (Vol. 577). John Wiley & Sons.

Camilleri, E. and Camilleri, R. (2017). Accounting for Financial Instruments: A Guide to Valuation and Risk Management. Taylor & Francis.

Cisco - Global Home Page. (2018). Cisco. Retrieved 17 January 2018, from https://www.cisco.com/

Ferrarini, B., Hinojales, M. and Scaramozzino, P. (2017). Leverage and Capital Structure Determinants of Chinese Listed Companies.

Fraser, L.M., Ormiston, A. and Fraser, L.M. (2010). Understanding financial statements. Pearson.

Higgins, R. C. (2012). Analysis for financial management. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Jenter, D. and Lewellen, K. (2015). CEO preferences and acquisitions. The Journal of Finance, 70(6), pp.2813-2852.

Jindal, D. And Jain, S., 2017. Effect of Receivables Management on Profitability: A Study of Commercial Vehicle Industry in India. Management, 2(2), pp.246-255.

Kartio, M.A., Mirza, A. and Shaikh, F. (2017). Impact of Global Financial Crisis on the Performance of Commercial Banks of Pakistan–A Case Study of MCB Bank Limited.

Kieso, D. W., Weygandt, J. J., Kieso, D. E., & Kimmel, P. D. (2012). Study Guide to Accompany Financial Accounting, 8e. John Wiley & Sons.

Krantz, M., & Johnson, R. R. (2014). Investment Banking for Dummies. John Wiley & Sons.

Lee, A. C., Lee, J. C., & Lee, C. F. (2009). Financial analysis, planning and forecasting: Theory and application. World Scientific Publishing Co Inc.

Levi, S. and Segal, B. (2015). The Impact of Debt-Equity Reporting Classifications on the Firm's Decision to Issue Hybrid Securities. European Accounting Review, 24(4), pp.801-822.

Penman, S.H., Reggiani, F., Richardson, S.A. and Tuna, A. (2017). A Framework for Identifying Accounting Characteristics for Asset Pricing Models, with an Evaluation of Book-To-Price.

Saleem, Q. and Rehman, R.U. (2011). Impacts of liquidity ratios on profitability. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(7), pp.95-98.

Salesforce. (2018). Salesforce.com. Retrieved 17 January 2018, from https://www.salesforce.com/in/?ir=1

Tracy, A. (2012). Ratio analysis fundamentals: how 17 financial ratios can allow you to analyse any business on the planet. RatioAnalysis. Net.

Vogel, H.L. (2014). Entertainment industry economics: A guide for financial analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Warren, C. S., & Jones, J. (2018). Corporate financial accounting. Cengage Learning.

Zainudin, E.F., Zainudin, E.F., Hashim, H.A. and Hashim, H.A. (2016). Detecting fraudulent financial reporting using financial ratio. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 14(2), pp.266-