Cisco's Annual Shareholder Meeting (2008)

Cisco's (CSCO) annual shareholder meeting was held on November 13, 2008 at the Santa Clara Convention Center. The meeting was open to all--Cisco did not check to see if anyone was actually a shareholder. The food spread was above average--OJ, cranberry juice, bagels, fruit, and Starbucks coffee (what I call "the Convention Center special").

Cisco ran its meeting professionally, almost too much so--at times, the meeting felt like a stiff, over-starched white-collared shirt. No one was allowed to ask spontaneous questions, because all questions had to be written down and submitted to employees, who would pick and choose which ones they wanted to display to the CEO. The meeting was designed to run smoothly, and with no unexpected problems or risks. Well, you know what they say--"Man plans, God laughs."

During one of the shareholder proposals relating to China, an older Chinese shareholder stood up and demanded to be heard. He held his hand in the air continuously and would not sit down, even after a Cisco employee came up to him. He had an issue with shareholder proposals being voted on without soliciting public comments. He had a point, but his heavily-accented English made him hard to understand. To his credit, CEO John Chambers later addressed the gentleman's concerns. Mr. Chambers said, towards the end of the informal presentation, that Cisco did not modify its equipment for any customer--the equipment is the same, i.e. "no unique capabilities [are given] to any government in the world." He also made a point of walking towards the gentleman to garner his support. I've never seen a CEO make an effort to approach an audience member who appeared somewhat aggressive, and Mr. Chamber's pro-active behavior made him instantly likable. After the meeting, I saw someone from Cisco talking politely with the gentleman, who appeared to be hawking his book. This high level of corporate professionalism is much talked about, but rarely practiced.

The formal part of the meeting had two presentations, one by Harrington Investments, and another by Boston Common Asset Management. Both focused on human rights issues and transparency. Ms. Carol Malnick (of Boston Common) made very interesting points. She said that censorship would decrease Internet traffic in the long run by discouraging new Internet users and limiting the use of existing users. Cisco's growth, of course, depends on more Internet users. It basically sells products that gets computers to talk to each other over the Internet, and the more computers sold with Internet capability, the more Cisco grows. She asked Cisco not to exit certain international markets, but to be transparent. She listed several countries she felt were Internet censors, including Saudi Arabia, China, Algeria, and Syria. I thought Carol Malnick's presentation was much more effective and polished. Others agreed--only 68% voted against her proposal, while 98% voted against the Harrington proposal. After her presentation, CEO Chambers made a point to use the word, "transparent" several times while looking directly at Ms. Malnick, as if to say, "We hear you, and even though we defeated your proposal, we are working on it." This was a very gracious and conscious move by Mr. Chambers.

CEO Chambers had a video and spoken presentation. The opening slide spelled "Globalization" as "Globalisation," with an "s," indicating that a British employee had worked extensively on the presentation. Mr. Chambers talked about a "six point gameplan," which focused on general ideas, like investing in emerging markets (note: I am sick of hearing about "emerging markets" at shareholder meetings--of course companies must invest in other countries) and Web 2.0. He said that Cisco had "3,000 telepresences a week," which meant that Cisco's sales force was connecting to thousands of potential buyers domestically and worldwide, without the need for any travel. If the telepresences, like the ones you see on Star Trek, become commonly used, it will be Cisco that takes us there. Mr. Chambers acknowledged that some companies wouldn't feel the need to upgrade their technology, which would limit the roll out of newer internet products; however, he was also hopeful, saying that the "next wave of productivity" would happen, and Cisco would be at its forefront. After some more generalities of "vision, strategy, and execution," Mr. Chambers showed a moving video presentation.

This video presentation showed the effects of the devastating 2008 earthquake in the Sichuan Province of China. In a brilliant move, John Chambers traveled there immediately after the earthquake and worked with the cities to rebuild their infrastructure. Cisco donated 45 million dollars to rebuilding efforts (See News Report). The cynic in me says that Mr. Chambers is a PR genius. He knows China represents his company's best chance for growth with its 1.2 billion people. By going to China and lending a hand and funds, he hopes Cisco will be remembered down the line by the Chinese government. But Mr. Chambers has a way of winning people over. He appeared completely sincere when he spoke about his experience in China. In fact, I almost teared up after watching the video. Various pictures were shown of Mr. Chambers interacting with earthquake survivors amidst the rubble, and he joked that a young Chinese boy who was bold enough to approach him would grow up to be a Cisco salesman. Mr. Chambers also mentioned a little girl who hadn't spoken since the earthquake but who spoke again after seeing new faces arrive. The girl, of course, represented the power of the human spirit, something we all implicitly understood. At this moment in the presentation, you could have heard a pin drop. It was hard not to be emotionally affected after seeing the pictures of the two children.

Most important, Mr. Chambers called upon us to act, saying that it was an "embarrassment to us" that 3 billion people in the world live on less than three dollars a day, because we had the power to change this situation. He said that Cisco's worldwide expansion would help "700 million people in China" because Cisco brought high paying jobs and the increased likelihood of a middle class, not only in China, but all over the Middle East. His implication was clear--Cisco would help usher in a new era of worldwide progress.

The Q&A session began, with questions presented to Cisco employees on index cards, which were then typed on a large screen behind Mr. Chambers. One question asked about Cisco's 27 billion dollars in cash. This elicited a funny remark from Mr. Chambers, who said that in the current unstable market environment, "cash is king, queen and the entire royal family." He also said that before he left the company, Cisco would pay a dividend to shareholders. Paying a dividend would help stabilize Cisco's stock price, because the dividend would attract long-term investors and would prevent Cisco from using their cash in unproductive ways. (Also, paying a dividend might allow more mutual funds to buy Cisco stock.) The best question was tongue-in-cheek: "In the spirit of GM, what could make GM obsolete?" Mr. Chambers sat down to show the audience he took this question seriously and said that Cisco hadn't lost its sense of urgency. He mentioned Lucent and other companies that used to be technology high fliers and talked about Cisco's growth and its desire to continue growing.

On their way out, shareholders were treated to a Cisco-branded luggage tag holder, an interesting choice, given that Cisco's technology will probably decrease business air travel.

Overall, Cisco's meeting was run very professionally. In the future, Cisco ought to allow live, spontaneous questions and comments prior to voting on shareholder proposals. Beyond that, Cisco looks like a company well-positioned to benefit from the worldwide expansion of Internet users.

Disclosure: as of November 19, 2008, I own 6100 shares of Cisco (CSCO). I will, however, reduce my positions before the end of the year if not sooner.

OCM Revisited

I keep talking about OCM--Other Countries' Money. Very few people seem to understand the consequences of being dependent on the kindness of strangers. Now, the U.S. is considering selling Japanese-backed bonds rather than its own:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/japanese-float-idea-of-treasury-selling.html 

Oh, the embarrassment.

Currencies

You can now buy almost all the major foreign currencies through a U.S. brokerage account: 

FXE: Euro 

FXC: Canadian dollar 

FXF: Swiss franc 

FXM: Mexican peso 

FXY: Japanese yen 

XRU: Russian ruble 

BZF: Brazilian real 

CYB, CNY: Chinese yuan 

ICN, INR: Indian rupee 

Although you can trade currencies, it doesn't mean you should. Personally, I own some FXC and FXF, but my positions may change at any time, and I am *not* qualified to give investment advice.

I view the Canadian dollar as a diversification tool because it is indirectly linked to commodity prices. The U.S. imports most of its oil through Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. 

The Swiss franc should do relatively well, despite Swiss banking problems, because war is the #1 destroyer of economies, and the Swiss have historically avoided war. In contrast, the U.S. has Iraq; China has Taiwan; Russian has Georgia; India has Pakistan (over Kashmir); and Mexico has internal corruption so terrible, it may lead to civil war. Brazil's egregious income inequality makes it difficult for me to invest too much of my money in the country, despite its independence from OPEC and recent economic growth. 

I have heard several Southeast Asians say that Malaysia is doing better than its neighbors Cambodia and Vietnam primarily because Malaysia avoided war and Cambodia and Vietnam did not. The general theory makes sense. Aggression and war destroy economies because they lead to a lack of stability, which drives away investment. Thus, peacenik Americans who crave stability are left with the Euro, which is going to be devalued because of future expected interest rate cuts; the Canadian dollar; the Japanese yen; and the Swiss franc. 

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -- James Madison

S.F. Judge Reprimanded

Interesting article on an S.F. judge:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/18/BAAV147BAP.DTL

I've never met the judge, but he sounds like a former District Attorney.

I just checked--Judge McBride was a former assistant D.A. and a police officer. According to the S.F. Sentinel, "[Judge] McBride has previously been named Judge of the Year by both the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association and the San Francisco Bar Association’s Barrister Club." Judge McBride was also elected the S.F. Court's presiding judge this year.

Nothing against Judge McBride, but in states where voters can elect judges, I recommend voting against former district attorneys if they lack private sector experience handling non-criminal cases. Some great judges were former D.A.s, but generally speaking, D.A.s tend to see the world in black and white. Also, while former district attorneys seem to have a better work ethic than non-criminal lawyers, this extra energy is usually caused by a Superman complex. What do I mean by a Superman complex?

Most D.A.s become D.A.s to protect society from criminals and bad elements. To place yourself in a role where you can single-handedly protect your fellow man by locking up citizens (some of whom may be innocent), you have to be comfortable playing God or Superman. But people who view power cautiously or who are mindful of their lack of omnipotence will be fearful of wielding any kind of substantial power. This means that the most confident lawyers, the ones who are comfortable playing Superman, will gravitate towards the D.A. role.

In fact, good D.A.s must have supreme confidence to function, especially after seeing horrors like rape, homicides, and infanticides up close. The average person who sees an 18 year old mother microwave her baby probably won't want anything to do with that situation; a D.A., however, must not only get involved, s/he must convince a jury to throw the young mother in jail. If the D.A. thinks about the mother's personal background, her poverty, or some other random factor, it makes his job more difficult. In short, the ability to see gray areas complicates throwing a fellow human being in jail, because a person may realize that in some alternate universe, given the same set of circumstances, it could be him or her across the aisle in the courthouse. Of course, someone has to prosecute unfortunate souls along with the hardened criminals, so you want D.A.s to be tough, supremely confident, and comfortable playing God with people's lives. At the same time, it's important to recognize that kind of attitude works best in criminal law, not civil law.

Many meritorious civil cases involve gray areas without hard evidence (i.e., a smoking gun, fingerprints, DNA). For example, employment cases sometimes involve nothing more than he-said/she-said scenarios, such as where a female employee alleges sexual harassment. Thus, much of the time, a civil judge has to decide whether a case has merit based solely on sworn statements from different people. Although the law requires judges to send cases to a jury if a reasonable person could see genuinely disputed material facts, after seeing so much hard evidence in criminal cases and so many criminal cases involving severe harm, former D.A.s tend to be less sympathetic to cases that lack obvious physical harm.

You will notice that Judge McBride was named Judge of the Year by the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association. Those associations are usually run by personal injury lawyers, who bring cases involving physical injuries. Thus, it is not unusual for former D.A.s to be well-liked by trial lawyer associations, because personal injury cases usually involve obvious physical harm and more black-and-white facts than other cases--such as securities litigation or labor law--which don't appeal to a D.A.'s experience of associating meritorious cases with blood on the ground.

Again, I don't know Judge McBride, so I cannot comment on him specifically. The only reason I write this post is to encourage voters to consider voting for a non-D.A., a public defender, a solo practitioner, or a lawyer with private practice experience when it comes time to choose a judge.

Bonus: an Illinois judge jails a man for making a yawning noise in his courtroom. See here.

Steve Malanga on State Governments

Steve Malanga, senior editor of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, is my new favorite writer. The WSJ included an opinion piece by him in today's paper:

http://s.wsj.net/article/SB122697315476635963.html

A study...by the Employee Benefit Research Institute estimated that the average public sector worker earns 46% more in total compensation than his counterpart in the private sector, largely because government employers spend 60% more per worker on benefits than counterparts in the private sector. States have collectively ranked up some $731 billion in unfunded liabilities for pensions and other retirement benefits, according to a study...by the Pew Charitable Trusts' Center on the States...

California state and local governments are paying some $12.8 billion a year to finance public employee pensions, up form $4.8 billion in 1999.

You know who's on the hook for all those benefits, don't you? We, the taxpayers, and our children. What is the reason government employees, on average, receive more benefits than private sector workers? It is becoming increasingly apparent that our elected representatives believe that we should work for them, instead of the other way around.

The next time you vote to give more money to government programs, just remember what we were told as kids: "Money doesn't grow on trees." Perhaps these days, it should read, "Money may not grow on trees, but what's wrong with getting money through bond sales?" Well, remember OCM--Other Countries' Money? Other countries are and have been the major buyers of our bonds, meaning they have become American Express, while we have become debt-holders, working each month to pay them off. I guess our own government is selling us out to other countries. Who can blame them? Other countries are the ones effectively paying for their benefits and for their inefficient programs (Bridge to Nowhere, etc.) through the purchase of municipal and Treasury bond sales. Although I am opposed to unnecessary regulation of private citizens, that doesn't mean an irresponsible government doesn't deserve to be regulated. Maybe we should require all public sector bond sales to have at least 51% American citizen ownership before being offered to other countries--once Americans realize we don't have the money to buy back our own debt, much less our future debt, we might become more frugal.

Update on Transmeta (TMTA)

On September 18, 2008, I wrote that Transmeta was a potential takeover target:

If you're looking for a growth story, this isn't it; however, as long as its patent portfolio remains viable, TMTA may be a potential takeover target or value play at the right price.

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/transmeta-tmta-shareholder-meeting.html

On November 18, 2008, Novafora acquired Transmeta:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081117/novafora_acquisition.html

This appears to be a good outcome for Transmeta. Kudos to the Board of Directors and to the officers for selling the company in a professional, transparent manner.

Now a Good Time to Invest?

A lot of you have been on the sidelines, waiting for a good time to buy stocks. I'm not making any recommendations, but I just bought between 55 to 250 shares of some tech stocks, including NVDA, ERTS, INTC, STM, SYMC, and CSCO. I realize my financial outlay isn't much, but perhaps these shares will be worth much more five years or more from now.

The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.