Skip to main content

Goldman Sachs has BMC and Citrix on its favorites list

Per the economy, Friar quotes Citrix management as saying that, “due to the cost reduction nature of its product, the company actually tends to outperform in weaker economic environments.” Meaning, you can use Citrix’s “virtual copy of Microsoft’s Windows (MSFT) to actually lower the amount you spend on Windows. Citrix is a competitor to VMWare (VMW), the hottest IPO in recent memory, and Friar says that the company’s recent acquisition of Xensource makes that a credible claim: “original equipment makers have been clamoring for a credible number two to VMware and Xensource seems to be filling this need.” Xensource should benefit from a recent agreement between itself and VMware to offer standards for interoperability between virtual machine software programs, says Friar. Friar has a $42 price target for Citrix.

BMC shares are worth $36, argues Friar. Right now, the stock trades at only 11x its enterprise value as a multiple of its projected free cash flow next year, which, she writes, is way below the software industry average of 17x.


Barrons is carrying the article.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more