Filing Flows › Companies › Cisco Systems › Earnings quality
Cisco Systems earnings quality score
How much of the reported profit is backed by cash, and how many markers of managed earnings the filings show
Score47 / 100 · grade D · rank 908 of 1027
Cisco Systems (CSCO) scores 47 of 100 for earnings quality, grade D: rank 908 of 1027 companies and 181 of 203 in technology. It loses the most points on accruals of -0.7% of assets, higher than 81% of companies, Dechow F-score 1.86 (substantial), discretionary accruals of +7.4% of assets (modified Jones), larger than most. It earns full or near-full marks for Beneish M-score -2.40: clean (below −2.22).
What earned and lost points
| Component | What the filings show | Points | Of |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accruals | accruals of -0.7% of assets, higher than 81% of companies | 4 | 20 |
| Beneish M-score | Beneish M-score -2.40: clean (below −2.22) | 15 | 15 |
| Dechow F-score | Dechow F-score 1.86 (substantial) | 6 | 15 |
| Montier C-score | Montier C-score 3 of 6 checks failed | 8 | 15 |
| Discretionary accruals | discretionary accruals of +7.4% of assets (modified Jones), larger than most | 2 | 10 |
| Piotroski F-score | Piotroski F-score 7 of 9 | 8 | 10 |
| Non-GAAP gap | adjusted earnings 23% below GAAP | 2 | 10 |
| Earnings smoothness | profit steadier than cash flow (smoothness 0.48) | 3 | 5 |
How the score is built
Eight published measures, each scored against the whole universe or on its own scale and weighted: accruals 20, discretionary accruals 10, Beneish M 15, Dechow F 15, Montier C 15, Piotroski F 10, the non-GAAP gap 10, smoothness 5. A measure that cannot be computed (Beneish for a bank, say) drops out and the rest is rescaled, so every company is scored on what applies to it.
Every company ranked → The full quality workbench, live → Cisco Systems: cash flow →
Computed from the companies’ own XBRL filings (latest fiscal year) by published formulas; a statistical screen, not an audit or an accusation. A low score means the reported profit shows more of the markers of managed or low-quality earnings than its peers. Not investment advice.