Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO)

CSCO 72.10

+1.4%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: bambs who wrote (39396)	8/11/2000 10:45:13 PM
From: The Phoenix	Read Replies (1) of 77397

Bambs, I see a bunch of arrogant bulls on this thread that don't seem to want to talk about the points I raise. I don't think so. I believe there have been solid arguments presented by the bulls. I know you prefer to include acquistion costs and investment gains in determining growth but this doesn't wash with any reputable analyst. I see 344 million in gains from investments and only 796 million in "actual income" (makes up 43% of actual earnings) Actual earings growth of only 30%. You can't have it both ways. You can't chose to remove investment gains and include acquistion costs. You can't just pick and choose what you're going to use to calculate earnings. That is why non-recurring numbers like investments gains and acquisition costs are set aside. Most companies don't report pro-forma because that are not acquisitive like CSCO. Cisco almost has to in order to provide investors with a quality comparison quarter on quarter. I haven't seen you put up a good argument yet as to why these costs should be included. Should CSCO see fabulous gains on investments next quarter and no acquisition costs will you still argue for the CONSOLIDATED number? I suspect not. I see CNBC talk about summer rallies, election rallies, fall rallies, every week it seems like they are hyping some kind of rally coming. Perhaps that's part of the problem. You're spending too much time watching that trash. Don't waste your time. Finally, in the next two years if CSCO proves to be dead money and the Nasdaq hits 2500...I would like you to admit how wrong you are. I think if this occurs being in CSCO will be a good bet. However should the NAZ go to 2500 CSCO will likely break that $50 support and I'll be backing up my truck. 2500 is WAAAY oversold and the market knows it. I would like you to post on this thread that I was right and you were wrong. And in a nutshell THAT is the problem. Bambs, you're so hung up on being right that you're not able to get your point across. If you would make your statements and let them go you will get your recognition... it will come. But you come across as a runner that wins a foot race and then gets on TV and tells everyone how great he is. No one likes that kind of person... they like people to be humble. And it's in this "humbleness" that you will get your recognition. For some reason you always need some sort of valididation.. which is strange for an engineer. You say you worked at Microsoft and at Cisco as an engineer. What groups did you work in? I'd be interested to capture some of your background. Seems strange that someone that has worked for CSCO would be so down on it when you know damn well that that organization runs like a friggin machine. What years did you work for Microsoft and for Cisco? I'm quite familiar with both teams. the Nasdaq will test 1500 Really.... Do you really believe that? FWIW your parents should be in less risky investments however every investor has a different style, and risk tolerance. Every portfolio should have exposure to high tech and CSCO is a core high tech holding. So it is strange to me to hear anyone say that one should not have some exposure here. In essence you are arguing that one should not have exposure to high tech given that most other high tech bellweathers have a similar forward PE (look at one of my earlier posts today). This is THE sector for the next decade... and yes, it will be volatile, but to have no exposure... any portfolio manager will tell you that that makes no sense at all. As an investor you would have to agree with that.... just for an ounce of credibility one has to agree with this position. Otherwise your argument is one should only invest in value funds and bonds which is a bad choice for younger investors just starting out. OG

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next