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 84.46

+2.5%

2:25 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: RetiredNow who wrote (41128)	10/19/2000 3:56:18 PM
From: The Phoenix	Read Replies (1) of 77400

Mindmeld, Actually Parish is more wrong than wrong. I remember his analysis (I'm actually shocked to hear he actually got press from reputable firms like the WSJ). Parish didn't even caluculate the correct number of shares for his analysis rendering the entire thing moot. As for this issue of stock options; it seems strange that anyone could make such a big deal out of a company following GAAP rules. As you point out the government gets its tax money so this does seem like a non-issue. Does Cisco have an unfair advantage? Not really - any company could reward their employee's with options. However, clearly engineers are drawn to CSCO due to the wealth (via options) it creates. So, CSCO's success is due to .... well.... CSCO's success. Options are worthless really - unless the valuation on the market goes up. And CSCO hires great engineers and uses funds to buy great companies to create more value for shareholders and employee's and the benefit is CSCO pays little or no tax. The bottom line is that this is all legal and disclosed. I know many bears like to make a big deal out of "cooking the books" but CSCO follows GAAP and discloses more information than probably any company on the NAZ... which is one reason so many money managers like to hold CSCO... there are few surprises. All this set aside however Parish's piece was flawed in so many ways. Heck - he even called JDSU a competitor. JDSU, as you know, makes ZERO, none, nada, system level products. They are a passive/active opto-electronic company. Parish's piece, as I have said before, wasn't worth reading and should not have recieved print in any publication. I think Portland editors are pretty sharp that they have stayed away from it. not only did Parish do a shoddy job but it sounds like he's got a fat head to boot. Bottom line - pieces like this just fuel sentiment for those that can't do their own DD. Bears eat this stuff up.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next