Re: "I don't think ORCL compares more favorably to SEBL or ITWO than CSCO compares to RBAK or JNPR."
Obviously, the above expresses your opinion. But on point, your opinion does not dispute the fact that ORCL has proven that it can COMPETE successfully against other very successful companies that hold large market positions in their respective market segments. CSCO, IMHO, has yet to prove this against JNPR in its sector. I honestly don't know how they stack up to RBAK in their market. If both companies are viewed in the most favorable light, one can make a reasonable conclusion that ORCL is a bit further along in positioning itself in the higher growth more competitive market segments it has chosen to compete in than CSCO has. CSCO has yet to show how it can hold off JNPR lead in the higher speed router sector. This is one aspect, IMHO, where the companies differ. CSCO, of which I am also a holder, albeit a small one, IMHO, is still in the early stages of a "show me" phase that investors are now beginning to insist upon.
Re: "All I was saying about the logic tying Cisco to Oracle is that both feed at the same trough, ie, they both get paid out of IT budgets."
While they both feed from the same trough, one could argue that they feed from different ends of the trough, or do not feed "equally.". Can an investment in CSCO routers and networking equipment cut millions from a companies budget? ORCL claims its software can. I'm not an IT professional, so I cannot make claims to the veracity of ORCL's claims, but at least some portion the market seems to accept the benefits of ORCL's application. I would submit that if IT budgets are cut, that cuts would not be homogenous across various vendors, and that one must first evaluate cuts on a case-by-case basis. I, for one, would consider and weigh an investment in hardware differently from an investment in software, whether the investment is "trafficked" base or "efficiency" based.
I am not here to debate the pros & cons of ORCL v. CSCO; they are both excellent companies. My ORIGINAL comment, if you recall, was to question your premise that the two companies are so similar. I think what we've discussed here over the several posts indicate more how the two companies differ, than how they are similar. Of course you can find some common ground to categorize the two companies within a unique context. But I submit there are many more dissimilarities between the two companies than there are similarities. I think your initial comment that "[t]he logic connecting CSCO to ORCL is actually pretty strong" is extremely overbroad and misrepresentative of the respective prospects of each company going forward, good or bad. JMO. |
