Now that I have got that out of the way no way will it see $ 3. Where exactly do you come up with these price targets?? Kind of makes you look a bit naive, especially with all those degrees you have??
I see that CSCO had over $3 billion in operating losses. I see a company that made $10 billion in acquisitions in the last two years, only to practically fail in most of them ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OWNERS (Shareholders'). The company's optical strategy has been a disaster and they are actually losing ground to NT and LU contrary to what this thread will tell you. Plus, CSCO doesn't know how to grow from within.
The company's "income" (I use the term loosely) can be attributed to a 50% rise in interest income. Even in the best of times, the company eeked out 14 cent/share last year. That's a 35x PE at current prices during the best of times using current stock price. Currently, this company has a pro-forma PE in the stratosphere with no earnings growth. You can thank the 7 billion shares outstanding for that.
Essentially, this company makes no money. Blue chip companies don't fall from 80 to 13, cyclical companies do. Cyclical companies generally trade at 1x sales, very low PE's and near book value. For CSCO that is about $3/share. In my mind people have to look at CSCO no differently than they would Ford. There is nothing special about them except that their CEO really knows how to screw up acquisitions.
At minimum $6 represents the most recent consolidation on CSCO. This stock has goen straight up since early 1997 with a blip for the Asian crisis. However, the Asian crisis does not represent "long-term support" in my mind - that support occurs during the 94-95 consolidation - really the last tough year for longs - indeed, $3 share is the magic number.
You were posting this bullshit 2 months ago when the market was getting hammered.
Actually, I have been posting this bullsh!t for over a year now actually and I've been all money so far. Last summer I had idiot suckers in my face telling me I had missed the boat. Last winter, when I said I was long gold, people threw dust in my face. Well, let's look at the HUI, shall we? As a trader, that screams go long and that something is terribly long with what the Fed is doing.
bigcharts.com
You just happen to see posts from me 2 months ago. Go back on this thread for proof.
I suppose you think the Nasdaq is still going below 1000 also ??
Actually, I think 800 is more accurate. Markets go up and go down, as a trader you should know that. The long-term trend on this market is down and continues to be down regardless of what bubblevision is telling you.
I suggest you read about RCA in 1929 and look at the chart. Every bubble chart ends in the same way - below where it started. As a trader, you should understand that supply and demand ultimately rule the market and that interventions only serve to delay the day of reckoning, not avoid it.
But then again, that's just my naivity speaking. |
