<< Based on your past rants on this thread... >>
I see, because I am skeptical of Cisco's valuation I am ranting. But people like yourself who are bullish are merely "discussing"?
<< ... AND at $1.77 CSCO is near 100 easy. >>
Let's see...Cisco at 100, EPS of 1.77 = PE of 56.5. Sounds about right for this market. PE's at twice the growth rate. Buffett just might sell his KO to buy this "bargain".
<< This is CSCO, not ASND.. hehehehe.. Cisco does report a month after other networkers but show me where analysts dropped earnings expectations on CSCO after one of their bretheren missed. I'm open for correction on this. A URL would be great. >>
You want me to go find out the date that A$ND or COMS or CS reported their earnings, and then go track down analyst revisions for C$CO around the same time? I'll tell you what. I will concede this point because I'm lazy. I will track down analyst revisions after large networkers like A$ND reported their numbers if you will go find me proof that I "have always been short this pup."
You can't deny that numbers for Cisco have been hacked in the last year or two. They used to be much higher. Who cares what the impetus was, analysts managed to hack the estimates enough for C$CO to beat them.
<< Pardon me for rounding. 30 lashes for me.... >>
What's a couple of percent here, a couple of percent there. Did you round your price target up from 94 to 100? What's six points here or there, right? I suppose you think we should just round Cisco's next earnings report up so they can make an even 50 cents/share. Do I get to round up my short basis from 62 to 65 so I can look like I'm not losing on my short?
<< However it is my understanding the some of this is due to overseas softness and a reduced amount of spending amoung the RBOC's >>
So that doesn't count? As long as it's not Cisco's fault that there was slowing and as long as other networkers slowed even more, that makes it ok? So Cisco should be able to slow it's growth dramatically but it's stock should just chug on up to 100? I guess they don't call this the biggest bull market in history for nothing. You know why they call them "bull" markets don't you? Because they are a bunch of "bulls---". People begin to ignore fundamentals and focus soley on the price of the stock going higher. As long as Cisco can frame the number perfectly the stock should go higher. Who cares that the numbers come down more and more and more. Expectations decrease while the stock increases.
<< Aha! Now you bring up a completely different issue. Before you said that John should "stop flapping his jaw and get to work" if the company's going to be a $20B company by 2000. Well if the economy tanks nothing John does will make this happen >>
Aha! So all bets are off regarding the economy. He doesn't have to stand by his statements, I get it. He gets to make these forecasts of all this great growth but if it doesn't materialize it's not his fault. Sounds good to me, maybe I could do his job after all. Make promises I don't have to keep. Yeah, I like that.
<< Again, your problem... don't make it ours. However, you did target John >>
I targeted his cocky attitude. If someone is going to be as arrogant and cocky as him they should back it up. He hasn't recently IMO. I don't see Gates or Grove acting as arrogant as him. In private I'm sure they will tell you that they are going to crush their competitors. But I don't see Gates or Grove doing this in public.
<< As for Cisco not delivering. They are the leaders until such time as they get taken out. So, they are in fact delivering for their investors... which my good friend.... is what counts >>
I see, so it doesn't matter if C$CO only grows their earnings at say, 5%. As long as all the other networkers lose money, a 5% growth for C$CO is reason enough to send the shares to 100? Just as long as they are the best? So if the networkers turn out just like the disk drives do you want to own the "best" disk drive company? How about the best DRAM company? Would they deserve to go to 100 like Cisco? Do the best toothpaste cap companies deserve a PE of 50? After all they are the best, right? Tops in their field.
<< Nothing. you have none. That's why you shouldn't take shots at CEO's or others that you have no knowledge of. You can short a company without talking down the people. >>
Fine. Whatever. Would it make you feel better if I just referred to J. Chambers as Cisco? Ok, how about, "Cisco promised 30-50% growth and hasn't delivered. Cisco is a cocky and arrogant company that hasn't delivered on it's promises as of late, yet the street doesn't seem to mind." Is that better? The argument still applies no matter who I refer to and you still haven't countered that argument properly. |
