Gary, as do you I'm sure, I have many very accomplished, serious techie friends at
various Silicon Valley companies. It is generally accepted that CSCO has never been
respected for its technical accomplishments. The "hollow" comment is a direct quote
from an unnamed CSCO engineer. I could have added other comments about the
"nightmare" involved in trying to integrate disparate and aging technological platforms
within CSCO.
Serious blunders by competitors and a huge market opportunity have made CSCO. The
roll-up strategy has its limits and I would note often crashes in the end. As any
successful company, CSCO has lost most of its brilliant innovators. Its (and LU's)
overvalued stock price gives it currency to overpay for start-ups.
Yes, I was offended by Chambers comments. Naked, false propaganda passed as
truth. I analyze it for what it is. Gary, it is just blatantly untrue that LU overpaid for
ASND given the $500B market opportunity, ASND sterling customer base and
product lines, and competitive edge of LU/ASND vis-a-vis CSCO and other growing
formidable rivals. As I noted, Chambers should get off the LU/ASND overvaluation theme or Wall St. may just take another look at CSCO's valuation and prices paid for tiny start-ups.
Chambers' comments that crosscountry mergers just don't work is just
silly in the year 1999, and especially silly coming from a data networking CEO trying to
sell the vision of worldwide instantaneous communications.
As a CSCO shareholder (via S&P 500/NASD 100 index funds), I would be worried if
Chambers really believes his dissembling -- you say it enough you might start thinking it's
true. Start of a slippery slope, wouldn't you agree? I tend to agree with you that
Chambers is just blowing smoke and his fire directed at LU/ASND is his highest form of
praise for CSCO's first real competitor.
Respectfully, djane |
