Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Lucent Technologies (LU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Techplayer who wrote (9229)	8/19/1999 11:22:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 21876

>>One thing sticks out from the CSCO CC. If Chambers was so sure that INS was unimportant to CSCO, he would not have spent so much time saying just that. It sounded very much like a child saying "i didn't want it anyway" after his/her parent said you can't have it. (and yes Z, I know that he claims to have said he didn't want it.) Your emotions blind you. If you listened to the call you would have known that the time Chamber spent on INS was short and in response to queries. Your implications are conjectural and empirically unfounded, I haven't heard INS or anyone else dispute Chambers on his reasons for rejecting INS. As for your INS analysis, you are overlooking the huge overhead LU acquired. That is the kind of future drag Cisco wouldn't buy.

To: Techplayer who wrote (9229)	8/19/1999 3:40:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21876

One thing sticks out from the CSCO CC. If Chambers was so sure that INS was unimportant to CSCO, he would not have spent so much time saying just that. It sounded very much like a child saying "i didn't want it anyway" after his/her parent said you can't have it. From listening to the CC over the web the impression that I got was that, when directly questioned about the Lucent-INS buyout, he said that while it would not have been a good purchase for CSCO (and they had in fact turned down overtures from INS) it was not necessarily bad for Lucent. In essence he went out of his way to not call Lucent stupid for buying them. That's why his response wasn't as brief as "It wasn't important." Your "child" remark is totally off base.

To: Techplayer who wrote (9229)	8/20/1999 4:15:00 AM
From: Dee Jay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21876

the purported fact that CSCO turned down chances to buy INS is reminiscent of another similar case a few years back - they owned a very significant chunk of Cascade but failed to convert that to a buyout. But Ascend saw the possibilities and snapped up Cascade right when their stock had plummeted for various reasons. And of course Cascade's products (leave aside a recent contretemps with MCI, still a bit confusing) grew Ascend to the point where LU had to buy ASND...and the rest is history. Of course Chambers badmouthed the ASND-CSCC deal but I think he has lived to regret not grabbing CSCC when he might have...perhaps he'll feel the same way about INS as well. Dee Jay