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 : Newbridge Networks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Matt Meagh who wrote (15339)	12/5/1999 1:07:00 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

Matt Meagh: CSCO/NT and NN: Buyout? by: fi99_2000 12/4/1999 6:58 pm EST Msg: 12982 of 12996 by: fi99_2000 A tale of 2 companies For those that think Cisco does not need Newbridge it makes me laugh. Go back to that fateful year 1996. In that year Cisco realized it misjudged the importance of ATM and was 3 years behind Newbridge . Therefore Cisco rushes out and buys Stratacom for $4 billion. Cisco was well informed from Sprint,MCI, and ATT. Good idea but a total disaster. That same year Newbridge buys UBS to extend their ATM portfolio to the enterprise market. Good idea but a total disaster. Now we have that rare opportunity when Mathews is ready to sell and both companies can combine and implement the plan each had in 1996. This time it will not be a disaster. The network market will belong to CSCO/NN. Cisco will get rid of the time bomb it carries on its shoulders if earning expectations are not met in any quarter. The analysts will love the combined company and the Cisco stock price will not suffer $1 because of this combination. Since I strongly believe NT cannot allow this to happen. My target price for Cisco acquiring Newbridge has been raised considerably. messages.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by: daplus4 12/4/1999 5:09 pm EST jdavid Msg: 12980 of 12996 I don't recall reading many of your posts, are you relatively new to the discussion If so, it would behoove you to back up your argument with some substance (any substance)before you start telling people they are full of shit. For example which part of NT's business plan are you familiar with and just why exactly would they not benefit from the NN pipeline? Same Q for Cisco? Is the part about cisco's lack of a class 4 switch or getting thrown out of MCI/Worldcom. Is it that they got that contract(MCI) based on the fact that they promised them an ATM product (why they bought stratacom) but yet still couldn't deliver? Is it the part of the business plan that they want to get into the telco market yet they don't have carrier class products? Is it the part that NN has an installed base of 350 telco customers world wide that doesn't fit their business plan? Is it the LMDS product that leads everyone in this niche of wireless that cisco objects to? Or maybe the only installed 3dsl product to date to allow telcos to extract a managed revenue stream overnight for all the copper customers? So jdavid, before you post your fecal matter it might be wise to put a little thought into your position before you start telling others they are full of it! I guess the real answer is that cisco and NN don't fit because NN has a P/E of 10 while CSCO is at 156. To support the growth needs at Cisco, J. Chambers better be looking to buy every company that has black ink. His house of cards needs top and bottom line contributions. NN has 1.5 billion in revenue and 200 million in profit. Cisco pays 7 billion for a company with 50 million in revenue and NO profit and in an area that will take YEARS to develope. Meanwhile the proof is in at every major level that ALL THE TELCO'S are putting ATM at the core and some at the edge. So the worlds leading ATM product with monsters in the pipeline would certainly not fit the business plans of a company professing to be the leader in the new internet. fi99_2000 may not be right in the final analysis (nor I for that matter) but we at least support our post with logical use of data available. It is jackasses such as yourself that need to eithr refrain from posting or learn to debate the position of those you disagree with. Go back and read his posts (or mine for that matter) and they weave a plausable argument. Will it work out this way? Who knows. Your arrogance about knowing what NT or CSCO's business plans are or what they do or don't care about is emence. I would love to debate your position but so far you have not put up anything of substance. When you do, if you do,(if you can) then we'll have something to discuss. Until then...shut up messages.yahoo.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- you said: To: Michael M who wrote (15338) From: Matt Meagh Saturday, December 4, 1999 2:35 AM ET Reply #15339 of 15356 does anyone here believe that CSCO is really interested in ATM tech? I get the feeling that they down play the role of ATM in future generation networks (despite their purchase of Straticom). I admit I'm a novice when it comes to network technology, I'm just trying to figure out if CSCO might really want to be a player in any bids for NN. I believe that ATM tech. is NN's crown jewels.(?) Matt