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: Prabhu Kavi who wrote (14161)	3/24/2000 3:46:00 PM
From: Clay Takaya	Respond to of 21876

Prabhu, Cisco bought Cerent for what seemed to be an outrageous price, but is now selling boatloads of them through its sales channel. In retrospect, that $6.9 billion looks well spent How many of these have been sold to date since the acquisition? Clay

To: Prabhu Kavi who wrote (14161)	3/24/2000 3:57:00 PM
From: GVTucker	Respond to of 21876

Prabhu, RE: Changes in accounting rules may change the price, but not the need to acquire. The price is the only thing that I care about.

To: Prabhu Kavi who wrote (14161)	3/24/2000 10:28:00 PM
From: Doug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21876

Prahbu: You are right that the accounting rules are in favor of bought out R&D and more so in times of rising stock prices. However if one looks at the long term 5 years & more, one needs to discriminate between Applied research and Pure research. Labs like BELL, Sandia, XRX Parks, MMM Labs are institutions that also do pioneering pure Research work which are likely to be used downstream. In the field of Optics, Bell is into Quantum computing, Teleporting, Ion Implantation, Polarisation of Molecules, Non Linear Optics, Mini xray lithography, etc. In the field of I.R which is huge, there is a lot of work going on in Image identification, magnification, transmission,Intensifiers etc. Currently Bell Labs I.P is not valued and that does not seem correct. I.P valuation rules need to be more equitable.

To: Prabhu Kavi who wrote (14161)	3/25/2000 10:48:00 AM
From: Techplayer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21876

Prabhu, You did not get the gist of GVTucker's post. What I got from his insight is that CSCO is achieving it's EPS in part from the right-off of acquired R&D. If CSCO (or LU, NT, etc) was forced to include the total cost of all acquisitions as part of R&D, reported earnings would be significantly different. As has been discussed on numerous threads, the SEC is trying to do away with this practice. In my opinion, this will hurt the bottom line for those doing the acquiring. Acquired R&D at the extremely high valuations being assigned start-ups will negatively effect reported EPS. As a result, there may be a reduced number of acquisitions or prices paid if these new rules are in fact adopted. Of course, those working inside of the new start-ups with a keen eye on being acquired, do not want these rules enforced either.... As a result, GVTucker's information and opinion has merit since LU relies less on acquisitions and would be less effected in the event of the change in accounting practices. (I am not an accountant, so this is all in my opinion). tp