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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (36897)	6/2/2000 7:27:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

>>First of all, I never said equivalent, I said competitive. And return isn't the only part of the equation, risk is also. As rates rise, the risk/return features of a fixed income instrument are more attractive versus the risk/return features of Cisco stock. Perhaps not enough to get you to sell your stock and buy a bond, but others do not have the same risk parameters as you. The time to buy bonds is not when rates are rising, it is when they start to fall. That is also a time to buy stocks. >>Second of all, the fact that Cisco has doubled every year for the past few years is irrelevant. A stock's historical return has very little correlation, if any, to a stock's future return. You are wrong, of course. It depends on the company and its management.

To: GVTucker who wrote (36897)	6/2/2000 7:38:00 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

"Second of all, the fact that Cisco has doubled every year for the past few years is irrelevant. A stock's historical return has very little correlation, if any, to a stock's future return. " Just a clarification. As we all know a stocks past, however good, cannot guarantee future returns. On the other hand, historical return has a LOT to do with expected future return. Belief in management effectiveness, engineering, manufacturing efficiency and customer loyalty is based on past performance. History is very relevant, ignore it at your peril. While history won't guarantee future returns, we invest in companies we trust, or startups with key personnel that have past track records of success. Would you invest in a startup whose mgmt had failed at 3 or 4 previous attempts? Would you invest if they had previously been successful? How about a company that misses qtrs or one that meets or exceeds expectations? :-) John