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.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (57927)	8/9/2000 5:34:54 AM
From: WhatsUpWithThat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

Haim, your profile says you're in Corporate Finance. Yet some of the fundamentals of accounting are missing from your posts? If you look at CSCO's gross margins, they grew very nearly as much as revenues...which means they didn't sell their products cheaper to increase sales. In fact, selling expenses grew in lockstep with revenues, too. Gross margins dropped a bit - from 64.5% to 64% - and for some reason their GA expenses grew out of proportion, 72% (all figures Q4 2000 over Q4 1999). You keep coming back to the balance sheet. You note $9 billion in undefined assets...yet in an NR, do you expect the details you'll find in a full quarterly report? There's no F/S notes, no Statement of Changes, etc. that would explain more about these assets. You mention an increase in AP and these undefined assets as a partial explanation for the decrease in operating profits as you define them...but balance sheet items like an increase in AP and an increase in assets are a cash flow item, not a profit item. I can suffer a huge decrease in my net income without affecting my accounts payable by dollar one...or I can increase my accounts payable without making a single dollar more in profit. They're not related (not counting any interest income or expense on the change in cash balance in your short term accounts). I don't want to get into an ongoing disagreement with you - I, and I'm sure you, have better things to spend time on - but I'm nonplussed. Regards WUWT

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (57927)	8/9/2000 1:01:36 PM
From: John T.	Respond to of 99985

CSCO: One more time... from Realmoney.com (premium section of theStreet.com): Gary B. Smith CSCO and other thoughts 8/09/00 12:18 PM ET At the risk of being at ruining the CSCO party, let me interject some thinking: 1) the hubris I saw over the CSCO conference call was, well, sickening. Yeah, sure, maybe they give great conference calls, but I'm in this to make money not cheerlead. And sorry, I saw a LOT of cheerleading and backslapping last night, instead of rational thinking. As it stands now, if one bought this AM, you'd be down, not up. 2) On a sidebar, btw, I know CSCO the company very, very well since they do a LOT of business with companies like Digex. Sure, CSCO is good, but puh-lease, they have warts like any other company. And lots of them. You think they have no competition? Think they're bullet proof? Think again. 3) I saw exactly ONE realistic comment made on CSCO, and that was by Todd H: the magic number on CSCO is 70. It closes above there, THEN I'd give it the green light. Everything else is just gum flapping.