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 : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rande Is who wrote (31565)	8/9/2000 3:44:10 AM
From: just_a_passer_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57584

CSCO - a contrary viewpoint from a novice CSCO is probably the most visible of Don Valentines clutch of successful companies. It would seem that his/their philosophy is to demonstrate steady, strong, sustainable high growth with no surprises up or down. Did anyone who is in the know really expect CSCO to do better than 1c over estimates? Will anyone who is in the know EVER expect CSCO to do better than 1c over estimates? Don has been very successful at managing the managers of these companies (http://www.sequoiacap.com for anyone who doesn't know his name. NTAP is another example of the style, and I know them well from working for them for a while). So I would venture to suggest that CSCO came out and only did what was expected, and that just MIGHT be enough. However, its the way in which they reach that +1c which indicates their real performance, and how they "manage" their finances in order to get either up (or down) to that magic number. Now I'm not too good at these financial thingies, but reading the previous posts and references I get a strong feeling of "management". Have they increased their inventory on hand? have they pushed their receivables out further or drawn them in tighter? Are the one-off costs justified at that level? It takes someone with a lot more smarts than me to do that ... any takers? As far as a drop in sales revenue being indicative of a general slow-down in buildout of the internet, I'm sceptical. Could it also be that the new-generation network managers are not automatically buying CSCO, or that new technology offerings in the sexy world of switching and routing are making CSCO look a litte "middle-aged"? Are the upstarts stealing more than just the cherry off the cake? Certainly from a technical perspective, CSCO is pretty much old-hat. On top of that, their optical program is either extremely secret, or else they have dropped a good way behind and are having to play catch up (not so easy for an overweight middle-ager - I know - I am one). Looking at their acquisitions of late, I'd guess the latter is true. Even their copper offerings are under threat. Advances in Fibre Channel, gigabit etc. are leaving them puffing a bit too ... There's a good chance that they have become the IBM of networking, and the rising-stars have already had the chance to develop their disruptive technologies, and creep up on CSCO from behind. It might even be too late ... This year we could be seeing the first real signs of the demise of CSCO as the prime indicator of the health of the internet infrastructure market. If so, who will be the next CSCO? Will it even be a "wire and switches" company at all? I wouldn't be surprised if, by this time next year, the pundits are competing hard to become famous as the one who identified the next CSCO ... the next technology "bellwether". O/T BTW ... did you know that the origin of the word "bellwether" is the Middle English "bellewether" which is the name given to the one sheep (wether) in a flock which has a bell (belle) tied around its neck, for the purpose of focusing the flocks attention and giving them something to follow ... hmmm ... sheep? flock? bell? ... Baaa aaa aaa aaa humbug! Peace

To: Rande Is who wrote (31565)	8/9/2000 6:02:06 AM
From: WhatsUpWithThat	Respond to of 57584

Rande, I looked back over the past 3 Q releases, and each quarter revenue growth (this year's quarter versus last year's quarter) as a percentage has been increasing, not decreasing (Q2 53%, Q3 55%, Q5 61%). Also, Q4 over Q3 is 16% this year versus 12% last year. I don't see from this evidence of growth slowing. Cisco's gross margin growth has almost matched revenue growth, so it's not as if they've been forcing revenue growth by selling at discount. Maybe I'm missing something. For more on this, you could scan my (ridiculously long) reply to Julie: Message 14185285 All the best, WUWT