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: bambs who wrote (39275)	8/10/2000 9:25:06 AM
From: Ed Forrest	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 77400

Tell everyone how their money is safe.... OK,everyone I suggest you invest in Cisco and your money should grow and you will prosper. Ed PS Pay no attention to Bambs he's not serious,it's just a "HOBBY"

To: bambs who wrote (39275)	8/10/2000 9:27:09 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

bambs, this is basically what I have been arguing. CSCO isn't necessarily a great short, but I just can't see the upside. The key to me is that it doesn't make sense to me to use the proforma (ex-acquisition cost) number for Cisco. My logic behind this is that acquisitions are a core part of Cisco's long term strategy. To me then, Cisco's earnings net of these costs would seem to be a more applicable number, because acquisition costs are part of Cisco's ongoing expenses. When you look at the numbers with this perspective (as you have), Cisco appears to be a lot more expensive. Bulls--given that acquisitions ARE a part of Cisco's long term strategy, why is it logical in your minds to take out acquisition costs when looking at Cisco's long term growth?

To: bambs who wrote (39275)	8/21/2000 9:20:15 PM
From: DownSouth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

It was $.16, up from $.10 according to Zack's which of course excludes one-time charges and gains From $.10 to $.16 is 60%, not 30%. Using bambs's model, let's assign 60% growth each year resulting in $1.68 in 2005. Multiply that by 4 and we get $6.72. Continuing with his model, assigng a PE of 50 to it and we get a stock price of $336. (By the way, the current PE is 119 so a huge contraction will be required to get it back to 50.) Plug that into the calculator and the stock appreciates 39% annually -- not 3% -- but what's a misplaced, highest possible second digit among friends. I won't take credit for the above response, but the person who deserves credit doesn't want to be seen in these parts :)