To: GVTucker who wrote (39886 ) 9/14/2000 10:34:10 AM From: Tony Viola Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 77400 GV, >But I think that the writer misses what I think is the primary reason for CSCO's performance as of late. The market has reevaluated the risk/reward of paying 100x earnings for a company with a market cap approaching $500 billion. Earnings growth of 40% is no more or less likely now than it was before, I just think market participants are realizing that the only way that the price is justified is if this 40% happens. I think what you bring up was on of the three "reasons" in the article:No question there's some truth here. It shouldn't be forgotten that Cisco had a tremendous run-up in the early part of this year, soaring nearly 50 percent to more than $80. Even with its current problems, it stands 73 percent above where it was at this point last year. All this has created an incredibly highly valued stock. Cisco has a market capitalization of $429 billion and a current price-earnings ratio of more than 113. I hadn't seen the Gilder goodie. Does Gilder expect that Broadcom is going to deliver the router function in a box? A corollary is that you could have made the same argument about the CPU function 5 or 10 years ago. So much of it got pulled into the microprocessor over time, that Intel should be delivering all of the servers today. Instead, they prefer to keep great customers like Compaq, HP, IBM, Dell, Gateway, etc., letting them do the system integration, marketing, customer service, etc. I would think a Broadcom would go the same way, i.e., deliver the more and more powerful network processors to a Cisco, who does the system integration, marketing, customer service, etc. of the boxes. Gilder seems to enjoy the techniques of future shock and FUD . Tony