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: The Phoenix who wrote (43162)	11/8/2000 5:17:51 PM
From: Paul Reuben	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

It's a crying shame that we have to suffer from opinions that say things are too good!

To: The Phoenix who wrote (43162)	11/8/2000 5:19:42 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Gary Time is on our side on this one. In another qtr a few more so called "analysts" will have doo doo on their faces! Eric

To: The Phoenix who wrote (43162)	11/8/2000 6:06:06 PM
From: zbyslaw owczarczyk	Respond to of 77400

Again, who do you believe... the analysts that are trying to poker face you or the company that is duty/legally bound to provide accurate information to the shareholders. and you should add: a/the company knows exactly what carriers are doing and knows much more about its business then Sagawa and others manipulators. ZO

To: The Phoenix who wrote (43162)	11/8/2000 9:57:50 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Who do you believe? Company or Analysts... Ok. Let's take this at face value. In the CSCO 10-0K, amongst other things, they are legally required to compute and report an option compensation charge under SFAS-123. For those who don't know what this means, restating in the spirit of your post and the required disclosure, they have a "duty" to estimate the cash value of CSCO stock options, using a model that assumes (incorrectly) that they are normal unfettered equity options. Without getting down the rathole whether this option value should or shouldn't be reflected as a charge in earnings, we can infer a very important secondary fact! In providing an expected future value of an option where the average purchase price is known (average grant price is reported in 10K), Management is also providing us with their estimate of the expected future value of the stock price!! What do they present? All numbers below directly from 2000 10K. Estimated fair present value for options granted in FY2000 is $19.44. Average grant price in FY2000 was $52.10. In arriving at this estimated valuation, the company is required to make certain estimates and disclose the basis for the estimates. CSCO assumes that the option is fully exercised after 3.1 years and a risk free interest rate of 6.4% over this term. A bit of high-school algebra (inflate by 6.4% for 3.1 years) gives an estimated fair future value of an option in CSCO at $52 to be $23.57 in 2003 - for an implicit expected stock price of about $76 - or just a twiddle over 5.5% per year above inflation! All of this according to estimates that management has a "duty" to make and disclose. Now, those of us (yourself included) who are projecting CSCO's future value and explaining its business fortune are, in fact, armchair analysts. So we can restate your question. Who would you believe - the company that is duty/legally bound to provide accurate information to the shareholders, or [yourself]? John.