To: OrionX who wrote (8471 ) 11/13/2000 2:51:45 PM From: rrufff Respond to of 14638 The article is a good synopsis of bear arguments and old news. As you point out, each argument can be countered. As far as accounting issues go, it could be argued that NT is no worse and is actually better than CSCO. I've never put much credence in accounting games. I'd like to see a straight cash generation number used by analysts. Games that are played with amortization, goodwill, etc., make it tough to compare apples with apples. On the other hand, NT is in a position to grow by acquisition and I think that's a plus not a negative. If they cut one acquisition and used that to buy back stock, they might find in the long run that this would put them back in a world of higher stock price and cheaper acquisitions. The bottom line to me is to look at things today. The market has crashed. Valuation arguments that were valid 6 months ago are not valid today. The internet is not going away. Cutting edge technologies will continue to grow at break-neck rates. Profitability (or at least net cash generation) is more important than it was 6 months ago. NT and other leaders will come back first once the market bottom has been established, if it hasn't been established today. To me, it's more likely that this is a bottom and that the direction is up given the fact that we've suffered through a crash. Of course, just as many of us longs were painting ourselves too rosy a picture back in March and April, the shorts are finding bad news and convoluted bear arguments under any rock. Just as markets don't go straight up, they don't go straight down either. When the market turns, would you rather own a company that is growing so strongly that it can BOTH develop cutting edge AND buy out start-ups and smaller players over a broad base in its field or would you want to stick to something else that is a one-trick show?