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: RetiredNow who wrote (47518)	1/30/2001 11:57:29 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

mindmeld, RE: Everyone's best bet is to do their own research or get into mutual funds if you don't trust your own knowledge. We have found something that we can agree on, after all. One thing to note, though; in an earlier statement you say: . The analysts are clearly no better informed than the rest of us. They upgrade when the stocks are at an all time high and they downgrade when the stock has reached a bottom. Cisco is probably the most highly rated stock by the analysts in all of the S&P 500.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (47518)	1/30/2001 12:07:13 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 77400

As usual, you are talking a lot but not saying anything. I have posted a number of analytical posts on this board citing info from CSCO's SEC filings. I'm sorry, but you only cite circular arguments.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (47518)	1/30/2001 12:11:38 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

A summary of SEC citings I made. From the G&K thread. Please explain where I am "wrong" instead of blowing hot air. Message 14820742 To:Eric Jhonsa who wrote (34892) From: Mucho Maas Wednesday, Nov 15, 2000 11:37 PM View Replies (2) \| Respond to of 38682 According to the earnings report (http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/146/pressroom/2000/nov00/co...), the number of shares outstanding on a diluted basis increased by roughly 4% from the year-ago period. So one would think (the PR you cite shows 7.58BB in 01 and 7.288BB in 00). But really the increase was over 8%. The reason you thought it was just 4% was that you just looked at the 1Q01 press release and took the 1Q00 share count from there. But what you need to do is go back to the 1Q00 press release, where the 1Q00 share count is listed as 288 million less than the same count listing in the 1Q01 press release. Are you confused yet? They restated the 1Q00 share count (in the 1Q01 PR) to include the 288 million extra shares due to acquisitions. Net effect: dilluted share count increased from 7BB to 7.58BB, or 8.285%. Eric, I'm kinda sick and can't say much more now, but I wanted to point out this one issue to you. You were careful enough to look at their 01 PR, but your calculation ended up being off by 100%+. I don't think you're the only one who made this mistake. Frankly, the statements are very complicated, and to figure out much you would need to do a lot of comparing between years. I learned about the above issue in an article at grantsinvestor.com grantsinvestor.com. They go into pretty extensive detail about a lot of the issues you bring up, and suffice it to say that the numbers they come up with are a bit different from yours. Sorry I do not feel up to writing it all down here. I wrote the following on this board earlier: Message 14794693 As for the Cisco numbers, if you think there are interesting issues revealed in those measures you cited, please present them I did some of this presenting on the Cisco thread. I mention it here because people have posted a couple things about the accelerating revenue growth rate trend. My point would be that if you just look at those numbers without looking at anything else, you are not getting a very clear picture of the story. On the most basic level, for example, you would need to divide the rev-growth rate by the increase in share count. Share count increased over 8% in the past year, so logically, you would need to divide the growth rate by 1.08 to see what the growth is on a comparable basis. That is just one nitpicking little thing, of course. But a lot of nits can lead to a different picture. For example, you can look at their declining margins. It's great to have more revenues, but what if earnings don't keep up? Not good, so how to keep up earnings? Well, perhaps you dip into the honey pot of "Other Income", i.e., investment income. And perhaps you want to add a little spice to investment income so you change the weighting of equities (pre-public investments, for example) to conservative bonds. Maybe these things help you in a bull market, but they are not really operating earnings. And do we invest in a company for its operations, or because we think their CEO is the next Peter Lynch? Here are a couple posts from the CSCO thread: Cash-flow composition Message 14642739 Operating cycle Message 14642549

To: RetiredNow who wrote (47518)	1/30/2001 1:49:51 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

mindmeld: There is a difference between unpleasant truths and wrong. For instance, this - amongst most of its genre (not picking on you) - was "wrong": Message 14355162 Mucho's post is far from wrong. You were commenting about CSCO's impressive 20 B$ cash position. The very definition of a business is how it generates cash. CSCO is no different. How about posting for the benefit of the rest of us the percentage of that 20 B$ cash attributable to operating earnings versus that which is attributable to stock options? I could point you an earlier post where I derived it, but since you value primary research I expect you will want to calculate it yourself from the data published in the 10-K. When I did this, it was abundantly clear that stock option exercise dominates CSCO's business. John