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: Razorbak who wrote (49052)	2/17/2001 10:07:46 PM
From: FESHBACH_DISCIPLE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

DREAM ON Management blames a ‘… faster and more severe economic downturn in the United States which we now expect will result in a slower overall market growth of approximately 10% in 2001’. We do not believe there is a significant causal relationship between a perceived economic slowdown and what is currently going on in the telecom equipment sector. While it is certainly the case that enterprise spending would be tempered by an economic slowdown, there is simply no reason to believe that carrier spending would be impacted to the degree that we are currently seeing. Rather, at a minimum we believe that the anomalous period was 1999 and 2000, when the cost of capital was essentially 0 (in other words, any company with a business plan was able to raise equity, irrespective of valuation). This ‘gold rush’ phenomenon, tightly coupled with the ‘dot com’ hysteria, fueled extraordinary growth in demand for equipment. In other words, we believe capital markets fueled the growth. This level of hysteria is unlikely to return; therefore, the extraordinary growth is unlikely to return. NEVER AGAIN!

To: Razorbak who wrote (49052)	2/17/2001 10:08:28 PM
From: 45bday	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Wow, I have a cold and home for the evening so logged in to see what everyone thought about CSCO. Was looking to enter in the mid 20's. What a depressing bunch. I am as big a sceptic about the mkt in general as you will find, but even I think we are near the bottom. They will not - I repeat - they will not take the mkt up significantly until they have scared every possible share out of anyone who might consider selling. THis is a chance for the big guys to get it all which is their only goal in life. Fucking over the small investor and taking their money is what it is all about imo. As such they have to take the naz down another 20% minimum and maybe more, but it won't stay there that long. THey make money taking it up and down - not letting it languish and the resources are there to move the mkt up any time they want. I will start nibbling at CSCO at 25 because it is a great company, and wouldn't be surprised if I get some in the high teens soon. A great long term bet imo. GOod luck - back to my hot tea.

To: Razorbak who wrote (49052)	2/17/2001 11:20:46 PM
From: Gottfried	Respond to of 77400

Razorbak, >I suspect there is probably 10-20% more downside risk versus 50-80% upside potential in the next 6-12 months. JMHO.< Sounds reasonable to me. PnF would give a buy signal on reversal to 32 - unless it drops more first. stockcharts.com Business Week article on CSCO businessweek.com@@RVJDQGcQ*MN6tAcA/premium/01_09/b3721109.htm [may have to register to read it AND wait till Monday pm] Gottfried

To: Razorbak who wrote (49052)	2/18/2001 12:24:21 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 77400

Based on macro factors I wouldn't be calling a long term bottom right here. Not based on PEG or T/A or Fed rate cuts. PEG? Like many of its brothers, that new-economy emperor has no clothes! The once-and-future king is and always was cash flow and the crunch has just started. T/A? Charting the progress of lemmings as they rush pell mell across the tundra is useful most of the time. But when the terrain on which they run changes suddenly, such plots are diminished in usefulness. Fed? Rate cuts are necessary to ease the urgency of what must come to pass... Think of interest as the cost of waiting to be paid. If the cost was zero, would you give up on the principle too? No, you'd just wait forever. Dues will be collected. Businesses are awakening to a recession. Electrons on phosphor will not get milk from cow to glass ten times more effectively. Despite what it says on some glossy prospectus. Sure. Our more productive infrastructure allows us to spend more time commuting in the gas-guzzling SUV checking the closing price of CSCO and debating world economic matters online as if such actions really make a difference. Couple this to mis-allocation of a generation's capital into ventures of the harebrained.bomb variety... The chickens of such "net" productivity gains are coming home to roost. Leading the tech wreck is a special breed of business, the carriers. They get to bear the increasingly crushing burden of servicing debt. Debt incurred to pave the planet in bandwidth. Bandwidth that one day will be insufficient to slake the thirst of our on-line existence... But today, thanks to them we have broad bandwidth highways frequented by hordes of penniless travellers who refuse to pay the tolls. In a recessionary environment. Put this and more all together and we have a problem. The sum of money owed is greater than the sum of money paying back. In short, a glut of credit. This is where the similarity to 1929 and to Japan is exact. There is more money owed than will ever be collected. "Ever" is the key word. The only solution is to evaporate some of the expected future collections. Wake up and smell the coffee folks, THE major source of "expected future collections" is that paper profit some of you were sitting on last summer, which has not yet been fully converted into a most noble and charitable donation to society. The entire tech food chain from chip maker, to manufacturer, to carrier, to consumer is engaged in a giant real-time game of hot-potato to figure out who isn't going to get paid what they expected to get paid. It doesn't take too many functioning neurons to figure out how this plays out. There aren't enough people moaning in misery for this to have finished... from a macro perspective we've only just begun! Corporate paper, particularly tech equities, has a 90% chance of downside - regardless of how good the business is. How does this affect CSCO? The stock is still priced ahead of itself so it has room to the downside without getting out of misalignment with fundamentals. Ordinarily one might argue it's going to rapidly grow into this valuation. But this time it's different. The next two quarters will see the worst growth ever. Bet on it. This would allow the stock to correct to value over the next six months, and then grow with the rate of the business whenever that growth materializes again. So in my admittedly cloudy crystal ball I see trending lower with three upcoming opportunities to bottom below whatever bottom you see here: (a) in conjunction with the published 10Q when people get a glimpse at the cash flow picture; (b) Chambers guides on revenue for Q3 (he just set the stage) and (c) Q3 results. Just MHO. I think I'll stay in my cash-like bunker. Good luck out there. John.