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: flint who wrote (51881)	4/20/2001 2:01:22 AM
From: Ed Forrest	Respond to of 77397

Or you do not understand me. Flint You are absolutely correct,I don't. I read your latest post twice and just don't get it,sorry. Good luck with your investment philosophy,whatever it may be. Ed PS.Cisco doesn't pay a dividend.If they do then they've been holding out on me.

To: flint who wrote (51881)	4/20/2001 3:09:48 AM
From: Robert O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77397

FLINT, your example sounds like it is right out of Glengary/Glenross. 'Did you make money?' 'you made a fortune' 'I bet it crashes' I hear Al Pachino: 'you create wealth/you destroy wealth' What point can be made of a scenario that at the end of the day has purchased 200,000 shares over a 38 year period at 100 share increasing increments weekly? CSCO trades about 60 million shares A DAY... I don't think your scenario creates a whole lotta buying or selling pressure ... remember what thread you're on <g>. RO

To: flint who wrote (51881)	4/20/2001 9:47:42 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

Hi Flint - I would say you are correct, but a tad early. [EDITED] So you will be subject to ridicule by those same ridiculous folks who mocked the early warnings last year. Best to shrug it off. You are early because right now, the boomers are not retired, and indeed have seen the date of their possible retirement pushed back by many years. You are also early because they still haven't figured out that the same irresistible force driving anything "growth" up up up (their money flooding in) will be similarly irresistible when (not if) their money floods out again. The natural progression of investment philosophy goes "Consumption", "Growth", "Value", "Income", "Death". Those in each stage are dimly aware of the next stage, but nearly oblivious to any beyond that. Not unreasonable with CSCO a "Growth" stock that we would have on this thread a vague understanding of "value" but complete denial of "Income" as a relevant factor. To some techno-engineer earning three times what he needs to live on, who needs investments generating cash? He's awash in cash. He wants investments generating investments. Growth. Indeed anything else, even "Value" is hard to contemplate. But the concept of buy low, sell high isn't hard to grasp, so there is some vague understanding of the concept. Income... a stream of cash? Stocks that don't go up in price(I want them going down)... This eludes them. But it's not hard to figure out. In retirement, when the nonexistent pension and meagre social security kick in... how will he fuel his play toys without cash? Income. Either that, or divestment of capital. Which means that pensioners and pre-pensioners are either going to be selling zero yield growth stocks to live off of the cash, or selling zero yield growth stocks to buy income instruments. It's very simple. If they don't monetize the capital, then Estate Taxes are going to do it for them. And our boomers are hardly a philanthropic bunch. Remember: any stock without a dividend, just like CSCO inventory, is worth ZERO until sold. I know a few paper paupers who used to be paper millionaires. They get this concept viscerally. So, when the boomers decide like the flock of lemmings that we are that it is time to shift to an Income bias... well, look out below. This recent whack in the side of the head was merely the prologue. Merely the beginning of a shift from "Growth" to "Value". Which brings us to CSCO. It's a growth stock, with a smattering of Value. It hit the boomer sweet spot almost perfectly. And made folks like me a ton of money on the upside.... those that sold last year more than those who still hold (arguably it has not made them any money, yet). But will it hit the income sweet spot? Can it pay a dividend By 2010? Well, maybe by then we have genetically engineered flying pigs too. A few engineers might want to sharpen their excel pencils and sketch out a meaningful dividend in pre-proforma cash! Difficult. If not impossible. Your point, perhaps too subtle for lesser light bulbs to glow on is that unless it pays a dividend, sooner or later the boomers will be selling CSCO as relentlessly as they are buying it today. That wouldn't normally be a problem, except we boomers sort of outnumber most of the other folks. Which means those folks with LTBH gleams in their eyes don't realize that the letters could stand for Long Term Bag Holders if they hold on for too long. The operative question then is "how long is too long". Some would say 2010 and argue that we have 10 years of beetle driving boomer driven prosperity. But I think it will come earlier than that. I suspect there are a lot of tech investors just itching to be worth something substantial again. And once they are, I think this time they may actually clue in and take some money off the table. In a way that makes what we've just come through look tame. I strongly suggest that people look at the stock charts of '29. The real killing blow came in 1930. John