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: kvkkc1 who wrote (53185)	5/19/2001 4:15:32 PM
From: kvkkc1	Respond to of 77400

JS, I ran out of edit time. Your choice of time frames for comparing CSCO and MO were convenient to your argument. If you look at the last 50 days rather than 100, speaking of insectoid lifespans, or compare as in the linked chart from mid 93. Paints a different picture. No recommendations from me, just documentation, and the standard past performance is no indicator of the future results.knc finance.yahoo.com

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (53185)	5/19/2001 5:14:48 PM
From: Ed Forrest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

You come here claiming to be neutral and post bearish without fail. Then you wonder why people who are optimistic, without telling folks to buy or sell, question your integrity. I think you still have much to learn in your next 60 years.knc Knc While I do not disagree with your comments I should, in all fairness, point out that John Shannon is just one of many that fall into that category. Having said that, I hold the thought that if one no longer owns Cisco or more than likely never have owned it than venomous commentary on their part is for lack of a better word unseemly. I liken such distasteful conduct to entering persons home uninvited and proceed to lecture said owner that their house is unworthy and they should sell it immediately and brings into question their judgment for continuing to own it. I have owned many stocks and have been involved with most their threads in my 4 ½ years with SI. After having sold them for whatever reason I would never think to revisit those threads and start critiquing that issue. I think of such conduct as tacky. Cheers

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (53185)	5/19/2001 9:34:06 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

kvkkc1 - woah, please. Step back. I am not advocating a one-size-fits-all position (e.g. buy MO forever and hang on), merely pointing out what is my position NOW and in the timeframe of my investing decisions, which tends to be 3-6 months between moves. Rest assured, I'll dump MO in a flash if it looks like it is going to be an underperforming asset. Right now, it doesn't. My only point here is that dumping CSCO and being in stuff like MO turned out to be a good move. Despite the moronic appearance at the time. I also think you should look very closely at MO's product portfolio. 14% growth in EPS. Not too bad for a stock with a PE of 12 and a dividend too. And it's not just nastyweed. You eat KD? You drink Miller GD? Them's MO. MO is into consumer consumables. Folks the world over are going to eat and drink (and smoke). Those untold millions without phones? Well, there are a few billions going without KD too. So be careful. Odds are that as a consumer you contribute more to MO's bottom line than you do to CSCO's. Same goes with the other 6.5 billion people on the planet. Second, it doesn't need to "grow" revenues to get where Cisco longs to be some day. Take a look at this enviable cash machine, please. They're only pulling down more than 25x CSCO's current PRO-FORMA EPS in ACTUAL earnings, at a little over 2.5x CSCO's price (10x premium), on a revenue base only 4x as much as CSCO, growing only half as fast as Chambers gleaming eyes dream of. And paying a healthy dividend while they are at it. MO is a real cash machine. Something CSCO hopes to grow up as. And you scoff??? Okee-dokee. Have it your way. Long term performance has been dismal. Strangely enough however, that's what I want (see if you can figure out why!). Some of us switch easily from one vehicle to another to another. I grew up on a farm. It doesn't help when you get too fond of dinner. My assumption is not that people will take all of their money out of tech and put it into fixed income. I agree with you that people will need growth. But they won't be so highly biased. Another exercise to think through. J6P has (had) a huge bias towards growth in their portfolio. Look at fund inflow rates: they are going overwhelmingly towards growth. Yet by the time people are 60 the majority (not all) will have 60%+ of their investments in fixed income (on average). If "growth" is growing and fixed income is not, and growth starts out as 85% of inflows... how does a portfolio get to 60% income? Two ways: (a) sell some growth, or (b) divert inflows away from growth. Or (c) ignore conventional wisdom and keep a growth portfolio. When you need cash, sell some capital. All three scenarios call for at least substantially reduced cash inflows to growth in the next 5-10 years, because fund weightings are overwhelmingly biased towards growth right now. And 10 years from now when the majority that are the boomers are retiring, flows towards CSCO could dry up substantially. I really can't see someone dollar cost averaging their social security "leftovers" into CSCO. So when the inflows that are driving prices up go away... bye bye bubble pump. This is bad news for any "growth" stock. Very bad news. If the "sell some" scenarios turn out, well... the bubble pump could actually run in reverse. That could be more than bad! I am sorry if you question my integrity. I am sincere. I do apologize for the "I beat you" stance. That is not called for. I meant it only in the context of switching from CSCO to income this time last year versus continued optimistic "hold and buy" which marks the predominant stance. I just assumed you just held all the way through. Because your posting bias has never reflected anything but optimism, and I assumed that your actions reflected your posting bias. Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME. Or at least me. I am neutral as an investor. Yes. It is bad news to fall in love with one's food, or to be malicious to it. But I am "bearish" while I see that the price of a slice is way more than I think I'll be able to pay in the future, or when the risk exceeds my risk tolerance level. If it remains that way without fail, then yes I will be bearish without fail. But there was a time while I was running silently with the lemmings as a lemming myself when I was bullish without fail. My friends know this to be true. Right now I think CSCO (the stock) is a bad buy at $20, except for a "speculative play" because it's going up and down and up and down while it waits to go somewhere (which I think will be up for a short but indeterminate time and then down). Since I don't plan to buy and sell and buy and sell and buy and sell, there is a substantial risk that I will buy and hold for a long enough time to see a big loss. Which I am avoiding. I also think that if you are going to go to all that effort to buy and sell and buy and sell, it's silly to use CSCO when there are better vehicles out there. So I can't find a logical reason to buy CSCO. Which might just start to bother people some day. I can find a whole bunch of emotional reasons though. Oops. Which might just bother some people even more. That isn't to say there aren't good reasons. Like "a thousand fund managers can't be wrong", or "cash makes my mattress lumpy", or "I am a Cisco employee and this is what I do with my options" and so on... Yes, I have a lot to learn in the next 60 years. I enjoy debating with you precisely because I am learning in the process. So thank you. Our perspectives are different, and we don't have to agree. Like the market, the value is in the exchange. John.