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 (56746)	1/17/2002 8:25:46 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

kvkkc, First, there are two points to consider: (1) Cisco the company; and (2) Cisco the stock. I am of the opinion that we all agree that "Cisco the company" is a dominant force in the networking industry. The question then becomes, how much is the "individual investor" willing to pay for "Cisco the stock"? Cash Flows from Operations, Earnings, and EPS numbers have declined significantly and that directly correlates with "Cisco the stock". Another question is: Is "Cisco the stock" priced fairly with respect to the perception of future growth? Is "Cisco the stock" accurately priced? I believe the answer is NO, since bulls perceive "Cisco the stock" to be undervalued with respect to its future growth prospects, while Bears perceive that "Cisco the stock" is overvalued with respect to its future growth prospects. Perhaps, FY02 EPS and Cash Flow estimates are not a good indicator of the "value" of "Cisco the stock". Therefore, what are the expectations for FY03, and beyond? Will "Cisco the company" be able to grow revenues/net income by 30-50% per annum? If so, will EPS grow at the same "pace"? Those questions must be answered in order for an "investor" to have an adequate opinion as to whether "Cisco the stock" is to be purchased, or sold short.

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (56746)	1/17/2002 9:59:41 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

True, but that's assuming someone could have timed it correctly. Luckily, I did time it correctly (bought in at ~$12 and sold at $19.96), hehe! It's not often that I get so lucky on timing stuff. Partly, because I don't do it that often. Also, remember that bigger picture is that he missed out on the 80% plunge in Cisco's price too. $80 to $10 and back to $20. Looks to me like he missed out on an overall plunge of 75%. Bonds would have been the holy grail for anyone during this time period.

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (56746)	1/17/2002 10:55:49 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 77400

kerry, there's no problem in whose definition of fair value to use. Each of us uses our own. And speaks from our own perspective. As long as we don't put words in each other's mouths. The fact that our views all differ and change is what makes it possible for mindmeld to buy in at 12 and sell at 20 when nothing really substantial in the business has changed. Yup, I lost out on a 100% gain in the last 4 months. As mindmeld pointed out, also lost out needing a 700% gain to break even through the preceding 14 months so I guess it depends on where you start the clock. I'll take my measly 5-6% on 8x the capital base for a risk-free, effortless and worry free 40-50% equivalent. Year after year after year. But could I get more? Sure. But why bother flirting with the risk? No sense being greedy when good enough will do. Where, just like "fair value", each of us gets to define "good enough". Yes, to each his own. John