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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bramble88 who wrote (11723)	11/7/2002 1:17:43 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

This, considering that millions of investors (and not only those in CSCO) hang their fortunes on the earnings #s, is manipulative to say the least. Thank you Put much better than I did. You also reinforced my CRIMINAL intent message: To deceive shareholders and potential shareholders on the health of the company. The SEC will never crack down on this shit, especially with republicans running rampant everywhere. M

To: bramble88 who wrote (11723)	11/7/2002 2:47:18 AM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

I agree with you that intent is much of the essence of the criminality it has been spoken of. To prove such intent would be very difficult at best. Now the intent to take advantage of unsuspecting investors is what I would assume you refer to. The reason this all DOES matter(IMO), is that a one-time charge to write down inventory is ignored by many when evaluating earnings -so it does not damage the quarter when it is written off all that much. Then when the stuff is sold later, costs are artificially lower, and earnings and gross margin look great. Not to mention that in any case it is potentially a way to shift costs from a weak quarter to a stronger one. It seems to me that one would have to be damned sure of what happens in the future so as to not get stuck with the inventory, so my [criminal] intention is to write it off in the one quarter... and then, I feel quite confident that in the next quarter or two I will be able to move it. It seems to me that this requires a strong feel and knowledge of what will happen in the future to make such a bold move as you suggest. Not to mention all the variables that could alter the result of my original intent should not be altered, as they in turn would destroy my end result. To me it sounds a tad risky and complicated to expose myself like that... This, considering that millions of investors (and not only those in CSCO) hang their fortunes on the earnings #s, is manipulative to say the least. Ah yes, the good of the "investor" Here is where I have a problem... I disagree If I am an investor, what matters to me is the LONG TERM, so what do I care, the nuances and market movements of quarter to quarter.... it is the long term that matters. Here is where I am having a problem accepting that such movement in terms of quarter to quarter can be considered "criminal" by the CEO. Did CISCO attempt to maintain the value of its stock or was it the intent of the move to devalue the stock? On the other hand, if one is a speculator who is either interested in the short term and/or shorting the stock, then I can see how what happens minute by minute could be represented as "relevant and material" to the point that criminality could be implied. (Justifiable or not). Personally I am more of a speculator I put the burden of the quarterly results on the analyst who are the ones promoting the stocks on a daily basis and a healthy churning is in the best interest of the brokers. Therefore the pressure to perform EVERY TIME on a three month period, based on (sometimes) speculative "estimates" by outside parties. That alone, if I am that concern with the future of my "investmentse” would tell me to stay away from that particular stock since the daily events will gyrate wildly the value of said investment. Personally I am in the camp of the speculator.... At worst, I can see CSCO defending the value of the company against the quarterly gyrations. But not "devaluating" the stock. If so ... who got damaged ? and why ? This pressure has been brought on by the same analysts who have lulled the "unsuspecting" public into "investing" (a long term proposal), under an environment of quarterly expectations that MUST be met, or else face the dire consequences. (a short term, speculative proposal). I am not denying that your initial scenario is possible, I am just not comfortable with the idea of criminalizing every move a CEO has to execute to save the value of his company against a band of analysts whose survival depends on the very buy/sale orders of their clients.... who, some, act like hyenas at the very first moment their most ardent desires are not realized in the timing they demanded (or expected) because so and so analyst told them so... If you are speculating, then you ought to accept the risk that short term moves carry. If you are a true investor, then it is the long term that matters... Now.... I got to go because I just saw a black helicopter land in my back yard... edit... I am going to bed... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz