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: RetiredNow who wrote (62850)	2/2/2003 9:25:45 AM
From: Tom D	Respond to of 77400

Wall Street Pines for Tech Recovery SG Cowen said on Wednesday that it recently spoke to a high-level official at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Federal IT spending budget is expected to increase 20 percent in 2003, up from a 5 percent increase last year, the brokerage said. Cisco Systems Inc. (NasdaqNM:CSCO - news) is expected to be the primary beneficiary, said SG Cowen analyst Christin Armacost. Getting a handle on how much companies will spend is difficult because of particular company needs and the wide spectrum of what can be bought. UBS Warburg said it expects global wireless capital spending of about $68 billion in 2003, though it said its estimate could be reduced after AT&T Wireless Services Inc. (NYSE:AWE - news) announced on Wednesday spending would be slashed almost 40 percent to $3 billion. U.S. Bancorp Jaffray said even the most optimistic forecasts for PC components call for barely half the 17 growth range of several years ago when Y2K spending was on a tear. "Many observers, justifiably so, see this as a largely saturated market hamstrung further by a worldwide economic slump," said Bancorp Jaffray analysts Ashok Kumar in a report. VALUATIONS STILL TOO HIGH To be sure, technology earnings will increase 31 percent in 2003, following a 22 percent decline last year, said Ed Yardeni, Prudential Securities' chief investment strategist. The view is in line with Wall Street consensus, Yardeni said, and though it seems high, it will only put the sector back to what its earnings were in 1995, he said. "I'm not real enthusiastic about tech," Yardeni said. "Overall, I think this is going to be a distressed sector for awhile. You can have an earnings rebound, but not enough to justify current valuation multiples." On a 12-month forward-earnings basis as of January, tech stocks were trading at price-to-earnings ratios of 30, whereas prior to 1998 they traded at about 16, he said. Tech will continue to be a trading vehicle, sparking great rallies that last a few weeks, only to give back most of their gains, Yardeni said. Since the Nasdaq peaked in March 2000, there have been seven rallies that turned out to be duds. "We have to get over this tech obsession," he said. "We have to get on with life." TomD

To: RetiredNow who wrote (62850)	2/4/2003 2:13:15 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

<not entirely accurate> To clarify, you should end your posts with: mindmeld: the poster formerly known as a CPA.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (62850)	2/4/2003 2:34:01 PM
From: rkral	Respond to of 77400

mindmeld, re "So technically, I'm not a CPA." And I was ready to wager you were .. but the other guy backed out, thank goodness. Man, would I have been PO'd. <ng> Ron

To: RetiredNow who wrote (62850)	2/5/2003 2:03:50 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

So technically, I'm not a CPA. Although, I once was. :) So that explains my occassionally lapses in accounting trivia. all the CPAs and finance folks out there know and were taught that Black Scholes is flawed. We are still getting expert advice from the CPA who isn't really a CPA? I refrained from piling on when you responded to my concerns about your accounting expertise with the "accounting trivia" excuse, but if you are going to keep going with unsupported references to CPAs or what CPAs or finance types are taught, in what I believe is a misguided effort to try to add stature to your posts, I feel compelled to point out that not having a beginning clue about what a cash flow statement does, how a cash flow statement works, nor how it fits together with the other financial statements, is not accounting "trivia" as you responded, and imho, is indicative of someone who was never a CPA. You missed basic, fundamental accounting principles that imo, are only 1 or 2 steps removed from accounting 101. Cash flow statements were not invented yesterday, and even me, who is definitely not an accountant nor a CPA, was taught a few, minimal basic points regarding cash flow statements and how they fit together with the other financial statements over 25 years ago. You have also disappeared, conspicuously imo, most times over the last two years whenever I or anyone else has had an accounting question on this thread. And then last week, when you finally surfaced to try to answer an accounting question about share based accounting, you wildly missed fundamental principles of accounting in your answer, not once, but multiple times. This is not to suggest that your posts are not generally as worthwhile as mine or anyone elses, and indeed, are often times more worthwhile, but let's stop trying to make them something more than they are with what I believe are unsupportable references to what CPAs or finance types are taught. So regardless of whether you were 1) never a CPA, or 2) you were a CPA 15 years ago but you never really practiced, or 3) you were a CPA fifteen years ago but the fundamentals have completely slipped your mind, we are in full agreement now that you are currently not a CPA. Your posts have something to offer, but I think you would be well served to drop your references to being a CPA or what CPAs and finance types are taught, and just post your analysis like the rest of us. There is no point in keeping on bringing up the CPA references now that you have admitted that you are not a CPA. As for Black Scholes, I am aware of certain limitations, but my question was directed at Lizzie Tudor, who I strongly suspect, like many Black Scholes critics, has not yet bothered to investigate how Black Scholes would be applied in practice to expense net income on the income sheet, nor tried to analyze whether Black Scholes would be a net improvement or disimprovement over the system we have now, which incorrectly values stock options at zero expense on the income statements. JMO, Huey