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: Elroy who wrote (63248)	3/13/2003 9:52:36 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 77400

Great analogies, Elroy. I think that's a good rebuttal and is along the lines of my own thinking re Cisco.

To: Elroy who wrote (63248)	3/13/2003 11:52:36 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 77400

MSFT (another monopoly) has done fine with their 1,000s of $125k per year employees in Seattle. Cisco will do fine with their current employee costs, unless you can explain what is going to cause pricing pressure in networking. Msft and Cisco did it by spreading the costs of their huge US-based R&D orgs to the shareholders in the form of options. If you look at the largest options "abusers" as hueyone and rkral like to define them, it is the companies with the largest R&D- that is where the options go, not to the top but to the large R&D orgs. As Chambers has said, only 4% of options go to the top at Cisco, it is R&D that takes the lions share. So these companies because a kind of panacea for brilliant young people and we got innovations galore. I don't think the same quality will result from salaries of 50-60K max at msft/cisco which is where we need to go to compete. I am not in favor of options expensing so don't get me wrong, I am not saying msft or cisco did anything wrong in the 90s, on the contrary I think they did everything RIGHT. But going forward we don't have the same climate.