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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63758)	4/29/2003 10:41:28 PM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 77397

Chambers: There's hope for IT spending By Ian Fried CNET News.com April 29, 2003, 12:15 PM PT LAS VEGAS--Cisco CEO John Chambers is willing to bet that once the economy improves, companies will buy new technology gear before they hire new employees. "They will spend on IT as it relates to productivity," Chambers said Tuesday in a keynote speech at the NetWorld+Interop trade show here. However, Chambers concedes his is not necessarily a majority view, with many high-tech leaders predicting that technology spending will lag behind any recovery in the economy. Since last year, Cisco has been shifting its research largely into technologies that will debut in the next one to three years, according to Chambers. From its pending purchase of Linksys, as an entry the home wireless market, to its new 802.11b phone, Cisco has identified 13 new business areas that each stand to contribute $1 billion or so to Cisco's sales, Chambers said. Some of those businesses, such as switches for storage networks, have only recently started to result in sales. The Cisco CEO said the company took in a little under $10 million in revenue last quarter from storage--the first quarter its storage switch was on the market. That figure could easily double each quarter for the next several quarters, he added. The continued growth in technology spending will come from industries that have not yet realized significant productivity gains from the Internet, Chambers predicted, pointing to sectors such as construction, government and manufacturing. "Technology for technology's sake is not only on the back burner, it's off the stove," he said. David Wu, a financial analyst at Wedbush Morgan, said he did not disagree with Chambers' contention that companies will invest in technology before hiring new workers, but said the problem is that companies are usually slow to recognize an improvement in the economy once it occurs. "It usually takes two quarters," Wu said. Chambers also used Tuesday's speech to rail against the movement to force companies to account for employee stock options as an expense. While some changes in disclosure may be needed, employee ownership of tech companies is crucial, Chambers said. Regulations that would force companies to change the way they account for stock options would be tantamount to an "Engineering and High-Tech Export Act of 2003," Chambers said.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63758)	4/29/2003 11:45:33 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

Hi Lizzie, I think you may be underestimating just how many smart, heavily degreed, seriously techie people there are out there searching for jobs. I honestly believe that a company like Cisco could get rid of stock options as a form of compensation and not lose very many people. First of all, most people will stay on, because there's no place else to go. Second, most people don't really believe in options anymore anyway. 3 years of nothing happening really puts a damper on stock option dreams. Third, they could offset the bad news of discontinuing the options program with a bump in salaries to keep people happy. They certainly don't have to decrease salaries. Just a discontinuation of the options program would do the trick. Plus, one thing they do at my company is that the managers like myself are allowed to give out cash bonuses for project successes. Cisco could do something similar to keep people motivated. Bottom line is that there are lots of ways to keep people motivated and options are just one of them (the one they should get rid of).

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63758)	4/30/2003 1:06:20 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

Sigh... Lizzie, if you want to have a real discussion, then let's have a real discussion. Offering three ludicrous choices as if these are the only possible alternatives and then declaring a ludicrous outcome is... well, ludicrous. This is the Cisco thread. Last time I checked, they made gear that powers the Internet. And the Internet is that thing which circles the globe, leveling the playing field, eliminating the effects of distance and transporting the entire wealth of a corporate knowledge base to one's fingertips. Instantly. One would think we, on this thread, would be amongst the first to clue into the idea that a technology which helps our global corporations penetrate world markets will also help the world labor markets penetrate our global corporations! So we have enabled road warriors to be ultra-productive with an office in the palm of their hand. What difference does a few light-milliseconds really matter? We in the valley have a problem. Which is this: (1) WE ARE VERY EXPENSIVE, and (2) WE AREN'T, ON AVERAGE, THAT MUCH MORE INTELLIGENT THAN THOSE WHO INHABIT THE REST OF THE PLANET However hard it may be to wedge that thought in amongst some of the egos around here, it is a fact. Now we can choose to stick our heads up our butts and complain about how dark and smelly it is in here, if we like. But that's just going to make it so we don't see the problem when it hits us. If we don't die of suffocation first. The problem is we are pricing ourselves out of the market. The global job market. We can pretend it should be a local market, but as geography ceases to be a factor, and corporate knowledge distribution technology increases in effectiveness, the pretending gets harder and harder to do. Aren't you one of the experts in making this happen? Can't you see the natural consequences? Stock options are a red herring. Or, perhaps more correctly stated, those proposing the expensing of options are convenient whipping boys. Chambers is one smart guy. And the smarter politicians (yes, that's what CEOs are) are quick to recognize that their actions in out-sourcing jobs to cheaper labor markets aren't going to go down well with the local constituency. So let's blame it on something else that's also not going to go down well with the local constituency. Go ahead and lash at me if it makes you feel better. It won't make the problem any less, and it won't hurt me at all. But it's not all that indicative of an appreciation for what is really going on. The out-sourcing to India started well before I ever typed the words "stock option" on this thread. And it will continue well after the debate settles. Cisco is out-sourcing to India. But they don't expense stock options. The whole thing sounds just like my son. Tonight I asked him to do the dishes. And the reason his homework isn't done is 'cause he had to do the dishes. And the dog wasn't fed 'cause he had to do the dishes. And he's late going to bed 'cause he had to do the dishes. 'Course he doesn't do his homework or feed the dog or go to bed on time any other night either... but tonight... it was all 'cause of the dishes. All the energy focused in the wrong place won't fix the problem. It's just a childish attempt to duck responsibility. We are un-competitive in our compensation structure with respect to the global job market. Whose fault is this? Who bears the consequences? Who owns the responsibility for change?