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 (67744)	4/25/2005 2:12:01 PM
From: faqsnlojiks	Respond to of 77400

Lizzie, et.al. THIS IS THE CSCO THREAD...NOT THE GOOG THREAD! Does Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers know something about his company that continues to elude most of Wall Street? Given the investment community's propensity for herd behavior, Cisco may be one of the most underestimated big-name technology stocks out there. The networking giant finished last week trading near its 52-week low, even though it continues to rack up record sales and earnings...more news.com.com -J

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (67744)	4/25/2005 3:25:10 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

People incl analysts are ignoring stock options expenses. Everyone but you. Um... you would be more correct to state that some people are ignoring, the others are factoring it in. The key question is "into what decisions?" The market is not a frothy climate for tech right now. So where do you attribute the strength in stock price? Um... Lizzie, I tried to tell you, but in my opinion the price has nothing to do with earnings. Before or after stock option expense. You are the one coupling earnings to stock price. Anybody with two eyes can look around at PE ratios all over the map and see for themselves that such a view is way off base. But you take it even further, with the thesis that expensing options will kill startups. I'm just telling you that your arguments are naive and not well constructed. Because they are naive and not well constructed. In short words that you might be able to parse: I believe Google is priced where it is because of what people think about the FUTURE! Kind of like CSCO was back in the bubble days. Why did CSCO fly so high? Because of earnings? No. Because of what the people buying the stock believed about the future! Does it matter how the future actually turns out? No. And it really doesn't matter what perspective people use to construct a future, e.g. whether stock options are expensed or not. Or whether owning 90% of internet gear is or isn't a lock on billions of dollars in shareholder wealth creation. What matters is that people hold a constructed future and behave accordingly. Price in the public market, particularly the NASD where the majority of companies don't return anything to their shareholders, is an artifice of construction by a very sophisticated apparatus. The purpose of which is to transfer wealth from people like you to people like me. Thankfully, you and many others seem reluctant to accept this perspective, which is, of course, the whole point. John