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 (69131)	10/24/2005 2:14:56 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

I'm not really exuberant about this market Elroy. I know, but your view on the market this year has always been based on the prior three months of trading. In other words, you are saying its a bear market today, but if the market moves up 10% in the next two months you'll then be saying its a good market. If that happens it will actually have been a good market starting TODAY, not when you finally come around. I don't think you use forward looking techniques enough. I might be exuberant about MY STOCKS but that is an entirely different thing. That's called a stock picker's market. Didn't we just recently hit another 2 yr low on Cisco? Their business is, without a doubt, improving. Well, in their last conference call they lowered forward revenue expectations, so at least things for CSCO were deteriorating relative to consensus expectations. But I do think CSCO is looking pretty attractive as a "safe tech bet" investment. Reasonable growth at attractive value. My main concern with them is I really have no certainty that they won't lower revenue expectations again when they report October, and that aint a recipe for share price outperformance. I may buy some GOOG (like, 10 shares!) and hold it through the first week of January. It sure doesn't seem like its going to go down. Longer term, I agree with the people who say GOOG is already bouncing against the law of large numbers ceiling...

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (69131)	10/24/2005 5:37:11 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

"CEO [of Savvis] disputes $241K tab at topless club" [ Savvis is in the service provider sector - while most sp firms are okay there are a couple of strange ones that makes their tradeshows annoying for women as well as men that prefer if SPs assumed they're more intelligent than to be interested in SP tradeshow whores the strange firms hire ] cnn.com NEW YORK (AP) -- American Express is suing the CEO of a communications company for payment of $241,000 worth of disputed credit card charges at a Manhattan topless club. American Express says in papers filed in state court that Savvis Inc. chief executive officer Robert A. McCormick was in the club Scores in October 2003 with at least three other men. After McCormick got the $241,000 corporate credit card bill, Savvis called American Express and complained that some of the charges were fraudulent, the lawsuit says. The communications company said its chief disputed all but about $20,000, according to the lawsuit. "We firmly believe that Mr. McCormick was the victim of fraud," [cough] said Deena Williamson, Savvis's deputy general counsel. She declined to comment further. Lonnie Hanover, a Scores spokesman, said he had not talked to all of the employees involved with McCormick and could not say what the CEO purchased. After a lawsuit last year, Hanover said that "high rollers" visiting Scores' "super elite Presidents' Club" spend thousands of dollars on single bottles of champagne and tip strippers as much as $10,000 for lap dances and for spending time with them. The district attorney's office has said it is investigating alleged overcharging at Scores. [ How about if Nasdaq investigates Savvis for spending investor capital on personal services rendered ? ] Hanover said that each time a patron spends $10,000, Scores calls the customer's credit card company to get the charges approved. Scores even fingerprints the customer and requires him to get on the telephone with a credit card representative, he said. "We got authorization for all of the charges," Hanover said of McCormick's visit. "We followed proper procedures and documentation, and we were paid." Court papers say American Express asked McCormick several times to provide in writing his basis for calling the charges fraudulent. McCormick failed to respond, and when he was billed again he once again objected to the charges, the lawsuit says. American Express says McCormick finally responded in writing in September 2004, reiterating that some charges on the Scores bill were bogus, the lawsuit says. Scores has been paid in full, American Express's court papers say, while neither Savvis nor McCormick has paid any of the charges. Failure to pay is a violation of the American Express corporate credit card agreement, court papers say. An American Express spokeswoman, Judy Tenzer, said she had no comment. Message 21816215