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: Zoltan! who wrote (11094)	12/19/1997 11:10:00 AM
From: Jurgen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Duncan, you guys here have a problem with ASND and Style <gg>. I don't and i'm not married to ASND (though i like it). Currently i'm long at 25, there's not much risk left, but if it goes below 22 i'll sell. Just one thought you might consider: If i were long CSCO, sitting on huge gains i would think about selling. All the great prospects CSCO has are built into the price. It's hard to sustain the current, very high valuation, even if CSCO performs great. The market growth is slowing (only 17% in 1997) and noone really knows what the turndown in Asia means for the world economy. So take your money now and come back when the sun is shining again. I know, most of you here regard yourself as 'investors'. I don't like that term. An Investor is someone who puts his money into a company directly. Your buying and selling of shares has no impact on the company's cash flow. You are not an investor, even if you hold for 100 years. Buying shares doesn't make sense if you don't sell. Best wishes

To: Zoltan! who wrote (11094)	12/19/1997 6:13:00 PM
From: G. Richmond	Respond to of 77400

Duncan, What ever happened to the Granite Systems acquisition? I haven't heard much about it since they were acquired last year. GR <If Cisco starts making lousy acquisitions and integrating them poorly and starts missing earnings and revenue targets, then and only then should it be treated like the rest. Since Cisco has consistently done the opposite and should continue to do so >