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: craig crawford who wrote (12523)	2/18/1998 12:13:00 PM
From: J. David	Respond to of 77400

One way he can achieve $20B in revenues by 2000 is through acquisitions. Just look at how much CPQ has "grown" revenue by adding DEC.

To: craig crawford who wrote (12523)	2/18/1998 12:44:00 PM
From: The Phoenix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Craig, You're always so negative. Well, I expect that from you... after all you've always been on the short side of this pup. Are you still hoping for a pull back? Even I was expecting that but it didn't materialize. Here's a few facts to chew on: EPS estimates for the year are between $1.69 and $1.77 of which .92 is in the bag already. Given current P/E of about 50 that puts CSCO at 88 3/4 by years end. This assumes that the recent slow down in the industry continues for the remainder of the year. I should add that Cisco was one of very few networkers that hit their earnings estimates in the face of this weakness.....and I'm not talking about reduced estimates. So I would have every expectation that they will not dissappoint going forward. They haven't disappointed for, what is it now, 38 quarters straight? Second from FY96 to FY97 CISCO saw a 57% increase in revenues. Third, yes it's true that CSCO revenues have increased at a slower 30% rate for the first two quarters of 98; once again far better than any competitor, and again in a market that hit a slow down in the past two quarters. IMHO this will not continue. The competitive service provider environment dictates that they find a way to invest in infrastructure or they will be relegated to second and third tier players. US West, Qwest, AT&T and others you may not be aware of are leading that charge. Enterprise business continues to chunk along. I expect the next quarters to be very interesting indeed. Finally, using your 40% number CSCO would need to generate revenues of $2.3B in Q3 and $2.5B in Q4. This would result in an $8.7B Fiscal year....and a 36% growth rate year over year. Given current valuations this would put CSCO in the mid-90's by year's end (not including any short squeezes along the way that push up the valuation) ;p Craig, not only do I think these numbers are WELL within reach I think Cisco betters the $9B revenue mark this year. I base this on a return to spending in the RBOC's, overseas, more internet purchases, acquisitions, further penetration into new markets such as data/voice, and RAS, and continued dominance in traditional markets... oh and yes, CSCO has delivered on Granite now. And, not that John needs my help defending himself .... certainly not from the likes of YOU my friend, he's done an excellent job with this company. He's built Cisco into the premier networking company in the industry and has positioned it for continued dominance in the sector.... he's got ASND running away from the RA market - their bread and butter up to now (see excerpt below), while COMS is fighting off INTC who has partnered with CSCO (interesting 'eh?). *********************************************** >>>>While Ascend fumbled, Cisco Systems (CSCO) drove down the field. In the same 1996, Dell'Oro Group market survey that ranked Ascend No. 1, Cisco didn't even rate an honorable mention. The company then had a mere 1.2% share of the remote-access concentrator market. Today Cisco claims to be No. 2 or No. 3, and expects to be No. 1 shortly. Ascend disputes Cisco's method for calculating market share, but the formerly uncontested No. 1 company is in a dogfight. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< investor.msn.com *********************************** So Craig, it is you that can "flap your jaws" all you want, but that you can not take John's success away from him (as if you could do better). Other points you may be able to make, but dissing John holds no water whatsoever. Gary