SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Ciena (CIEN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: craig crawford who wrote (1622)2/27/1998 12:48:00 AM
From: Gary Korn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12623
 
This article is worth a read...it compares LU and CIEN

2/27/98 N.Y. Times News Serv. (Page Number Unavailable Online)
1998 WL-NYT 9805705800
New York Times News Service
c. 1998 New York Times Company

Friday, February 27, 1998

Market Place: For Lucent Stock, How High Is Too High?

By SETH SCHIESEL

In the telecommunications-equipment industry, as in many others, biggest is
often best. But telecommunications investors looking for quick profit may not
want to apply that maxim just now.

There has been a telling divergence in the recent financial fortunes of
Lucent Technologies Inc., the biggest North American maker of gear for
communications networks, and those of Ciena Corp., one of Lucent's smaller
rivals.


Thanks to its torrid stock, Lucent has packed on about $20 billion in value
since the middle of January, bringing its market capitalization to about $70
billion. Over a similar period, Ciena's market value shrank by about $2.3
billion, to about $3.7 billion.

But somewhere along Lucent's 40 percent rocket ride and Ciena's 38 percent
fall, investors have appeared to get a bit overexcited about both companies'
near-term stock prospects. Lucent's stock has already passed or come close to
the targets set by many financial analysts for the end of this year. Some of
those analysts have raised their target, but others now question whether the
stock can support valuations far higher than it has borne in the past.

Ciena's shares are not quite in the bargain bin. But they have been
discounted to the point where their price does not appear to reflect the
company's growth prospects.

Ciena is a leader in one of the few precincts of the telecommunications
equipment world where Lucent is not a dominant player. Ciena, of Linthicum,
Md., makes advanced gear that allows phone companies to transmit much more
information over their fiber optic networks. Called wave division multiplexers,
expensive boxes like those made by Ciena generally allow carriers to increase

the capacity of their systems by as much as 16 times.

Lucent does not now offer much in that field, but last month it said that by
the end of the year it would introduce a multiplexer that increases capacity 80
times. That could trump Ciena, which plans a 40-times product soon, but has not
announced plans for an 80-times multiplexer.

In another blow, Ciena disclosed last Friday that a major customer, Worldcom
Inc., intended to scale back its orders.

The Lucent and Worldcom announcements quickly depressed Ciena's stock price.

Still, Lucent's announcement is merely a plan. The company has a fine track
record of delivering on its promises, but the landscape of high technology is
littered with unrealized intentions. Steven D. Levy, a technology analyst with
Salomon Smith Barney, is convinced that Ciena will sign other clients to more
than make up for the loss of Worldcom orders. And many analysts expect Ciena's
revenue to increase to more than $500 million this year, from $373.8 million
last year.

Ciena's stock, which went public at $23 a share a year ago, closed on

Thursday at $41.4375, or about 30 times estimated earnings, far below its high
last month of $63.625.

Levy's confidence in Ciena's earnings power is not unusual. Wall Street
research analysts are almost preternaturally optimistic. What is unusual,
though, is Levy's willingness to speak at all critically about the levitation
of Lucent's stock. "Frankly, I think Lucent is getting a bit ahead of itself,"
he said.

The stock is certainly getting ahead of its traditional valuation of 20 to 30
or so times projected earnings. The average profit estimate among analysts
polled by First Call is $3.10 a share for Lucent's fiscal year ending in
September. (Levy is one of the real optimists, estimating $3.20 a share).
Lucent, which was priced at $27 a share at its initial public offering in April
1996, closed Thursday at $108.75, a multiple of 35 based on projected earnings.

Such heights can be difficult to maintain. Lucent's long-term prospects
remain rosy; the company is one of the giants of its industry, and it is
getting leaner. But it would be hard to expect the company's current run-up to
continue at its current breathtaking pace, if at all.


In July, Lucent traded as high as 38 times what the company eventually would
earn for the year. It tailed off very quickly thereafter.

Last month, Lucent beat Wall Street's quarterly earnings estimate by 13.2
percent, showing that fears that telephone carriers intended to generally slow
their capital spending were unfounded. The annual estimates rose. But the
shares rose even faster, and not so often in great spurts as in steady strides.

Perhaps as important for the company's share price was its announcement last
week that it intended to split its stock 2-for-1 in April. Because of its
legacy as part of AT&T, Lucent is the second most widely held stock in the
country. Sixty percent of its shares are owned by individual investors, who
generally put more faith in the power of stock splits than do institutional
holders.

Lucent is now trading at a huge premium to other big telecommunications
equipment makers like Nokia of Finland (27) and Northern Telecom of Canada
(28). The only one that comes close is Ericsson of Sweden at 33, and Ericsson
is much more heavily involved with wireless communications than is Lucent.
(Ericsson is also much more heavily in Asia than Lucent.)


Donald K. Peterson, Lucent's chief financial officer, says the company
deserves a high valuation because it consistently beats earnings estimates.
Lucent thinks it no longer should be compared merely to its industry rivals.
Senior executives say more appropriate peers would be companies like Coca-Cola
and Microsoft. Peterson suggests that investors think of Lucent as they would a
drug company: steady and reliable.

"We have with the drug industry a very high-quality demand pattern," he
said. "The drug companies know we are all going to get old and need help. I
believe it's reliable that the world will need more phones."

Fair enough. Venture a comparison, then, of Lucent and Merck & Co., the drug
maker.

The companies are roughly the same size, have been growing at a similar rate
and each is a leader in its industry. Lucent had revenue last year of $26.4
billion, up 33 percent from 1994. Merck had sales last year of $23.7 billion,
up 39 percent from 1994. Lucent's stock has had a strong run, as has Merck's,
gaining about 40 percent since November.

Merck's shares closed at $126 Thursday, a forward-earnings multiple of 29.

Were Lucent's shares trading at the same valuation, they would have closed
Thursday around $89, or 18 percent off the current price.

23:53 EST FEBRUARY 26, 1998




To: craig crawford who wrote (1622)2/27/1998 12:51:00 AM
From: Gary Korn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12623
 
2/26/98 Fin. Times 27
1998 WL 3535863
Financial Times
Copyright Financial Times Limited 1998

Thursday, February 26, 1998

Companies and Finance: The Americas

Ciena high on a wave of success
By Nick Denton

The day before Ciena's initial public offering closed last year, an
investment banker showed Pat Nettles, the company's unassuming chief
executive, a table of the largest flotations of venture capital-backed
companies. Above Netscape Communications, the internet software company,
was Ciena. "I thought it was an arithmetic error," says Mr Nettles.

Ciena, which makes amplifiers to squeeze greater performance out of
existing fibre-optic communications cables, has come out of nowhere.

The six-year-old company is based, not in the densely cultivated
seedbed for new companies, Silicon Valley, but outside industrial
Baltimore. It is part of the telecommunications equipment industry,
which is dominated by multinationals such as Lucent Technologies and
Alcatel and notoriously unwelcoming to start-ups. However, Ciena has
become the leader in an important new technology which promises to
expand the capacity of the internet without digging up miles of cable.

"This will enable us to do everything from videophones to the
narrowcasting of movies, as well as offering richer online shopping,"
says Mr Nettles.

His promise has won orders from three of the four leading US
long-distance carriers, including AT&T, which traditionally buys
equipment from Lucent, which was recently spun-off.

Last week, Ciena beat Wall Street expectations for the quarter to
January with earnings of 37 cents, equivalent to net income of $39.8m.
It also revealed it had become a victim of its own success. WorldCom, a
big customer, had suspended orders as its need for additional capacity

had been fulfilled by Ciena's earlier shipments. The news prompted a
plunge in Ciena shares, though the company is still worth $4bn on the
stock market.

There are three main reasons for Ciena's sudden success.

First, its product uses wave division multiplexing, which allows a
single fibre to carry 16 parallel streams of data, each on its own
frequency. It is as if, instead of sending information in the form of
pulses of white light, the sender could weave a message in all the
colours of the rainbow.

The technique was pioneered in the UK at the University of
Southampton, and at Pirelli, the Italian industrial group, but Ciena was
the first to apply it to a commercial product.

A fibre-optic cable, boosted by a MultiWave amplifier from Ciena every
120km, can carry about 40bn bits of information a second, equivalent to
3m simultaneous telephone conversations.

Second, the popularity of the internet, after the introduction of

easy-to-use browser software in 1993, was unexpected.

"When we first went to Sprint to talk about 16 channels, they said
that was really great but we were only going to need four channels," Mr
Nettles says.

Underestimates by market research companies of the growth of internet
traffic may have chilled demand from carriers for Ciena's products, but
they also slowed the entry of equipment companies such as Lucent into
the market.

So when the introduction of commercial browser software in 1994 led to
internet traffic doubling every three to four months, leaving many
carriers short of capacity, Ciena was the only company offering a
cost-effective solution.

Third, as a start-up, the company had several advantages. It did not
make fibre optic cables and so had no concerns about cannibalising
sales, and the stock options offered to staff meant they worked harder
than counterparts at traditional equipment makers. "They are not as
likely to be in the lab as our people at midnight," says Mr Nettles.

To date, Ciena has had little competition, but Lucent, Northern
Telecom of Canada, Alcatel of France, NEC, Pirelli, Siemens and Ericsson
-- each with established relationships with telecom carriers -- are all
developing rival products.

Its lead, which it estimates at more than 12 months, is in its favour.
So while competitors struggle to deploy their promised 16-channel
systems, Ciena plans this year to launch amplifiers that squeeze 40
channels in one fibre.

Furthermore, the company is developing increasingly intimate
relationships with Sprint, WorldCom and AT&T, the three leading
long-distance carriers in the US. Although AT&T, the largest, has set no
guaranteed level of purchases from Ciena and is buying from Lucent,
Ciena is the leading supplier to the other two.

As with the making of liquid crystal display screens, it is not so
much the underlying technology as the production techniques that
distinguish manufacturers. Most of Ciena's patents -- it had by October
received 10 and notice of allowance of 11 more -- are to do with

manufacturing innovations.

"If you were to steal our optical amplifier design, only half would
work: we have a technique, which cannot be easily replicated, to bring
the yield to 100 per cent," says Andrei Csipkes, head of manufacturing.

Also in its favour is its insertion loss, a measure of the amount of a
signal lost where the fibre enters a junction, which is half the
industry average.

It is all too common, as Netscape has shown, for a start-up to pioneer
a technology, establish an early lead, only to see it eroded by powerful
incumbents as they respond to the challenge. For the moment, Ciena is
withstanding the onslaught.

Nicholas Denton




To: craig crawford who wrote (1622)2/27/1998 12:54:00 AM
From: Gary Korn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12623
 
The average 2Q eps estimate is now .28/share:

2/26/98 Prof. Inv. Rep. 08:17:00
Professional Investor Report
Copyright (c) 1998, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Thursday, February 26, 1998

Analysts' Ratings: Communications Tech
This is a weekly ranking of the stocks within the
Communications Tech industry, based on analysts'
recommendations contributed within the past month to First
Call's database. To be included on the list, a company must
be rated by at least five analysts.
Also included in the list are First Call analysts'
estimates for the companies' current quarters. Estimates are
operating income per share based on a survey of analysts.
First Call Consensus Recommendation Scale
1.0-2.4 = Buy
2.5-3.4 = Hold
3.5-5.0 = Sell
Latest # Analysts First Call # Analysts

Consensus Covering EPS Estimate Covering
--------- ---------- ------------ ----------
(Q: ANIC) 1.0 5 $0.11 1Q 5
(Q: TRII) 1.0 5 $0.19 1Q 5
(Q: DAVX) 1.0 6 $0.30 1Q 6
(Q: CMVT) 1.0 7 $0.44 1Q 7
(Q: PTEK) 1.1 7 $0.25 1Q 7
(Q: INSS) 1.2 6 $0.12 3Q 6
(Q: AVTC) 1.3 6 $0.29 1Q 5
(Q: DMIC) 1.3 8 $0.23 4Q 8
(Q: CIEN) 1.3 9 $0.28 2Q 9

(Q: ICGX) 1.3 11 ($2.44) 4Q 10
(Q: RCNC) 1.4 5 ($0.73) 4Q 4
(Q: AFCI) 1.4 10 $0.14 1Q 11
(Q: CELL) 1.4 11 $0.15 1Q 10
(Q: PCMS) 1.4 11 $0.12 1Q 12
(Q: WCII) 1.4 13 ($2.61) 1Q 9
(Q: PWAV) 1.5 6 $0.13 1Q 7
(Q: OMPT) 1.5 13 ($2.17) 4Q 12
(Q: PAIR) 1.5 17 $0.17 1Q 18
(Q: TLAB) 1.5 22 $0.35 1Q 22

(Q: CSCO) 1.5 31 $0.44 3Q 31
(A: GST) 1.6 8 ($1.28) 1Q 4
(Q: GSTRF) 1.6 10 ($0.26) 4Q 2
(N: NOKA) 1.6 18 $0.91 1Q 8
(Q: ACEC) 1.7 6 $0.06 3Q 6
(Q: ASPT) 1.7 6 $0.26 1Q 6
(Q: BBOX) 1.7 6 $0.49 4Q 7
(Q: VTEL) 1.7 6 $0.02 2Q 4
(Q: ECILF) 1.7 7 $0.47 1Q 5
(Q: ADTN) 1.7 11 $0.29 1Q 11
(N: LU) 1.7 29 $0.18 2Q 25
(Q: DLGC) 1.8 5 $0.34 1Q 5
(Q: SPOT) 1.8 5 $0.28 1Q 2
(N: TGO) 1.8 8 $0.54 1Q 3
(Q: MTEL) 1.8 10 ($0.34) 1Q 7
(Q: WSTL) 1.9 7 ($0.14) 4Q 6
(Q: XYLN) 1.9 10 $0.16 1Q 10
(N: BAY) 1.9 24 $0.28 3Q 25
(N: NT) 1.9 30 $0.25 1Q 23
(Q: DISH) 2.0 5 ($1.90) 4Q 2
(Q: TLDCF) 2.0 5 $0.03 1Q 5

(Q: VSVR) 2.0 5 $0.04 1Q 3
(Q: IRIDF) 2.0 8 ($1.14) 4Q 2
(Q: ADCT) 2.0 17 $0.25 2Q 18
(Q: ACNS) 2.1 7 ($1.11) 1Q 4
(Q: ANDW) 2.1 8 $0.33 2Q 8

(MORE) Dow Jones Newswires 02-26-98