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: StockMan who wrote (14150)	5/17/1998 4:38:00 PM
From: Dan Good	Respond to of 77400

CSCO's 5 year growth estimate has actually increased in the last month (albiet very slightly) if you average the 30 analysts projections. Their 5 year growth is still at 30% (on the average) While LU's is 20%, NT's is 20%, and ASND's is 27%. Comparing the P/E of the same: LU=46 NT=32 CSCO=44 ASND=38 Considering the growth to the present P/E, CSCO is not the bad buy here. The price to book of LU is almost twice that of CSCO, while NT and ASND are slightly lower than CSCO's. As far as the P/E of CSCO and it's forecasts, it would seem like (taking only the data on this one stock) it would be somewhat overvalued. However if you take the networking segment, and even the overall market valuation, we are on the same track.

To: StockMan who wrote (14150)	5/18/1998 1:28:00 PM
From: Thomas Scharf	Respond to of 77400

The slowing growth that you referred to applies to the entire networking market, not just CSCO. Growth has slowed from the explosive (50-100%/yr) to merely outstanding (35-50%/yr). LU suffers from the ATT legacy of glacially slow, arrogant management. BAY has never recovered from culture clash and management in fighting triggered by the ill-conceived merger that created it. I don't know enough about NT to comment. For some reason, you have fallen in love with BAY and feel you must denigrate the competition to justify a bad investment. A dispassionate examination of their financials shows a poorly performing company that had several years of flat or even negative growth during a time when market growth was above 50%. At the same time, CSCO was growing faster than the market. If BAY truly has superior products, as you imply, then their management must be absolutely horrible to produce such bad results. I'll take adequate products with superior management and marketing over good products and bad management every time.