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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Time Traveler who wrote (14691)6/22/1998 11:28:00 PM
From: Thomas Scharf  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 77400
 
Cisco Systems giving up partner search
sjmercury.com

N.Y. Times

Cisco Systems, acknowledging that it has tried and failed to forge
partnerships with Lucent Technologies and Northern Telecom of
Canada, now intends to continue alone in defending its leadership in
the increasingly competitive market for advanced data-networking
equipment.

The networking industry has been roiled in recent weeks by big-name
mergers and by the emergence of a legal dispute between Cisco and
Lucent. In an interview Sunday evening, John T. Chambers, Cisco's
chief executive, explained how Cisco intended to move forward in the
rapidly evolving networking business.

Chambers said that Cisco intended to be one of the independent
makers of networking equipment left standing after the industry
consolidated into a handful of players. He took jabs at Lucent and
Northern Telecom, North America's largest makers of traditional
telecommunications equipment, saying they were ill equipped to
compete in the technology marketplace of the future.

The strategy and rationale will also be detailed by Chambers on
Tuesday in a memo to the company's 12,000 employees.

The basic architecture of big communications networks is evolving
toward an emphasis on data rather than voice traffic. That shift is
forcing a convergence -- and new competition -- between makers of
data-networking equipment, like Cisco, and older telephone-based
companies such as Lucent and Northern Telecom.

''As this consolidation occurs, Cisco is in a very unique position,''
Chambers said. ''Voice traffic is going to come under a data
infrastructure and that is where we are strong.''

He added, ''Lucent says, 'You're our main competitor.' Nortel says,
'You're our main competitor.' ''

Cisco's success in the marketplace has been reflected on Wall Street.
The company has become one of the most widely held stocks among
institutional investors in recent years, riding the explosion in demand
for networking technology to a market value of more than $85 billion
on revenue last year of $6.4 billion. Northern Telecom, with sales of
$15.4 billion, has a market value of about $28 billion.

The makers of telecommunications equipment are trying to move
quickly because Cisco is making inroads among the traditional
customers. When Sprint announced an ambitious plan earlier this
month to upgrade its network, the major equipment partner was
Cisco, not a traditional telecommunications company.

Qwest Communications International, the new long-distance carrier,
and US West, the Bell local telephone company, are also working
closely with Cisco, which is trying to negotiate significant deals with
other Bells as well.

''We're not going after Lucent or Nortel,'' said Don Listwin, an
executive vice president at Cisco who runs the unit that sells
equipment to big telecommunications carriers. ''We're going after the
market, and they happen to be there.''

A big question in the industry and on Wall Street is: Will Cisco go
there together with Lucent or Northern Telecom, either in a
wide-ranging partnership or in a titanic merger?

Many companies have loudly proclaimed the virtues of independence
only to agree to a lucrative takeover deal, and Chambers
acknowledges that he will continue to consider smaller acquisitions.
But when he talks about any potential merger of his company with a
telecommunications giant, he uses strong language.

''We are not going to do a blockbuster merger with somebody else,''
Chambers said. ''Zero chance. It would be a disaster for the
shareholders.''

Chambers said he was adamant mostly because of cultural differences
between Cisco and Eastern telecommunications titans. Lucent is
based in Murray Hill, N.J.; Northern Telecom in Brampton, Ontario.
Were Cisco, which is based in San Jose, to merge with one of them,
its most valuable asset -- its intellectual capital -- could walk out the
door, Chambers said.

''In our industry you are not acquiring geographic territory, you are
acquiring people,'' Chambers said. ''Our people have no interest in
working for a company like that.

''Lucent is trying to compete in a New World environment when
they're an Old World company in terms of the rules of the Internet
economy.''

Chambers did not always think that way. He approached both Lucent
and Northern Telecom early last year about possibly forging a
strategic partnership. But the talks foundered because both
companies wanted to develop products that would compete directly
with Cisco's.

Cisco was willing to forgo competing in the core telecommunications
markets for big phone switches and corporate phone systems. In
return, Cisco wanted any potential partner to refrain from moving into
Cisco's main product area: high-speed Internet switches.

Lucent and Northern Telecom refused.

Daniel C. Stanzione, the executive vice president who runs the Bell
Laboratories unit of Lucent, said in an interview on Monday, ''My
feeling was that as we reviewed it here internally, they wanted the
attractive spaces to themselves and wanted to leave the unattractive
space to us.''

Executives close to the discussions between Lucent and Cisco said
the talks broke off three or four months ago. But the symbolic end
may have come just last week when Lucent filed a lawsuit against
Cisco, accusing Cisco of infringing eight of Lucent's patents.

''Symbolically it's huge,'' Chambers said of the suit. ''It shows that
some companies don't have a way to compete in this new market.''

Stanzione said the filing of the lawsuit was not related to the collapse
of the partnership talks.

Executives close to Cisco said that the partnership discussions with
Northern Telecom fell apart a month ago because of the same sort of
competitive concerns that torpedoed the talks with Lucent.

Talks between Cisco and Northern Telecom officially ended earlier
this month, when Northern Telecom announced that it had agreed to
acquire Bay Networks for $9.1 billion in stock. Bay has been Cisco's
main competitor in the market for equipment that switches Internet
data between different points at high speeds.

''The way these people are trying to move is very high risk,''
Chambers said of Northern Telecom's senior executives. Referring to
the lukewarm reception the Bay deal received on Wall Street, he
added, ''It wasn't so much an issue of Nortel overpaying as it was
whether the market thinks they can really pull that off.''

Northern Telecom declined to comment.

On Monday, investors demonstrated confidence in all three big
networking players. Cisco's shares rose $1.50, to $84.625, in
NASDAQ trading. On the New York Stock Exchange, shares of
Lucent rose $2.50, to $74.75, while shares of Northern Telecom
closed at $53.9375, up $1.



To: Time Traveler who wrote (14691)6/23/1998 10:53:00 AM
From: Doughboy  Respond to of 77400
 
Let's hope the IRS is not surfing SI, because your tax advice isn't right. You pay the taxman on whatever GAIN you have whenever you sell your stock. It doesn't matter if you buy it back within 30 days. For losses, you cannot deduct the tax loss if you buy back within 30 days -- that's a "wash sale." What, you think the IRS is going to give you a loophole big enough to drive a truck through?!?!



To: Time Traveler who wrote (14691)6/23/1998 1:34:00 PM
From: Lynn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 77400
 
I telephoned Schwab and the person I spoke with said pulling a stunt like this is possibly the best way he has heard of yet to have the sirens go off over at the IRS--one is asking for an audit (and possibly, a fine on top of taxes owed).

Sale resulting in any gain = paying the IRS and most States their share, no matter how soon new shares are purchased in the same company

Sale resulting in a loss = a deduction on Schedule D _unless_ the same stock is repurchased within 30 days, in which case one can not take the loss

Time Traveler, if you have (not)reported capital gains in the past because you believed the advice you gave here was correct, I strongly suggest you refile those tax years. I'm not kidding. The IRS is not to be taken lightly and its better to fix things on your own rather than wait and get raked over the coals by them for trying to pull a fast one.

Lynn