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

To: jach who wrote (6336)	2/4/1999 2:46:00 AM
From: Jim	Respond to of 12623

RIGHT ON IBM IS CHEAP .CSCO IS DEAD $$ AND CIEN WAS TAKEN OUT IN THE BACK YARD LAST WEEK AND GOT ITS BUTT BEAT BY FORE. WEDS WAS JUST THE DAY TRADERS SPILLING THERE GUTTS .

To: jach who wrote (6336)	2/4/1999 10:23:00 AM
From: Tie Zeng	Respond to of 12623

Talking about fundamentals with stocks these days are the quickest ways to go bankrupt.

To: jach who wrote (6336)	2/4/1999 10:29:00 PM
From: Bura	Respond to of 12623

CSCO can't be measured by revenues alone. Even though this has nothing to do with my post about Ciena... While it's true to some extent that the fundamentals are being overlooked by some investors right now, AND Cisco is probably overvalued in the short run, looking at revenues is not THE way to value stocks. Revenue is a measure but not a good one. For example, using revenue, MSFT is 1/2 as large as CPQ. Which one carries more weight. If CPQ or DELL disappeared,would we notice? No, cause they're selling commodities (PCs). Using revenue, even Ingram Micro would be a large tech blue chip. It's not 'cause it's a reseller. You have to look at gross and net margins. That's where Cisco kills IBM and others. Cisco makes 65% gross, 21% net. IBM 30-40% gross, single digit net. Therefore, it is keeping less of REVENUES. Cisco grew revenues at 40%, IBM at 6%. Cisco has grown revenues a thousandfold this decade. IBM's revenue are up maybe 40% this DECADE. You should look at PEs and growth rates before revenues. Basically, if I could buy 100% of either (obviously no one can, not even Bill Gates), I'd buy Cisco. IBM is in slow-growth, low-margin biz, while Cisco is the IBM of the early 21st century. In 10 to 15 years, Cisco may even generate higher revenues. At that point, if you want to buy Cisco, you'll have to many times more than today...