ANET - Cisco attack

https://www.marketwatch.com/Story/arista-stock-falls-after-d…

This is the same analyst who had to have a mea culpa on ANET and finally raised his price target saying he was wrong after years.

Then, within a few days or so he wrote about the ‘resurgent’ Cisco. Not just wrote about it, he uses the term ‘resurgent’ Cisco as often as Trump uses something like Lying Pelosi or something.

Then, link above so review for yourself, he uses every single issue he kind find, with conclusions statements, to make it look like the Earth is falling under ANET”s feet and the ‘resurgent’ Cisco is back!

100 gb shipments will be less (ummm, so far they have been far more than anticipated), orders with cloud titans are shaky (ummmm, they’ve been shaky for 5 years now), etc.

Read for yourself. I have no doubt that Cisco has paid his firm to carry out a longer term hit and told him to step it up.

Arista will probably say nothing, as is their way.

Tinker

37 Likes

https://www.tipranks.com/analysts/vijay-bhagavath

He is a bit better than a coin toss.

5 Likes

Perhaps Andrew changed his name to Vijay Bhagavath. This analyst claims that Cisco is securing 100 GB sw/r “design wins” at major cloud providers. Even after working at Cisco I am not sure how a “design win” translates into orders and revenues. Just a term thrown out by the masters of competitive deception.

As an FYI, on 3/16 Argus Research upgraded from a hold to a buy. I guess we have dueling analyst.
I have tried to find info on reported “design wins” by Cisco at major cloud providers. Probably not something either the customer or the provider provides details on.

3 Likes

Good catch, as we assume product wins. Design wins? They are selling existing product. Design wins can be security, automated door handles, and such thing. “Design” wins. Jeepers. Maybe for 400 gb but 100 gb is already designed.

Another day in the market.

Tinker

1 Like

What Cisco is probably alluding to is a team at the cloud provider puts forth a series of requirements to potential providers. Providers return to the team a “design” that meets their requirements. Usually this does not include a “best and final offer” regarding price.

The issue here is that often “Cisco brand loyalist” will read or be feed a trivial data point that is included in the requirements document. This causes Cisco to be deemed the “design winner” but not necessarily the “order winner”.

I always had this problem when looking at switching, network security, load balancing, video, and IP telephony design projects.

Cisco was so embedded in our network that we needed highly skilled Cisco networking employees. They were just to blinded to be effective in looking at better solutions.

8 Likes

For over 10 years Wedbush analyst, Michael Pachter has been questioning and mocking the value of Netflix - literally from 2B to 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130 straight through to the current 134B valuation today. He presents facts, figures and concerns that are seem logical but are always wrong. Blockbuster was allegedly going to stomp Netflix. But Netflix was more agile, had a better long term plan and better leader. I sold Netflix way too early. I am not making that mistake here. I think that NFLX vs Blockbuster has some good parallels to ANET vs Cisco.

In any big winner there will always be worriers and doubters. They remind me of what Gandalf said about Golum “he has a role to play in this”. And he did.

7 Likes

Attacking the messenger is never a good look. If their analysis is wrong, ignore them, or thank them for providing you with a buying opportunity.

If it’s right and bearish, you should be also thanking them.

6 Likes

Najdor,

If the analysts opinion was genuine I would agree. W 100% certainty it is a hit piece based on nothing.

This said I am making no substantive opinion on whether ANET is going down the tubes or to the moon or something in between.

My only point was this analyst’s opinion is propoganda.

As an example NVDA took a hit because of a useful and legitimate analyst opinion.

There is a major difference. The former gives us no information of any value and is propoganda. The latter re NVDA - even though it hurt the share price - is legitimate opinion. May be right or wrong but based on real things and not w the intent to hurt but to inform.

Learning the difference is very important, not just in stocks but in most aspects of life.

Tinker

17 Likes

I have no doubt that Cisco has paid his firm to carry out a longer term hit and told him to step it up

I have no doubt that Arista has paid to spread these false rumors on the integrity of the analyst.

Of course, my comments has no basis, so is yours.

2 Likes

Kingran,

<<<I have no doubt that Arista has paid to spread these false rumors on the integrity of the analyst.

Of course, my comments has no basis, so is yours.>>>

Are you saying that I am paid by Arista? Really? That is what would have to happen for your analysis to be correct. Have you found anyone out there attacking this analyst? Any news releases? Or is it just you and me.

No, your analysis does not stand. And yes I do have very good basis for it. The analysts history, the analysts consistent use, for months now, of the “resurgent” Cisco, the analysis itself that says nothing at all and is based on nothing, and even uses terms like “design”, and a lot of history dealing with such things.

Please find something to support your analysis or stop blaming powerful me :wink: I will have to check in with Arista payroll and see where my money is being funneled from.

Tinker

8 Likes

No, your analysis does not stand

LOL I have mentioned I have no basis for my comments. The difference is I recognize and concede that my comments are just my imagination. So are your comments, except that you delude yourself that they are based on some facts.

11 Likes

Kingpin,

This is my last post for this subject, the difference is that YOU HAVE NO BASIS for your comment and you actually do DELUDE yourself if you think this analysts opinion and basis are anything but a hit piece, and that such things do not go on all the time.

As an example, it was discovered after the fact that not only were journalists on the payroll of the DRAM industry writing hit pieces against Rambus, while they were in litigation, that also more than at least one brokerage was as well.

Same thing happened to Qualcomm before it won its litigation.

Now Cisco is in litigation with Arista, and you seriously think Cisco is not doing the same thing? Again I say, really?

I will mark it down to naivety on your part and move on.

Tinker

17 Likes

Now you are calling an analyst working for DB in payroll of a company he is covering, I hope you understand that would be ethical and legal violation.

Go ahead butcher my name, call me naive, but I am not convinced.

Kingran, did not mean to call you Kingpin, that was simply a typo or most likely an auto correct. My apologies for that. Had absolutely no intention of that and did not even know it happened until I went back to review it.

But yes, I mean exactly that. Ethics? Sorry, been far too many examples of it and no prosecutions. It has become almost common practice. One reason people need to carefully read the headlines and the details of the press they read.

Tinker

5 Likes

My apologies for that.

No need to… My comment was a tongue-in-cheek.

Tinker, you’re right - there’s not much penalty for doing hit pieces, no matter how deliberately they’re based in unreality. It just adds to the noise we need to extract the signal from.

Certain sources (Deutsche Bank?) in general are less reliable than others (Argus?) Stock reports by Argus are one of the two services Vanguard makes available to its customers.

Although, if corporations are people (legally), maybe they could start suing for libel?

1 Like

Libel? That is why these bit pieces use amorphous terms w no statistical measurements such as gaining “traction” in “design” Windsor “resurgent” and then other generalities that mean nothing. They very carefully word things that are meaningless and not actionable into phrases that scare.

As such, to get at the truth you need to dig deep into contacts, emails, telephone calls,third party contacts and the line that you can never find and of course Cisco has always maintained a legitimate relationship w Deutsche Bank.

Not difficult to make oneself immune f such a suit if on does not mind being rated as correct barely more than a coin flip. Which this analyst does not.

This guy has gone so far as to have a buy rating on Arista for more than a year before the sell, but yet his price targets have always been lower than Arista’s actual share price st the time.

Now how can you have a buy on a stock, systematically, when the price of the stock has always been higher than your price target? Obvious you cannot…except as cover.

In fact, just two months prior to this guy putting Arista as a sell, this guy actually came out w a new culpa and said he had been wrong about Arista all this time and raised his estimates but w a price target Still lower than the share price and Still called it a buy.

How do you go from that to sell in a matter of a few weeks? Oh yes, Cisco became the “resurgent” Cisco. A mantra he plies as if he was talking about crooked Hillary or little Marco…ie, he is promoting Cisco.

Back in the original internet days,and even naive and I experienced me noticed this, large brokerages would hire very young people (say just out of college) and they would present at investor conferences. Say for Exodus or many others.

They would present verbatim off prepared notes. Then open for questions. Every question asked was answered w the same exact verbatim talking points. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Yeah, companies were outright and unambiguously paying for their stock to be promoted.

I, as someone who never sticks to the note cards. In fact I don’t even use note cards when I speak, was shocked. But there it went and nobody cared or even challenged it. It was all buddy buddy stuff to move stock.

So it is more up to us to protect ourselves than the SEC.

I vividly remember the CEO of a enormous conglomerate who would throw wild parties etc. and who had margined his stock grants to the hilt (9 figure stock grants were too little for this guy). Go on CNBC and do one of their 5 pm interviews and lie his arse off. A few weeks later this enormous conglomerate went bust.

I do believe he ended up in jail eventually but the bank took all his margined stock and the bag holders got zippo. Familiar name, but forget it now. Wasnot Borg Warner but something like that in girth and prominence.

Oh btw my first job out of law school was working for a company composed of persons the SEC had forbidden from running a public company. Instead they got into the quasi I banking industry. And yeah, a lot of us guys were honest and tried to create a real business utterly naive as to who our overlords were.

The company made the front page of the Wall Street Journal btw when the Feds raised them. I resigned a year earlier, the first to figure it out. Moved into the basement of my wife’s parent’s small home (it was still larger than what I grew up in).

I could keep going on. Point is, like in politics, there are some really great and honorable folks and there are those not so much. Yeah, I believe I have a dang good idea for ferreting them out.

I have been impressed by the honesty of so many corporate leaders we follow, and despite this still see the dishonesty in a minority of them.

Tinker

10 Likes

Libel? That is why these bit pieces use amorphous terms w no statistical measurements such as gaining “traction” in “design” Windsor “resurgent” and then other generalities that mean nothing. They very carefully word things that are meaningless and not actionable into phrases that scare.

I’ve read my share of hit pieces. The “good” ones are very well crafted to avoid prosecution and to instill fear and action “NOW.” They are easy to recognize, for one they are extremely long, so long that you decide to sell – before getting to the end – just to be safe. They are full of references to supposedly incriminating documents that turn out to be harmless but which many don’t read and, if they read, don’t understand the legalese. Most of the accusations are couched in terms such as “I think” which cannot be prosecuted.

One thing to remember is that hit pieces are no worse than exaggerated touts. Both lose you money. Why, then, do we give touts a pass? A seasoned investor learns to deal with both of them.

Denny Schlesinger

10 Likes

I vividly remember the CEO of a enormous conglomerate who would throw wild parties etc. and who had margined his stock grants to the hilt (9 figure stock grants were too little for this guy). Go on CNBC and do one of their 5 pm interviews and lie his arse off. A few weeks later this enormous conglomerate went bust.

I do believe he ended up in jail eventually but the bank took all his margined stock and the bag holders got zippo. Familiar name, but forget it now.

Ah, my old company Tyco Intl. Yes he went to jail for quite awhile, but it wasn’t for cooking the books at Tyco (they did that too) but for tax avoidance on a few million in artwork, as I recall. He did manage to tank the stock price from low 60s to single digits. Knew a few guys that had 100% of their 401k in the stock too.

3 Likes

Yes, that is the one Tyco. He lied straight fact on CNBC, even about why he margined his stock shares, and more so about the health of the company, et al.

CNBC could have done us all a great service had they dug deeper or did a follow up on it. But good journalism has become difficult to find, even then.

Tinker

1 Like