Maybe a stupid question but can someone please answer me or at least explain to me the logic behind this. I read on a few sites that cover the stock market that most analyst agree that the “intistric value of the stock” is, by their opinion, $76, or something like that. I guest that means that they consider Cisco to be wort that value and that in some time the stock wil, in fact, reach it, meaning that the stock is undervalued.
Why do they think that? Cisco has never been near $76 except, except for a short time in 1999 when the market conditions for this sort of company were worlds apart from what they are today.
In the last 10 years Cisco spent mos of its time in the range form $50 to $60. I don’t see it to be a better managed company nor a company with better products or a wider market. So, if anyone knows, please explain?
There are no replies in this thread yet. Be the first to post a reply below: