Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it is a failure of Cisco that they let Zoom slip out and become a new company. Even if I were a Cisco shareholder I don't know that I'd be that unhappy with management. I can just buy Zoom stock if I think they are on a winner - more than 75% of their market cap came into existence after the IPO.

I don't see who the loser is in this story. It isn't Cisco shareholders; they can be Zoom shareholders too if they want to be.

View on HN

Cisco shareholders lost as they should have had the value of Zoom as part of their existing shares. The loss is in having to buy it separately.

I'd have made more money buying Zoom at IPO than I would if I held Cisco at the same time but added Zoom to Cisco's market cap. There was a big opportunity here for investors.

Sure Cisco shareholders would have been better off if Zoom was an in-house project, but investors are really the ones who are supposed to be making the value calls on teleconference-or-routers market exposure style decisions. If I'm a Cisco shareholder I don't think management made a mistake. I think I made a mistake not becoming a Zoom shareholder.

Okay, you both made a mistake then. Your mistake does not lessen Cisco’s mistake.

It’s not just that. Cisco shareholders lost as they should have had the value of webex as part of their existing shares. This is being lost as zoom takes over.

The problem only occurs if the assumption of inventing zoom was priced into the cisco stock. If Cisco is priced at a multiple of earnings then shareholders get a totally fine deal and can invest their leftover money into startups.

I own some cisco stock. I have to use webex at work. I suspect a significant percentage of cisco’s shareholders are in the same boat.

I want them to fire the management chain that was involved in the zoom debacle, and also fire the people that hired / promoted that management chain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com