"Lee reminded us just how dominant Cisco was during that period. The company's stock surged into the $75 to $80 range as investors bet aggressively on internet growth. When the bubble burst in 2000 and 2001, Cisco did not fail as a business, but the stock collapsed and stayed buried for years. That distinction matters. Cisco survived, but survival is not the same thing as delivering returns."
"We both agreed that Cisco never truly went away. Its networking equipment remained essential, first for corporate IT and later for data centers and cloud infrastructure. Today, those same products are part of AI-related buildouts, keeping Cisco relevant even if it no longer dominates headlines. The company's bread-and-butter business gave it durability when many former tech darlings vanished entirely. I emphasized why Cisco's story matters now."
"During the dot-com era, expectations for the internet were wildly exaggerated, much like parts of the AI narrative today. Even when a technology changes the world, stocks tied to that theme can remain underwater for decades if investors overpay at the peak. Lee added that investors who bought Cisco at the bottom in 2001 or 2002 did very well. Those who bought near the highs had to wait roughly 25 years just to break even."
Cisco's stock surged during the dot-com boom and then collapsed when the bubble burst in 2000–2001, even though the company continued to operate. Cisco's networking equipment remained essential across corporate IT, data centers, and cloud infrastructure, and those products now support AI-related buildouts. Overpayment at valuation peaks can leave even strong companies underwater for decades. Investors who bought near the bottom in 2001–2002 saw strong returns, while those who bought at the highs waited roughly 25 years to break even. Dividend payments later provided income and helped long-term holders endure the prolonged recovery.
Read at 24/7 Wall St.
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]