Cisco Beat Estimates -- Lowered Estimates

Why does it fall beyond all reason to ask that when the business media compares Cisco'sCSCO quarterly numbers, reported after the close Tuesday, to expectations that they give an inkling of when those expectations were last set?

Reading up on the earnings this morning, you can see that a few media outlets served you the savvy investor well. But others were as quiet as a cotton ball about when forecasts were last lowered.

So what would The Business Press Maven tell investors to do?

They Just Don't Get Cisco!

Let yourselves be guided by the first group of articles, and crumple the second. Knowing when earnings are set lets you know the magnitude of the miss/beat, whether management has a clue on operations and the near-term direction of the reporting company's business. Cisco is an essential one too, as it gives an indication on how a host of companies from JDSUJDSU to IntelINTC to IBMIBM to GoogleGOOG might fare.

So you want the standard for reporting on Cisco? The New York Times showcases the issue of when expectations were last set where it belongs: in the headline: Cisco Sales Top Lowered Forecast, and Profit Declines.

After a wry lead that captured the network equipment makers partial victory cry -- "Cisco Systems to Wall Street: It's not so bad" -- the article made sure you did not miss the central issue, noting promptly that "The company, which makes networking equipment, met its own lowered quarterly sales target on Tuesday while beating analysts' earnings forecast by 2 cents a share."

MarketWatch mentioned the revenue report up high too, in the lead, in fact. But it was written as a positive, reporting a "10% jump" in revenue without mentioning anywhere in the article that this "10% jump" only met reduced expectations: "Cisco Systems Inc. on Tuesday reported a 5% drop in third-quarter net income as higher expenses and an acquisition charge hurt profit, but the company posted a 10% jump in revenue."