Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Finance & Accounting · Operational decision · 2000–2002

Cisco was the world’s most valuable company — then it wrote off $2.2B in inventory

At the peak of the dot-com bubble, Cisco was worth $500B. A year later, demand collapsed and it was stuck with the largest inventory write-off in history.

Cisco Systems · 2001-05-08

What happened

In March 2000, at the height of the dot-com bubble, Cisco Systems became the world’s most valuable company with a market capitalization of over $500 billion. The company was the dominant supplier of networking equipment that powered the internet boom. CEO John Chambers had predicted a “paradigm shift” that would create exponential demand for bandwidth.

When the dot-com bubble burst in 2000–2001, demand evaporated faster than any forecast had anticipated. Cisco was caught with massive inventories of components and finished goods it had ordered based on optimistic projections. In May 2001, the company announced a $2.2 billion inventory write-down, the largest single inventory write-off in US corporate history at that time.

The write-down contributed to a net loss of $1 billion for fiscal year 2001. Cisco’s stock fell from $48.87 in 2000 to $11.80 in 2002, an 80% decline. The company lost $431 billion in market capitalization. Cisco survived the crisis and eventually recovered, but the inventory write-down became a textbook example of supply chain forecasting failure in a boom-and-bust cycle.

Why it happened

  • Cisco’s supply chain was optimized for growth, not a downturn. Its just-in-time system assumed demand would keep rising.
  • Forecasting models extrapolated from the boom. By the time demand collapsed, Cisco had committed to orders it could not cancel.
  • The company’s leadership believed its own optimism. Chambers’ predictions of a “paradigm shift” silenced bearish forecasts.
What it cost$2.2B write-down; $1B loss; 80% stock drop; $431B cap lostcostly

The lesson

A supply chain built for a boom will break in a bust. When the CEO says “paradigm shift,” the finance team should model what happens if he is wrong.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →