I am a bit skeptical - why sell something, stay after the sale, make it better and see someone else reap the benefits ?
Two answers, take your choice:
- What I believe: $488 million. Let's say you own CSCO. Would you take $1000/share now with the proviso you could never buy more shares or would you hold onto your shares? What I don't understand is why Schwab paid $488 million. Unless this is Pottruck's admission that LaPore & company can't get it done technologically i.e. given a $488 million budget, Dawn's crew couldn't build something to compete with CyberTrader. (Pottruck is co-CEO of Schwab, LaPore is chief CIO). Having tried Velocity (Schwab's vain attempt at a non-browser based trading platform), this may not be as cynical as it sounds. Pottruck at his core is a very pragmatic individual.
- What they want me to believe: By having access to Schwab's resources (read: deeper pockets), the product/platform can grow more quickly and presumably, more steadily. The latter, given Schwab's track record with new technology, is of course quite questionable. Schwab's motto: "Get it out, promote it & worry later whether or not it works well...or at all!". Yes, I know, Schwab presumably will stay at 'arm's length' and let CyberCorp manage the product. Right...and the check's in the mail. |
