Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (75698)	10/17/1999 8:59:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572631

Amy RE <<<In general, I think they sell out to larger companies because there's some strategic fit between the two companies (which could include RND budgets as you said, but I'm more apt to think its more about marketing reach). Also, an MNA or IPO is the only significant way to make the stock readily liquid. Privately-held stock can look good on paper, but it doesn't buy you anything.>>> Maybe sometimes.....it takes $ to mass market. But when it comes to a tech company, I don't think maturing is a desired goal. Maturing means your products are outdated and that a sales decline is eminent. I think startups learn early on that the name of game is more about staying on the cutting edge and having the resources committed to insure that that happens. Remember many of these companies are started by an individual and after a few years, running to stay ahead becomes a constant and burnout often is the result. I have a friend (I've mentioned him before...his father is one of the founders of QCOM) who successfully started his own business 8 yrs ago. He just sold out; not for $ reasons but he was burned out big time, worrying about income and expenses, making payroll, staying ahead of the game etc. Money was no object...he was a millionaire at 21. But he has two small children now and he wants to enjoy them. He lost touch with what was important in the never ending struggle to stay on top. As for the acquirer, my understanding is that intc bought DSP and LEVL not because they are stategic fits but because they are businesses to which intc wants to migrate. That's great so long as these companies were at the peak of their success, or their talent remains intact after the sale is over. From what I've heard and read, there is some question whether DSP and LEVL were at the front the curve at the time of purchase. I find it hard to believe that intc would not uncover these issues in their DD but I am struck by how LEVL got a downgrade the same day that intc announced its offer and how DSP's stock price had dropped from 32 to 18 right before the intc announcement. I guess time will tell. ted