SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla Game Investing in the eWorld -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Teflon who wrote (750)11/19/1999 1:23:00 AM
From: tekboy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1817
 
Ok, here's my seat-of-the-pants take now that I've completed some minimal DD.

i2 is a well-run company with a good track record, good partners, real earnings, and an excellent position moving forward in the B2B ecommerce tornado. And compared to some other companies in this sector, it does indeed seem (even at this point) to be almost a "bargain" way to play this game.

But--it is not clear how different the services it provides are from those of potential competitors; it is not clear how high the switching costs are for companies using its services; there do not seem to be very large barriers to entry; and the size of the potential market will obviously attract lots of competitors. Execution will be crucial to future performance, and current valuations are so high (in absolute terms, at least) that anything less than great execution will probably be punished.

Since this entire sector is currently running on fumes and dreams of glory, i2 seems no worse an investment--and perhaps a significantly better one--than many other potential godzillas. Just to force me to keep paying attention to the sector I will continue to hold it. But I will do so lightly, and I will keep the investment quite small, as it seems far more speculative than my other mainstream G&K holdings.

As always--but particularly so here--I defer on all of this to savvier thread elders.

living dangerously,

tekboy/Ares@letterfrombirminghamthreadjail.com



To: Teflon who wrote (750)11/19/1999 2:01:00 AM
From: tekboy  Respond to of 1817
 
2 Thoughts From Trolling Thread Archives

1. Re Tef's "The biggest asset of i2's organization is their Marketing Group...hands down, the best on the Street. I understand that this element doesn't add a lot of value from a GG perspective, but I thought I'd toss it in for good measure!"

Lucius had this to say in post 592:

"The report on Siebel by Timothy Dolan of Deutshe Bank Alex Brown includes the following cogent comment: Having a very good product allows you to get in the game and is probably 25% of the battle, but ultimately it's who has the best sales, marketing and distribution capabilities that ultimately wins. Included within that are partnerships that help to expand the distribution channel and increase the market awareness of the company. This really applies to any technology company trying to get into the mainstream. These customers are interested mainly in solutions, not in technology. As investors, we should keep this in mind when evaluating tech companies. Listen to the tech experts, but keep in mind that the marketplace battle is not always won by the "best" technology. It is usually won by a "good" technology, pushed by a company that can dominate the other factors."

2. Re Merlin's musing in post 603 about B2B valuations (sector undervalued, companies overvalued): "that's exactly what the revised manual's authors say about the Internet stocks. Their ultimate answer to the two questions: 'You do the math.'"

I just read Michael Lewis' The New New Thing, a portrait of Jim Clark. It is good but not great (not as much of a classic as Liar's Poker, IMO), and probably worth reading for those interested in the Silicon Valley mindset and experience. But in a great scene describing the preparations for Healtheon's roadshow, Lewis says that Clark, Mike Long, and other company leaders had absolutely no idea what the company might ever be worth or how to value it. There were no current revenues to point to, and given the size of the health care industry potential future revenues were nearly infinite, and thus absurd. But they had to say something, right? So they settled on the following. After discussing the number of doctors they hoped to bring in, and the potential annual revenue stream per doctor, they sat back and said, "You do the math!" That way they couldn't be held accountable for specific predictions, while investors would be led to mindboggling results through their own calculations... :0)

tekboy/Ares@stillbusted.com