To: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (27287 ) 7/6/2000 2:50:37 AM From: tekboy Respond to of 54805 I think an important but unstated assumption of Geoffrey Moore's Living on the Fault Line is that efficient market theory is correct. I mean, remember who the book is directed at: legacy managements. What he means by saying the stock price is an indicator of shareholder value is really, "Don't assume that the reason your stock price has dropped while the Naz has risen is because we're in a bubble. See it, rather, as an indication that the world has changed and that sophisticated investors don't think your company has much of a future. If you can take the steps necessary to convince them otherwise--by specializing, outsourcing, playing to your appropriate value disciplines, etc.--then they might come back. The stock price, therefore, will be a good gauge of how well you're doing in adapting to the new world." In this sense, I see LOTFL as a book-end to Robert Shiller's recent Irrational Exuberance . Shiller assumes the market is not efficient, i.e. that the rise in tech stock and other valuations is not matched by a commensurate shift in fundamentals and therefore cannot be sustained. Moore assumes the opposite. Both books are interesting as far as they go (the Moore much more so for us, obviously), but unfortunately neither really addresses the possibility that its underlying assumption might not always be valid. Shiller, for example, has a chapter explaining why some oft-cited justifications for increased valuations are silly. Moore has a (brilliant) chapter explaining why current tech and business trends are creating a radically new environment, and implying that the companies that can ride those trends deserve increased valuations. Both make some good points, but slight or ignore counterarguments. For Shiller, this means missing all the stuff Moore talks about; for Moore, it means missing the fact that often, these days, stock prices are indeed driven by frenzy (positive or negative), at least over the short to medium term, and thus cannot always be used as a real-time gauge of and guide to strategic planning. The Mighty Q demonstrates my point. Clearly a large part of its rise last year fit the pattern Moore lays out--the market began to understand the role it would play in the future of wireless communications and legitimately increased its valuation by leaps and bounds. But clearly another part of the rise fit the pattern Shiller lays out--a bubblish speculative frenzy that soon crashed and burned. Neither model alone is adequate to account for the extraordinarily complex reality that is QCOM. tekboy/Ares@wordsrule.com