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.

Technology Stocks : Alliance Semiconductor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ken Muller who wrote (8240)	8/19/2000 1:59:57 PM
From: Amadeo Mendez-Vigo	Respond to of 9582

Ken .. The Word is "Culminates"..your posted it...Don't give me BS about old posting...are you bashing the stock.?? Read posting #8239...I think it explain you well...

To: Ken Muller who wrote (8240)	8/19/2000 3:14:43 PM
From: Amadeo Mendez-Vigo	Respond to of 9582

PS,,Ken ..I has already called them...They refer me to the 10q filed with Sec on July 1st for July 1 2000..page 7.. Quote:"In November 1999, the Company formed Alliance Ventures I, LP ("Alliance Venture I") and Alliance Ventures II ("Alliance Venture II"), both California limited partnerships. The Company, as the sole limited partner, owns 100% of the limited partnership interests of each partnership. Alliance Venture Management acts as the general partner of these partnerships and receives a management fee of 15% of the profits from these partnerships for its" ------------------------------------------------------------ Note it said 15% of PROFITS.....NO word on "YOUR Culminates" Option days has pasted and maybe we should know end this conversation...I feel my agenda(LONG) and yours are different.....Have a nice week end...Amadeo

To: Ken Muller who wrote (8240)	8/19/2000 10:05:18 PM
From: Madharry	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9582

I am reassessing my position with respect to your comments. I have spent some time reading the proxy as well as the annual report. I do not believe that what the reddy's have done is appropriate either. that come into play. The establishment of this arrangement resulted in compensation of some $10MM on one transaction alone. I certainly think that this type of arrangement requires shareholder approval. Now this is probably a moot point as the directors own some 38% of the stock. but nonetheless this is not a non-trivial issue and should have been voted upon by the shareholders IMHO. The othere issue is one of conflict of interest. If the directors and officers are also making investments in the same companies for their own interests why should we believe that they will be acting in the best interests of the company and shareholders in terms of deciding whether to vote for a company to go public or in terms of timing the sell. Having said that I believe that CMGI has a similar system whereby they compensate their officers with a 15-20% cut off the top. so it might be appropriate to see how venture capital subs of companies comensate their managers. I still think that this is a terrific investment. I just wish the Reddys would stop acting like small time business owners and act more like managers of a growing Billion dollar + company.

To: Ken Muller who wrote (8240)	8/20/2000 8:02:12 AM
From: Paul Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9582

Stick to t Ken. The management fees are pure theft. The money invested is 100% ALSC's. The people investing it are fully paid by ALSC, and they are doing it to increase the value of ALSC. If they pay is not up to speed, give them an increase, but to compensate them for taking no risk with 100% of our funds is unjustified. Remember the investments being made mainly to insure ALSC normal operations, availability at Fabs. Because the market turned good they now want to steal their share, imho. ps. where did they get their experience? working for ALSC, they are not doing anything different now as what they were originally hired for.