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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (54717)	10/27/2001 12:53:50 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OT re Agilent, HP: My brother works at HP. I looked at them a while ago, and decided against investing in HP or their progeny, because: 1. As a general rule, I don't like conglomerates. I think a company can, at best, do one thing well. That means, I don't like companies with more than one sales force. 2. HP makes profits in it's core original business. Everything else sucks up capital and has never managed to give back consistent earnings. A generalization, but broadly true. 3. Most spinoffs maintain the corporate culture of the parent. There is a vast amount of inertia, in large organizations with a long history. So, if I don't like the parent, I don't like the child. The mistakes made by the parent, tend to, sooner or later, be repeated by the child. I like QCOM, and will probably hold onto their chip division, when it gets spun off. I never liked T, and predicted (for years) that LU would stumble and fail. 4. Whatever biotech company is the next MSFT, I'm very certain it will not be a spinoff of a mature company. There is a consistent pattern to how new industries evolve, and that's not it. It will be a startup, possibly one that hasn't been founded yet. The CEO is probably currently an undergraduate at Caltech. The first 100 employees are his friends, and their friends.