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 : HWP -- Hewlett Packard -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (3847)	12/14/2001 11:59:58 AM
From: Jerome	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4722

>>>taking the matter seriously enough to hire outside consultants to review the issue as I sure can't afford to do that.<<< Here is how it happened.... The foundations and the spoiled rich kids became unhappy with the HWP/CPQ merger after they agreed to it and voted in favor of it at BOD meetings. So they hire an outside consultant, who fully understands their discontent.....AND WOW....This unbiased outside consultant crunches some numbers and comes to the same conclusion..... The Foundations and the spoiled rich kids give the unbiased consultant a big paycheck and bonus for his brilliance.... That my friend is how unbiased consultants and capitalism work.... (never bite the hand that feeds you). Jerome

To: Kirk © who wrote (3847)	12/15/2001 5:15:41 PM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 4722

Kirk - I would suggest that YOU don't understand how capitalism, at least as applied here in the U.S. works. There are MANY restrictions on groups which enjoy special status which do not apply to the class in which those groups exist. Companies which engage in interstate commerce are bound by federal law and do not have the freedoms of local mom and pop companies who typically only answer to the state. Monopolies can not engage in competitive practices which were fine before they achieved a certain market share. Companies which do business in a state must charge sales tax while direct mail companies who sell into that state do not have that burden. And so on. Sure, the foundations have the right to protect their assets. But where does that become interference, or control, of the company those foundations invest in? Obviously, they could not, for example, propose an alternate slate of BoD and management. Yet the road they are on has very similar consequences. Perhaps Duke or some other legal beagle could discuss where that line has been drawn in the past.