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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pirah Naman who wrote (50353)	2/13/2002 9:09:35 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Frank is right. Geez, I usually have to gulp three times before acknowledging that :), but he's so right about that that I don't have to gulp even once. For me, it's not a question at this point in time of guilt or innocence. There are certain leadership positions in which any person in that position has the responsibility of remaining above suspicion. Being a director of any corporation of any kind is one of those positions in my mind. At this point in time, the very best that can be said of any Enron director is that s/he is clearly not above suspicion for the reasons Frank mentioned. --Mike Buckley P. S. Thank you, Eric, for providing the link to 3Gtoday. Too bad it was Frank who caught my mistake. :)

To: Pirah Naman who wrote (50353)	2/14/2002 2:09:06 AM
From: Bruce Brown	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Frank is right. Board members are paid well to protect the interests of the owners. In this case, they failed. Why they failed is another topic, and that is where you can get into issues of guilt or innocence. While it is impossible for a board member to know all the details, they have to know enough to at least point out extreme hazards to the owners of the business. Maybe some member who serves on several boards has their attention spread too thin to do a good job. Whatever the reason, if a board member fails to note a potentially major problem and disseminate that information to the owners, why should the owners of a company pay for his services? Is he owed a board position? Is he demonstrably indispensible? Which brings us back to the original point Frank raised about being "amazed and distressed" that the chairman of Alliance Capital Management, Frank Savage, has been reelected to Qualcomm's board (a position he has held since 1996). What will the short term as well as the long term fallout for Qualcomm's respective business be due to this decision? Does it have a material impact on Qualcomm's technology and their business throughout the globe? Will the fact that Savage sits on the Qualcomm board prevent business decisions from being made because of it? Or the same for all of the other companies that Savage is a board member? How deep does the Enron seed run and are all the known facts yet available to alter decisions that are being made with anyone associated with Enron at this point? In other words, I am trying to distinguish - as we play the gorilla game - is this in the longer run filed under 'noise' or will it have a material impact on Qualcomm's future. BB