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 (50375)	2/14/2002 4:53:19 PM
From: hokieharry	Respond to of 54805

Do BOD members make that many important decisions effecting a corporation's day to day business? That effect long range planning or operation of the business? Or just rubber stamp the answers to the various problems that are both presented to them? My guess is it being the last situation.

To: Pirah Naman who wrote (50375)	2/14/2002 5:48:01 PM
From: Bruce Brown	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

You've got two options. Either the board members aren't important, in which case why pay for them or worry about which ones you get, or they are important, in which case we want to apply high standards to them. Options? It is interesting how the discussion has started to evolve from the original point of UF being "amazed and distressed" about the reelection of Frank Savage on Qualcomm's board and is now discussing all those "options" that board members enjoy pocketing for a few days of "advisory role playing" each year as they spread their time and talent thinly across the continent. The Enron witch hunt is on and now we are supposed to believe that the board members were all well aware of the derivative scandal and therefore in order to restore investor confidence we should blacklist anyone that was ever associated with Enron? Then buzz on over here to throw the blame: enron.com enron.com Or how about the Enron board before Savage (picture of entire group smiling included): enron.com Pirah, put me in the former camp of your two options choices I was given. To be fair, a few more options would have been more appropriate. I am more interested in the day to day hands on management team of the companies than I am of their individual board members who assemble every now and then to meet in the board room. I would like to believe that some of those board members have day to day hands on work to do within their own organizations which require the majority of the their focus and time. Am I more interested in what Charles Schwab does on so many boards, or what he does at his own company on a daily basis? Do I care about Larry Ellison's work at Apple as a board member, or do I care more about his work at Oracle. Ditto for John Chambers, Tom Siebel, Steve Balmer and right on down the line. Yes, Enron was a disaster revolving around derivatives and the web of fraud surrounding the entanglement that some of the employees and partnerships at the company created to falsify reality. It had a lot of employees, investors and perhaps even board members fooled. It would be interesting to review the day to day hands on work that Frank Savage has done at Alliance Capital Management International as well as the work he has done on other boards including Qualcomm's board. BB@LetMeKnowWhenTheBookIsAvailableAboutTheEnronAffair.milken