SI
SI
discoversearch

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: straight life who wrote (50635)3/6/2002 11:30:36 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 54805
 
Investors better read the footnotes

James Grant Wednesday, March 6, 2002
Money management as art form
iht.com

NEW YORK In 1962, the late Sam Walton opened the first Wal-Mart store in Rogers, Arkansas. Forty years later - just the other day - Wal-Mart overtook Exxon Mobil Corp. to become the world's biggest corporation as measured by sales. A Wal-Mart spokesman attributed this triumph to an "emphasis on value shopping."
.
Reaching into their wallets, consumers demand value. Investing other people's money, professional money managers are less discriminating. The great anomaly of American capitalism is the detachment of individual investors from their investment dollars.
.
The stock market peaked two years ago, yet the investment merchandise remains prohibitively expensive.
.
Is the price of a share reasonable in relation to the earnings of the underlying enterprise? In relation to its dividend? In relation to the corporation's net assets? In relation to interest rates? By none of these measures are the prices quoted for the biggest companies anything but stupendously high.
.
The Leuthold Group, a Minneapolis-based research firm, computes a valuation measure that weighs share prices against earnings, both historical and estimated. What it finds is that the Standard Poor's 500 index changes hands at about 25 times earnings. If Wal-Mart sold common stocks, it would not be selling Yahoo! (at 277 times earnings), nor would it be selling its own (at 42 times earnings).
.
The mantra that common stocks are the best investment is neither true nor false. Unless modified by three little words - "at a price" - it is meaningless. In general, when purchased at Wal-Mart prices, common stocks deliver excellent returns over time. At Tiffany prices they tend to disappoint. Fifty years ago the business of professional money management hardly existed. According to Federal Reserve data, American individuals owned 97 percent of their shares outright. Today they directly hold a little less than half. The proportion of investment decisions made by mutual funds, pension funds and the like has drastically increased.
.
No doubt, many fiduciaries care deeply about the funds entrusted to them. They feel almost as if the money were their own. However, their interests are not the same as those of their clients. As a successful investor once told me, the primary objective of most money managers is not to make money for the client. It is to keep the client. And the way to do that, of course, is to look good. Thus has professional investing become a kind of performance art.
.
A mutual fund manager looks good by outperforming his or her relevant "benchmark" - for instance, the S&P 500. To compete, a contestant must run with the market wherever it goes, even over a cliff. Are stocks overvalued? In professional circles, the question is not so much inadmissible as irrelevant. On Wall Street, simply avoiding loss is not success. What makes a career in a time like this is losing a little less than the competition.
.
Concluding his inquest into the crash of 1929, Ferdinand Pecora, counsel to the Senate Banking Committee, prescribed the remedy of full disclosure. Give investors the facts, he reasoned, and they would make informed decisions. What he did not anticipate was that investors would not bother to read the annual reports.
.
The great bull market of the 1990s, preceded by the great bull market of the 1980s, annihilated skepticism on Wall Street. In keeping with the letter of the Depression-era securities laws, companies disclosed the facts (or at any rate most of them). However, Wall Street didn't want the facts so much as the earnings, insubstantial and revision-prone as they might be. Corporate America obligingly produced them.
.
It is understandable that amateurs would fail to notice the alarming divergence between the fundamental value of American businesses and the prices assigned to the pieces of paper conferring ownership of those businesses. What is reprehensible is that the professionals did not. Alfred Harrison, vice chairman of Alliance Capital Management and manager of the $11 billion Alliance Premier Growth Fund, speaks for many when he confesses that "nobody really dug into footnotes" of the Enron financial statements. Harrison's firm, as of Sept. 30, owned 43 million Enron shares, which raises a question. If a 43-million share investment wasn't enough to command the attention of leading fiduciaries, what would have been?
.
There is one way to succeed on Wall Street. It is the way Warren Buffett got rich. Pay low prices for the shares of good businesses. Buy them when the rest of the world wants to sell them. Keep your wits about you. Have the courage of your convictions. The writer, editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, contributed this comment to The New York Times.



To: straight life who wrote (50635)3/6/2002 11:19:31 PM
From: tripperd2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 54805
 
I also read this article and wondered if any other owners of Ntap felt a bit of anxiety as I did. I know there have been many players threatening topple Ntap from their perch the last few years, and none of them seem to have had much substance to their various efforts. However Microsoft's push seems to sound awfully similar to the examples set forth in Christiansen's book i.e. attacking from below as in the examples he set forth in the computer and the hard drive market. Thoughts anyone? Where is Jerry when we need him?

Regards, Trip



To: straight life who wrote (50635)3/7/2002 9:44:22 PM
From: straight life  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 54805
 
Big bad wolf threatens to blow down the house of another little piggie...
(yesterday NAS, today CRM: this sucks!!)

(in 10 years will there be only 1 software company left?)

CRM Industry Reacts to Microsoft Incursion
Thu Mar 7, 2:02 PM ET
Erika Morphy, www.CRMDaily.com

When Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT - news) announced that it would be shipping its first major CRM application built on .NET, executives from the software giant were very clear about its go-to-market strategy. "It is developed for the small market," Microsoft senior product manager Holly Holt told CRMDaily.com.

But industry speculation quickly spread about Microsoft's true intentions.

Would the software giant be content with the bottom tier of the CRM market? Or, would it one day begin to compete with such companies as Pivotal (Nasdaq: PVTL - news), Onyx (Nasdaq: ONXS - news) -- or possibly even CRM frontrunner Siebel (Nasdaq: SEBL - news)? As of now, Microsoft has business relationships with all of those companies.

Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff told CRMDaily that while Microsoft's initial offering targets the small and mid-size market, the company has "an unspoken goal of targeting all of CRM."

Expect the Unexpected?

Part of what is fueling the rumor frenzy is the fact that the announcement was so unexpected, Louis Columbus, senior analyst with AMR Research, told CRMDaily. "They shocked a lot of people by moving so quickly into the CRM market. Everything they had said previously indicated it would be announced later this year."

To be sure, Microsoft has reassured its channel partners and other business allies that its latest release is not the beginning of a move into the high-end CRM market. Instead, Microsoft will continue to target the mid-size market through its Siebel relationship, it said.

Benioff expressed skepticism. "Microsoft will say they don't compete against their partners, such as Siebel, but history has shown otherwise. Siebel should have known better -- perhaps Microsoft, too."

Remaining Calm

Not everyone believes that Microsoft has sounded the warning bell.

"It doesn't sound like they are launching a worldwide war," Gartner (NYSE: IT - news) research director Joe Outlaw told CRMDaily.

But, he suggested that it would be worthwhile for CRM vendors to keep an eye on subsequent announcements as the fourth quarter -- when the Microsoft product will be available -- approaches. "A lot of things have been left unsaid."

What will prove most telling, Outlaw said, are signs that indicate whether Microsoft's CRM initiative was driven mainly from Redmond, where the company has its headquarters, or Fargo, North Dakota, where Microsoft's recent acquisition, Great Plains Software, is based.

"Before we can determine how big a deal this actually is to the Microsoft empire we need to see evidence that it has mainly been spearheaded out of Redmond," Outlaw said.

According to Microsoft's Holt, the CRM launch was a joint initiative between the Redmond team and the Fargo team. "This is their first baby," she said.

Out in Front

Perhaps a more relevant question is not where Microsoft is headed -- eventually -- with its CRM aspirations, but rather who will be affected when its product comes out.

On some level, Microsoft's foray into CRM will affect everyone in the business.

"It really will broaden the general market awareness of what CRM is," AMR Research's Columbus said, noting that if an observer can see the glass half full, there is an upside to Microsoft's coming release.

Columbus does not think that Microsoft is likely to scale up or make any drastic moves, such as acquiring Siebel, "which would be the fastest way to dominate the CRM marketplace."

Not Worried?

Nonetheless, after Microsoft made its announcement last week, a number of vendors occupying the mid-tier -- the space that is the most likely to be threatened by any ambitions Microsoft might have to grow in the CRM industry -- were quick to say they did not expect any problems.

"The market Microsoft is targeting is fundamentally different from Pivotal's target market," Bo Manning, CEO of Pivotal, told CRMDaily.

"Microsoft Great Plains is trying to grow into the mid-market after servicing smaller enterprises with point solutions," Robert Kear, J.D.Edwards (Nasdaq: JDEC - news) vice president for CRM strategy, said.

"They will continue to service larger mid-sized enterprises through a partnership with Siebel's mid-market solution," Kear told CRMDaily. "Siebel is reaching down from their normal focus on larger enterprises. In both cases, it is a challenge for Microsoft Great Plains to configure the technology to the mid-market's needs."

In the Crosshairs

What is becoming evident, however, is that the vendors of CRM products designed for smaller companies will take a hit.

"This will be more of a challenge to companies like Upshot, Front Range and Oncontact," Columbus said. "Those are the companies that will have to be very aware of what is going on."

Web service providers also will have to keep their heads up, observers say. After all, Microsoft is building its CRM offering on its .NET platform, making it possible to offer the infrastructure and application as a Web service.

Yet die-hard ASPs (application service providers (news - web sites)) like Salesforce.com say there is no comparison.

"Microsoft and Salesforce.com offer two completely different value propositions," Benioff said. "Microsoft CRM is not a service; it is software. It requires installation, integration and maintenance. It requires lots of different license fees -- the fuel of the Microsoft financial engine.

"We don't sell software, and we never will."

story.news.yahoo.com