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.

Pastimes : A Jackass, his PAL(indrome), and GOLD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mannie who wrote (149)	1/14/2003 11:30:19 AM
From: Cactus Jack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1210

Scott, Your point should have been my point no. 3. <G> jpg

To: Mannie who wrote (149)	1/14/2003 11:45:03 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1210

Well it appears we are all in agreement more or less. I was trying to suggest just that myself. It is not that bankruptcy is the problem, but the fact that they are allowed to stay in business, with a competitive advantage (no debt). If they just went under, out and bye bye, the stronger companies would in theory have more pricing power. There are other angles to consider as well, and one of them is chasing market share at any price. You go broke doing that long enough especially if you overexpanded and new competition comes in. But then again it was bad business in the first pace to have over expanded, and we were talking about "good companies". All in all it appears we have more aggrements than disagreemenst I would think. Let's consider HD and Lowes. Are these good companies? Did both expand well beyond reasonableness chasing market share? Hell I do not even know what a good company is anymore. Wallmart probably is and they are doing OK (more or less), but are they over expanding too much too? M