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 : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (16154)	2/18/2003 7:35:04 PM
From: fedhead	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57684

I think those 2 periods were mentioned because they were bottoms after a secular bear market. I think bottoms in the 50's, 80's were bottoms in a cyclical bear within the context of a secular bull market. I think this market is a secular bear market and the bottom will be in when stocks are undervalued. I don't think we will be posting in silicon investor at the bottom as most of us would not be interested in stocks then. SI probably won't be around anymore and CNBC probably will be off the air, Abby J probably would be hyping gold then. Anindo

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (16154)	2/19/2003 4:07:25 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 57684

Analyst: Firms Should Have Clearer View Of Data Security Challenges By Donna Howell Investor's Business Daily Tuesday February 18, 10:37 am ET How are companies doing at securing their information? So-so, says Christian Byrnes, an analyst at tech research firm Meta Group Inc. Byrnes, who once headed his own security firm, has a point for top execs to ponder. He says there's a big gap between their views of data safety and those of their people who are in charge of information technology security. Byrnes recently spoke with IBD about how security issues are likely to affect the executive suite in years to come. IBD: How are the nuts and bolts of corporate IT security likely to change in the next few years? Byrnes: People are starting to connect the nuts to the bolts, which is huge progress. Realistically, the last 15 years as we've distributed computing we didn't bother much with security. In the last five years people realized that was a problem and they've started to implement security. But it's been piecemeal - bits and pieces here and there. That approach over time becomes extremely expensive, and it becomes an ongoing expense. So at some point people realize it's more effective and efficient to connect the pieces together and start managing things a little bit more coherently. So they start to apply security technology according to a set of rules rather than a set of feelings and assumptions. IBD: In general, do companies have a good understanding of what they need to do in security? Byrnes: Financial industries do. They are not all perfect, but in the aggregate you can look at them and say, yes, they're effectively secured and they're doing a good job. And you can say that the Fortune 50 companies have pretty much solved this problem for most of their operations. But as soon as you get outside of those two sets - no, absolutely not, no way. Information security typically represents 0.75% of an IT budget. Think of the IT budget as the investment in assets. The assets happen to be based in information technology. IBD: What other investment would you make as a corporation, where you didn't provide some level of assurance of the ongoing value of the asset? Byrnes: We've shifted into an information-based economy, and business managers typically don't understand their asset protection responsibilities that result from that. IBD: Could companies be liable for lax security? Byrnes: Currently no court has determined that the lack of a (corporate security) awareness program has increased liability. However, we seem to be getting to the point where we're closer and closer to a decision like that. You could certainly make the case that an organization that fails to train their employees in (the company's) security policies has in effect decided not to have any security. When something goes wrong - a hacker breaks in or a major virus outbreak - if it's something significant enough to endanger the existence of the corporation, then inevitably there will be investor lawsuits. There should be investor lawsuits. The question then becomes: What had the organization done to protect its assets from these well-known forms of attack? IBD: Broadly, how are managers supposed to implement security? Byrnes: If they have no significant security investment, then the intelligent decision is to start by identifying roles and responsibilities and a strategy. That's the planning approach. Most organizations already have some investment in information security. What we normally tell those people to do is in order to demonstrate value rapidly, you need an architecture for security. So don't focus on the planning aspects. Let's demonstrate a usable architecture that, if implemented, will directly improve the security of the systems. The architectural approach typically takes a minimum of two years to deliver some value, some return on investment. IBD: Do companies tend to think they're a lot more secure than they actually are? Byrnes: Depends on who you ask in the organization. We did a survey and found that chief executives tend to believe their organizations are quite secure. Senior executives below the CEO level have a little bit less confidence. Chief information officers have a little bit less confidence than that, and security officers have significantly less confidence than that. That finding was very clear. biz.yahoo.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (16154)	2/19/2003 4:12:50 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 57684

Funders Find The Exits By Ari Weinberg Forbes.com 02.18.03, 2:45 PM ET NEW YORK - The venture capital world may be experiencing hellish returns compared to two years ago, but No Exit is far from the longest-running play in Silicon Valley. In 2002, venture capitalists loosed 300 companies from their portfolios through mergers and acquisitions. That was just an 11% drop in total deals compared to 2001 and significantly better than the 22 initial public offerings from venture firms, a 37% drop from 2001. But, while M&A activity held up relatively well, the total value of all deals fell to $7.2 billion from $17.1 billion in 2001. Fourth-quarter and full-year data for venture capital M&A exits were released today by the National Venture Capital Association and Thomson Venture Economics. Software deals collected $655 million of the $1.6 billion in total transactions for the third quarter. Leading the way was the $255 million December acquisition of security firm PentaSafe by NetIQ (nasdaq: NTIQ - news - people ). In October, Borland Software (nasdaq: BORL - news - people ) bought enterprise productivity firm TogetherSoft for $185 million. Medical-device and health care acquisitions were particularly strong last quarter, accounting for 25%, or $410 million, of fourth-quarter exits. In October, Medtronics (nyse: MDT - news - people ) picked up spinal-prosthetic implant firm Spinal Dynamics for $269 million. With no venture-backed IPOs so far in 2003--and only five in the latter half of 2002, raising a total of $260 million--M&A still looks to be the only way out for venture capital firms and their limited partners. Often seen as a benchmark company in assessing venture company valuations, Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO - news - people ) went to the well in late January, picking up networking security firm Okena for $154 million. That purchase has yet to inspire imitators. Venture capital fundraising fell off a cliff in 2002, drawing only $6.8 billion in new commitments. When accounting for firms that downsized previously announced funds, that figure falls to $1.9 billion, a level not seen since 1991--and a far cry from the $41 billion and $106 billion raised in 2002 and 2001, respectively. If exit valuations continue to fall--from an average of $27 million for 73 deals in the third quarter to $19.5 million for 82 deals in the fourth quarter of 2002--it's safe to say that limited partners will keep their hands in their pockets for a few more months. forbes.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (16154)	2/19/2003 6:09:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57684

Veritas Software probing 200 day average again (VRTS) 18.31 +0.15: -- Technical -- The issue is back flirting with its 200 day sma (18.33) for the second day in a row. This average was key during the Jan/Feb rally attempts as it failed to close above on numerous tests. Next short term resistances, if able to build value above today, are at 18.43 (Tuesday high), 18.66 and 18.75/18.78. eBay is at a new 52-week high...It seems like some of the tech stocks are doing ok...we'll see if that continues.