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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (174527)	5/13/2003 7:09:28 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

06:38 ET Intel finds glitch in Itanium 2 chip (INTC) 19.99: The Wall Street Journal reports Intel has discovered a "glitch" in its Itanium 2 microprocessor. The problem causes computers to crash under certain circumstances and effects only some of its chips manufactured since its introduction last July.

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (174527)	5/13/2003 3:31:41 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Are they merely a cost to shareholders and not the company? LOL... sure. Imagine how "profitable" our companies could be if shareholders paid all of the expenses and the company got to keep all the revenue? In the end however, as a shareholder, does it really matter? Not if we are thinking like a shareholder. The real issue is what shareholders want to do with this cost. And in the end, what matters is what shareholders think. As far as the inclination that what matters is what shareholders think... that isn't entirely true... unless a set of shareholders is willing to takeover the management of the company, or find an executive team willing to execute their vision while at the helm. There isn't a management team in the world that is worth anything that would execute the shareholders demands I hear constantly repeating on SI, unless its a liquidation team.

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (174527)	5/13/2003 10:08:44 PM
From: brushwud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

The debate on whether or not options are a cost is amusing and has spilled over onto many different threads. Your posting is surely one of the most amusing and you almost have me convinced. I have to agree with Lizzie, though, and close my eyes as the car spins out of control. Expensing options will destroy Intel, and Barrett and Bryant would scurry.

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (174527)	5/14/2003 7:24:27 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi John, do you believe a company shouldn't distribute ownership? My sister is very gifted as an operational business person, but hasn't yet realized she could have grown her business even larger if she had distributed ownership and cloned herself by putting procedures in place to do so. She sold her company for 1.8X, but maybe X would have been even larger if she had cloned herself and distributed ownership. The best way to grow, is to share ownership. One person can only do just so much. 80,000 achieve more. I wanted to invest in her company a few years ago & bring on one of my investors (who is also invested in commercial property real estate from my home state and quite coincidentally also had an investment in the same properties my sister had a contract on), but I didn't invest and I didn't ask my investor to check her company out, because my sister doesn't believe in distributing ownership - which really translates into a small company that's most likely not going to be large enough for capital investors. In fairness to her, her ROI was (off the top of my head) something like 10X so you could have argued that she did it right but here's the catch: it would have been a good investment but only for a tiny amount of money - she grew her business fast and hard, but you could tell she was going to hit her personal limits because she didn't distribute ownership enough which means she had less owners to help her leverage growth to make it into a really large size. She essentially grew her business to a startup size, but could have grown it substantially larger if she had distributed ownership to others (imagine five divisions instead of one). I could pretty much tell she was setting herself up to be only a limited size, which meant that I couldn't bring in an investor because there's no way I'd let them pour money down something that couldn't be worked to the appropriate size because she wasn't into distributing ownership with employees. But now that her company got bought out by a larger company, she's beginning to understand the importance of cloning herself to grow a company beyond just herself and also to put procedures in place to do so, and to distribute ownership to make it happen in a large way. She recently acknowledged to me, she's beginning to see the important ingredients for growing large. I hope she keeps learning how to grow large, because if so, then I'll be right behind her, but until then, she's really got to learn the philosophy (to distribute ownership) from someone larger than herself (from her current company.) I don't know if you're against sharing ownership, but thought I'd share this with you anyway. There was an old post on CSCO that gave me the impression you were against distributing ownership (in addition to expensing.) I believe the best way to get really strong growth is through distributing ownership. Regards, Amy J