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: Elmer Phud who wrote (178912)	7/27/2004 10:18:51 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

OT Elmer, who performs activity would be irrelevant if a bank focuses on the majority shareholders, so if your Nevada bank's form makes you declare majority shareholders then they've got this information which they may dispose to others, even though I don't think they really should do that. The bank whose biz dev did this in the Valley is one I will not conduct business with, though the biz dev eventually was termed from this bank. It's possible to penetrate a Nevada Corporation. Someone I know had a divorce where he paid $200k (in today's dollar) to investigate the location of his assets, namely because his rather unusual wife was shifting expensive art work from their house to their penthouse in Seattle (and to another place the investigator discovered - a local art gallery that as a favor to his wife was storing their older artwork to make room for her to buy new artwork, so this gallery unknowingly got involved in this divorce case). He mentioned his detective was also investigating for hidden assets in potential Nevada corporations, so these corporations can be investigated (as it turned out she didn't go that far. She was only into art, nothing else. She actually may not have been hiding the artwork.) Am of the impression a person can find out about a person's assets in a Nevada corporation through a detective though it may have required the court's okay and it cost him a lawyer's fee of $2M (though that was probably mainly for the divorce.) Side comment: the court system has no problem with taking people to the cleaners in a divorce. When doing a divorce, the courts don't focus on how much money the divorcing couple should save and preserve, instead they focus on how much a spouse should spend, how much one of the spouse's should get from the other to spend. So if a spouse has a lifestyle of X, the courts say the other spouse has to pay him or her X to maintain the same lifestyle after the divorce, meaning that the paying spouse coughs up 2X (X for him and X for her) rather than X/2 (X/2 for him and X/2 for her). Here's a thought: courts should rule not according to what a spouse has spent or consumed, but what the couple had been saving. Regards, Amy J

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (178912)	7/29/2004 2:50:15 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer & Thread, Analyst on LSI: "With an inventory correction solidly in place, and demand decelerating, we are, however, hard pressed to think that industry-wide chip demand for the third quarter will rapidly rebound, and even track to seasonal norms. If our hypothesis is indeed true, it suggests that further estimate reductions -- and by extension lower stock prices -- lie ahead," he wrote. thestreet.com I think he's incorrect on overall chip-demand. Gottfried? Regards, Amy J