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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quehubo who wrote (101714)	5/28/2008 11:00:50 AM
From: R2O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206116

XOM going off on a different business line is one option Indeed Exxon has done just that in that past. During the 70's and 80's Exxon started Exxon Enterprises which funded and guided startups covering all sorts of technologies. Venture capital when there was very little venture money available. Ventures included solar, wind, 'information technology' (office equipment (fax , printers (Qyx, Qwip), optical discs, ... ), software, semiconductors (Zilog), ) various industrial ventures (Reliance Electric) ... don't even remember all the areas. Remember that this was the 70's and early 80's. All these areas were high tech, high risk areas. Enterprises learned the VC business quickly but imperfectly and all the ventures failed in one way or another. They were unreceptive of the idea that synergies between ventures could be arranged with minor additional investment ... my opinion and experience. The objective was to eventually 'replace' the oil business. They invested billions. I think they eventually decided that ( since they would have to create an IBM sized venture every year to replace the oil business ) maybe it just could not be done. How many of the top revenue (non-energy related) companies would it take to equal XOM revenues? Maybe it's time to try again. R