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 coming US dollar crisis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dybdahl who wrote (9833)	8/3/2008 11:14:17 AM
From: Larry S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71456

Your explanation really got my attention. I understand what you are saying through "The information starts to get spread in the organization, and all doubtful employees get the message "We investigated this, and it's a good idea". This makes the doubtful switch towards believing that it is a good idea" but then you lose me. What I have observed are incomplete cost estimates. I know several companies that outsource software development and fail to take into account the quality (lower) of what they get. But you seem to be saying that the hidden cost is the impact of "made in -----" on sales. What did I misunderstand? I might add that it appears to me that in large companies, the decisions are made at levels well above the level where the real technical expertise lies. And it is assumed (probably correctly) that the designer will be biased because he/she would be directly impacted. Larry

To: dybdahl who wrote (9833)	8/3/2008 5:24:56 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71456

but you leave out price and margins. if everyone in your product sphere is moving and kicks your butt on price or margin, than in the short term, if you want to keep your job as CEO, you better move too, or get all of your in place people to take a massive pay cut, etc etc etc. that's the real cascade. and the market demanded it, and didn't give a twit about long term planning, extended outlooks, or long term viability. nor did the boardrooms who granted these guys untold riches for taking the short term approach, juggling the books with only the next quarter earnings report in view, versus 5 and ten year thoughtfulness, let alone say NO to their competitors solutions. quality of product is a secondary phenomenon in this equation.....with the above being the first order of priority. (japanese auto makers are one of the few places you can find the opposite of this thinking). let's say Citi's CEO Prince had kept the bank sound and refused to participate in the CDO markets. For at least three years or longer every other money center bank would have eaten Citi's lunch, quarter after quarter. He would have been lucky to survive the first year by doing the right thing. Having done the wrong thing, he didn't survive anyway. Let's talk about S&P ratings agency. internal emails show, rating analysts complained the now toxic paper was not rate-able. and they all prayed they'd be retired by the time the poison killed the market. but they were team players, they wanted to keep their jobs, they made money on the numbers of deals they could give market passing ratings without which, the crap could not be sold to you, me, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds etc etc etc. and everyone turned a blind eye while they bought junk on behalf of their clients and their citizens. Why? because performance mattered over substance, all in the short term. Now everybody pays. the market got what it wanted, and now it will pay peter for robbing paul, and both will go down on the same ship together. cascade? avalanche would be a better term. end of story.