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 : BORL: Time to BUY! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: david thor who wrote (9282)	3/3/1998 5:36:00 PM
From: Robert Graham	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10836

I am talking about both their past and present as evidenced by the current state of their Borland C++ product. It is very prudent as a longer term investor, or even as a speculator involved with what can turn out to be lengthy turnaround plays, to look at the company's past, both in how the company was run and its financial history during its successful times and its more recent failures. This helps identify what needs to change in the company in order for it to be successful. I have found that a company is rarely able to reinvent themselve independantly from their past. So I would not bank on this happening at Borland. This would not be a wise gamble. Usually enough of the past remains with the company to get in the way of the company's future success, particularily if there is no evidence to the contrary. This is why companies can go through multiple CEOs to end up with the same results. This is common and IMO not to be discounted by the investor. Furthermore, what evidence is there of Borland's current management to indicate that this company has broken in significant ways from its recent past? If you are hard put to come up with observations that would reveal a enitrely different kind of thinking that permeates through the new management structure, then the past is what you will end up with. You can count on it. Besides, perhaps a review of what has made the company the initial success it once was is in order here. Once a company loses connection with their "success formula" which speaks of a relationship to the customer that provides in demand solutions and the profits that result, they rarely recover from the disasterous consequences. I understand the accountability of the CEO in the example of its original founder is important. However, look at the results of his absence. This history of the company speaks clearly enough to me. The original entrepeneural and creative force in a growing company is very, very difficult to replace. I have witnessed this myself more than once in my career. The board should of acted more prudently instead of making the accountability of the CEO to certain corporate funds the top and only issue that they thoughtlessly handled, at least until they can make an intelligent choice in replacing him. The past speaks for itself here that cannot be rewritten through denial or just outright ignoring the past this company came from. I have to admit that ignoring the past is a very innovative and rather unique approach to investments. I suspect this paculiar approach to investing does not provide one with much success. But then I must be misunderstanding you here. Are most people here not interested in understanding Borland's past? How about Borland's present in relationship to their handling of their "bread and butter" products, which can be shown to be connected to their past? I can understand that negative reflections such as mine can induce a fair amount of denial or even anger on the part of the enthusiastic followers of Borland. However I will say that I would like to see Borland suceed. I feel this way not only for the successful past that Borland managed to have for themselves and the quality products that they did produce in their past, but competition is very important in the market environment provided by Microsoft. Thank you for your feedback. Bob Graham