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 : Vantive Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: seth thomas who wrote (2023)	5/20/1998 9:48:00 AM
From: Trader Dave	Respond to of 3033

To the thread: We all know that Steve has this enormous positive bias towards Vantive. Despite that, I agree with his assessment of the situation. The folks that have known the company for a long time are saying that this is an opportunity to find a CFO capable of leading the company to the $1 billion in revenues mark. While Kathy built strong internal controls, there is a general feeling that it's time to take vantive's external communication to the next level. Davidow is a great addition to the company as chairman, and it would be inappropriate for Luongo to be Chairman. (Oops, steve said that.) TD (Yes, I own the stock, and have a bias to buying more.)

To: seth thomas who wrote (2023)	5/20/1998 10:02:00 AM
From: Shege Dambanza	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3033

I too did not know Lochhead had quit. The signs were there when they named a CMO. The buzz I heard a few months ago was that Lochhead was not well liked at Vantive, and had a hard time adjusting to the politics of the corporate world. This move may be good for both Vantive and Lochhead.

To: seth thomas who wrote (2023)	5/21/1998 4:31:00 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3033

Hi Steve: In general, I agree that change can be a good thing. It is the degree and the context that are at issue. You're in your car. It is on fire. Change would be a good thing right about now. Getting out of the car is a good change (at least, it seems like that at the time). Doesn't change the fact that the car is burning... CLFY has been knocked in the past (and in your post) for not making these sort of changes. Recently, we have responded with a number of mgt and market changes, which so far have worked out very well. But VNTV was not perceived to have this problem. In fact, the mgt at VNTV was something that you and others on SI have stated in the past is a strength, and part of the reason (intangible, albeit) for VNTV's valuation vs CLFY. But if there is turmoil (and the volume of change does indicate that), then what does that mean? This amount of change cannot be written off entirely to 'just more jolly days at VNTV'. Wasn't one of the folk who left the top dog at ICC? I'm not sure, maybe someone can confirm. If so, can that be good for their product integration? So, if the car is afire, getting out would be a good idea. But if the car stalls in the middle of the highway, that same change might leave you as road kill (I think I have beaten that analogy to a pulp). Point is that change in itself is not necessarily a good thing; it all depends on the context. Were these people incompetent or burned out? Or did they clash with Luongo's mgt style (as my rumor source indicate in at least one of the cases)? Also, the posts in response to this turnover illustrate an SI-specific phenomenon. For some reason, the majority of the vocal posters on the CIS/SFA threads seem to be pro-VNTV. If this sort of change had occurred at SEBL, there would be a thousand chicken little messages, and Tom would be hung in effigy (or, worse, forced to attend all future Warrior games). I state this not to try to change your minds; opinions are the American way of life; but to alert the less vocal and possibly more easily swayed investors who visit these posts. Bottom line, as always: do your own research and then decide which risks you are comfortable with. Good luck in your investments.