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: Len Roselli who wrote (56750)	6/3/1998 12:24:00 AM
From: Time Traveler	Respond to of 186894

Len, you and Time Traveler think alike. Message 4669517 Time Traveler

To: Len Roselli who wrote (56750)	6/3/1998 12:56:00 AM
From: Harry Landsiedel	Respond to of 186894

Len Roselli. Re: " Presumably (I really don't know), people that held shares in the parent co. were able to profit from the growth of the offspring." That could be the understatement of the decade. NY Times ran a piece a week or so ago outlining the gain. One share of ATT was worth $63.50 on December 31, 1983. Today that share would be valued at $755. That assumes you kept all the pieces spun off since then. Not sure about reinvested dividends. Not a bad return. In fact the return exceeded the S&P 500 over the same time period. HL

To: Len Roselli who wrote (56750)	6/3/1998 12:22:00 PM
From: Larry Loeb	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Len, Re: Standard Oil and AT&T breakup analogy: SO and AT&T were combinations of geographically diverse companies. AT&T was a regulated utility which was unable to pursue many businesses due to regulation. Once these two were broken up, their pieces were able to aggressively compete in both new and old markets. This resulted in overall gains for the combination of the new entities. Neither Microsoft nor Intel are regulated or forced to only operate in one region. They aggressively compete in new and existing markets and respond to competition by absorbing productive utility and improving manufacturing efficiencies. There is no reason to believe that the components of Intel or Microsoft would be able to be any more successful than the companies are at present. Intel, in particular, would be negatively effected. They presently compete in the chip set business to insure that their new, higher margin, processors are quickly adopted by manufacturers. If Intel had to abandon that business, their margins, and the pace of technological improvement in the form of faster processors, would be severely damaged. Larry

To: Len Roselli who wrote (56750)	6/3/1998 5:55:00 PM
From: Scarecrow	Respond to of 186894

Len, RE: <The point is, if a real monopoly is broken up, it may signal a new growth phase for that particular industry.> Your post has some very interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing them. I see intervention as a necessary step only when all else fails. I wasn't around when Standard Oil was broken apart, but the AT&T breakup has had mixed results -- at best. Prices went down -- sort of. Service? Mixed... But the really interesting twist is that the Baby Bells are all hell-bent on recombining... Software is just not like a telephone network or oil refinery or other high-barrier business. The barrier to market entry in software is perhaps the lowest of all industries -- a fact that many publishers exploit. Internet/Web only makes this even more feasible through e-commerce, etc. The point is, I think we should err on the side of caution before punishing winners. The next level of innovation CAN emerge and win -- consumers should be the king-makers, not the DOJ... I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts... Scarecrow