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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dermot Burke who wrote (22368)	1/8/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: Cory Gault	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Dermot: I understand you're point. However in my opinion, an MSFT loss in court would institute a remedy that probably won't effect the company financially. just MHO.... Great OT question....hopefully some very high-profile rightous Republican..have to think about it...should be entertaining though!! CG

To: Dermot Burke who wrote (22368)	1/9/1999 5:33:00 PM
From: damniseedemons	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

I really don't like the finance and stock market arguments for why "Microsoft must be stopped." The reason that Microsoft is so profitable is that they're blessed by operating in a highly profitable and scaleable industry. Software has high fixed-costs (R&D), after which the variable costs are minimal. The more they sell, the more profitable they become (as that fixed cost is spread upon more software units). That's also the reason that Microsoft is more profitable than other software companies--they have the most volume. Msft is fortunate enough to sell mass-market priced high-volume products which cater to almost all computer users. Most other software companies are limited in scope (video games, virus scanners, databases, web servers, CAD, etc.) because their products appeal to a relatively smaller audience. Another bonus of Microsoft's business model is that they do not rely on a salesforce to sell their products. Many software companies (like ORCL, SAP, NSCP, etc.), particularly those that sell to corporations, have this high expense. Microsoft business model and top-notch management team, combined with its perceived reliable growth on Wall Street (which warrants high-premiums these days) leads to its lofty stock price. It's irrelevant and ignorant to blindly compare the stock prices of companies within industries. Better to understand WHY one company is worth a lot more than a seemingly-similar competitor. The best companies in each sector--and that does NOT mean that they are monopolies--are awarded the highest valuations. Compare Coke to Pepsi, Cisco to other networkers, Dell to Compaq and other PC makers, MCI-Worldcom to AT&T, SAP to PeopleSoft, i2 to Manugistics (you may have never heard of them?), Wal*Mart to K-Mart, Safeway to other supermarket chains, Oracle to Sybase/Informix, Charles Schwab to Merrill Lynch, Amazon.com to other E-Tailers, Yahoo to other portals (Yahoo is worth about 10x more than both Lycos and Excite!), etc., etc. These aren't monopoly situations, their stocks are higher because of differences in business models, branding, management acumen, execution, market share, and a host of other factors. -Sal

To: Dermot Burke who wrote (22368)	1/11/1999 8:52:00 AM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

<the risk is to the unusual pretax 30% + margins enjoyed. Unheard of in any mature large scale enterprise. Care to name another example? > Value Line, New Media is the way MSFT is going as well. RATIOS: 12mos(2) 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 Interest Coverage Ratio NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Profit Margin (after tax %) 34.0 37.6 49.6 47.9 29.3 35.2 35.3 <Off topic but funny anyway: any guess who Larry Flynt is going to out next week?> I don't know, but I am glad he is doing it. This hypocrisy is getting sickening. He should start some investigations in the software front once he is finished with the Republicans.