YourMotherShouldKnow Posted February 18, 2004 Author Share Posted February 18, 2004 Lee, your premises and mine couldn't be further apart. I'm an intransigent supporter of capitalism, i.e., freedom. You're an intransigent supporter of...something other than capitalism. Since we aren't going to change each other's minds let's agree to disagree. That's better than having an argument that wouldn't lead anyplace. I truly want you (and everyone else for that matter, even me!) to be successful. Financial stability will help with that and that's why I posted this thread. Thanks for the reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendrix Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by LanceMo: Lee, your premises and mine couldn't be further apart. I'm an intransigent supporter of capitalism, i.e., freedom. You're an intransigent supporter of...something other than capitalism. Since we aren't going to change each other's minds let's agree to disagree. That's better than having an argument that wouldn't lead anyplace. I truly want you (and everyone else for that matter, even me!) to be successful. Financial stability will help with that and that's why I posted this thread. Thanks for the reply.I agree with Lancemo on this. However, i will point out that the focus on ethics Im experiencing in my corporation is NOT just window dressing. My group ate several million dollars in R&D charges last year because of a very very conservative position taken by our accounting folks - in order to avoid even the slightest appearance of any shady dealing. Lee, Im not sure where you are getting your data/opinions from. - The mainstream press- or the indie /underground press certainly doesnt give transparency in this regard. They both tend to whip up sensational stories rather than present a balanced view- a full picture. My point about Kodak was to demonstrate that there is nothing inherent in stocks that impose a "growth at all cost approach" in all situations. It just takes a few examples to demonstrate this. FWIW I believe the fundamental issues in corporate amaerica today have nothing to do with stock ownership. Where there are issues I beleive they have to do with the model for corporate governance. The relationship between the Board of directors and operational mangement is frought with collusion and other issues. The riduculous management comp plans result from this and this is what can drive an inappropriate short term focus IMHO. This can be fixed without tinkering with the firms capital structure involving stocks and bonds. I sense things may have gotten a bit polarized here. I hope we can disagree in a "good" way and that we can each remain open to facts/arguments that may conflict with our opinions/views. (As Ive always observed you to do). Cheers Over & out. Check out some tunes here: http://www.garageband.com/artist/KenFava Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by LanceMo: Lee, your premises and mine couldn't be further apart. I'm an intransigent supporter of capitalism, i.e., freedom. You're an intransigent supporter of...something other than capitalism. I am? How so? And whose freedom do you support? Unfortunately, in a lot of cases one person's freedom inherently compromises someone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Oops double post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by Kendrix: Lee, Im not sure where you are getting your data/opinions from. - The mainstream press- or the indie /underground press certainly doesnt give transparency in this regard. They both tend to whip up sensational stories rather than present a balanced view- a full picture.I don't get my opinions from the press, I get them from personal experience (although I have certainly hit the books at times as well as interviewed business owners in order to try to prove or disprove my opinions). I deal with lots of businesses every day, both as a consultant for many types of businesses, and of course as a consumer who patronizes businesses, who lives in a community (and has lived in quite a few different communities) where businesses operate and employ the people here and are active in governmnent here. IMO it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice patterns in the way businesses run if you care to observe things in the big picture. My point about Kodak was to demonstrate that there is nothing inherent in stocks that impose a "growth at all cost approach" in all situations.It doesn't literally impose it, but it does strongly encourage it. Sure you can find examples to the contrary, but we see evidence of (and pay the price for) the "growth at all costs" mentality EVERYWHERE, and the culprits are mostly public companies. FWIW I believe the fundamental issues in corporate amaerica today have nothing to do with stock ownership. Where there are issues I beleive they have to do with the model for corporate governance. The relationship between the Board of directors and operational mangement is frought with collusion and other issues. The riduculous management comp plans result from this and this is what can drive an inappropriate short term focus IMHO. This can be fixed without tinkering with the firms capital structure involving stocks and bonds.Well all of those things are certainly issues, but many of those stem directly from the capital structure... that is, in private companies those issues don't exist by default. And I'm open to ideas but I don't see how those issues are going to get fixed on their own. Individual companies can fix them IF everybody is on board with the changes, but how often is that going to happen? And meanwhile how many of the rest of us are going to suffer for their mistakes? I sense things may have gotten a bit polarized here. I hope we can disagree in a "good" way and that we can each remain open to facts/arguments that may conflict with our opinions/views. (As Ive always observed you to do). I'm always open to new ideas, and I don't really think things have gotten "polarized" simply because we don't agree. I honestly would like to hear other ideas about how to solve these problems, but you'll have to excuse me if I'm not super optimistic about hearing an answer that rings true to me, because I talk about this with a lot of people and have for years. The businesses I admire most, who are extremely financially successful as well as being "good corporate citizens," are aggressively and vehemently private. They are also very insistent that it's not necessary to go public to be very successful, that if you have a legitimate product or service you will have no trouble attracting private investors or growing the company at a slower pace. I can see their point perfectly. I have much less trouble seeing the justification for going public in most cases, considering what the real costs are. But like I said, if anybody does manage to explain it to me and/or come up with ways to minimize the damage I'm certainly open to having it explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedly Nightshade Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 keep up the good work, Lee! A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM! "There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendrix Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 As a final note I would observe that any firm today has the option of staying (or going) private and has the option of raising capital privately or solely via bonds. That most firms end up going public with stock is not without reason. They must find some benefit in doing so that outweighs some of the issues raised. No one is forcing them to to this. Hell, Even Ben & Jerry went this way in order to maintain & grow the business- and you know they would rather not have. If an alternative to stocks had some real advantage Id expect it would have caught on by now. It seems that the darwinian economic primordial soup has spoken Check out some tunes here: http://www.garageband.com/artist/KenFava Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by Kendrix: That most firms end up going public with stock is not without reason. They must find some benefit in doing so that outweighs some of the issues raised. No one is forcing them to to this. No, no one is forcing them. There are benefits which seem obvious in the short term. But I think that in most cases either 1) the business owner either hasn't thought through the long term consequences or doesn't care because they don't plan to stay involved with the company, or 2) they do it because the competition is doing it and so they feel (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) that it's the only way to survive. Simple greed is often the reason for going public, though. We saw the most glaring examples of this in the 90's. I had a ton of requests for programming from people who were starting dot-com businesses with no further long term goal other than to come up with an e-commerce business, take it public and then cash out, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up. This kind of thing happens a lot in brick and mortar business too, it's just that the cycle takes longer so most people don't see the correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendrix Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by Lee Flier: Originally posted by Kendrix: That most firms end up going public with stock is not without reason. They must find some benefit in doing so that outweighs some of the issues raised. No one is forcing them to to this. No, no one is forcing them. There are benefits which seem obvious in the short term. But I think that in most cases either 1) the business owner either hasn't thought through the long term consequences or doesn't care because they don't plan to stay involved with the company, or 2) they do it because the competition is doing it and so they feel (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) that it's the only way to survive. Simple greed is often the reason for going public, though. We saw the most glaring examples of this in the 90's. I had a ton of requests for programming from people who were starting dot-com businesses with no further long term goal other than to come up with an e-commerce business, take it public and then cash out, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up. This kind of thing happens a lot in brick and mortar business too, it's just that the cycle takes longer so most people don't see the correlation.Oh - Now I understand. The internet IPO bubble was definately not based on solid economics and was not sustainable. I agree that this made no sense, was sort term focused and greed driven in many cases. Note that it did not survive/persist for long. The market corrected itself. Also note that allot of private money went down the tubes with this bubble. However, I dont think this generally applies to other brick & mortar businesses. Most of these are on on a more solid footing in terms of their business model. Yes there are some examples of near-scams but its far from an epidemic. Ive have been thinking primarily about these somewhat larger, better established companies. Maybe thats part of why Lee and I see this so differently - different frames of reference. Check out some tunes here: http://www.garageband.com/artist/KenFava Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by Kendrix: Maybe thats part of why Lee and I see this so differently - different frames of reference.No no... the dot-com's are NOT my frame of reference! I was just using that as an extreme example of the short-term mentality that tends to permeate public companies. The dot-coms failed NOT because of greed or short term thinking, but because they simply didn't have a leg to stand on... most of them really weren't offering anything of substance and investors were foolishly buying into something that never existed. There is no doubt that a business with a solid footing can succeed financially in spades, even if it is driven by greed and short term thinking. Therefore we accept it as a necessary evil at best and even admirable at worst. Meanwhile the true cost goes uncounted and usually remains hidden, as it lies outside the parameters of the company's bottom line or the stock value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 8 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 http://game.marketwatch.com/Home/default.asp Well, I've been playing around at this site for a couple of days now. I really don't know what I'm doing. I'm being pretty conservative in my spending habits. Just trying to see, 'what happens when I do THIS'....what happens when I do THAT'. Trying to pick up on some of the lingo. Curious, I can't seem to find the word "Bling-Bling" anywhere on the site though. At some point, I'll probably start to read and learn more about research. So far I'm just pissing around. I have figured this much out, however: I need a million dollars. Things would work well for me if I had a million dollars. Can any of you who have a million dollars confirm this for me? Are there any of you who have two million dollars willing to give me a million dollars? Thank you. More later. Oh, and I hope you've had a profitable day... Super 8 Hear my stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.