> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Terry Collins
> Sent: Friday, 11 February 2000 08:59
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Jamie Honan
> Subject: Re: [SLUG] IPO's
..deleted
> Generally I'm dubious about trading $ in hand for illusionary future
> benefits (IPO?). It is probably okay for someone just starting their
> career who could afford to gamble and loose 5-10 years super without
> too much affect on their retirement.
>
> When you are longer in the tooth, it is not a gamble you can afford to
> take, particularly with the growing "stuff you, I'm alright approach
> of government". It has been a sad thing to see that metal recycling is
> something that most old-age pensioners resort to to make ends meet.
The key to applying for this sort of job, whether it be for cash, or stock,
or options, is to do your homework. Understand the company's business model,
look at it's financials, understand where it is going. If you can't
understand it, get someone who does (and you trust) to explain it to you.
This applies no matter what the job is.
> Keep in mind the IPO bubble has to burst sometime. It all seems to be
> fuelled by worship of amazon.com, but everyone seems to be blithelty
> ignoring the fact that amazon.com has acculmulated losses of $US800
> million, with 7,500 employees and we keep hearing how "it is the new
> way of doing business and you have to look at it differently from
> traditional bricks and mortar businesses". Seems 7,500
> butts^h^h^h^h^h^hbottoms require a lot of bricks and mortar to me.
Some of the latest Net companies are just hot air, and they will eventually
have to fold.
However, some of the others (and Amazon is good example) are actually not
very strange at all.
An analogy is in order: If I decided to build a steel mill in China for a
cost of $3Bn, and needed to employ 10000 people, and said that it wouldn't
show a profit for 10 years, then there would be no shortage of companies
willing to provide the money provided I could convince them that the
business plan was sound. And I'm sure that a public float of this company
would also generate quite a lot of interest.
Amazon is the same: they are bullding a multi-billion retail business over
many years that requires enormous resources and man-power. Their backers are
convinced that it will show a profit in the long term, and the public has
decided to go along for the ride.
What's the difference?
> I've come to the conclusion that there is a growing group of people,
> called entrepreneurs, who really are about selling wild schemes to the
> people with money (investors) and who then ride the wave (collect
> their exhorbitant directors/managers fees) while it last, then they
> move onto the next wave.
This is true in any business - it is nothing new. It started with tulips
back in the 1800's, and has worked with railroads, oil and minerals. Hi-tech
is the same - just look for the fundamentals, do your homework, and you'll
usually (but not always) do better thatn the average bear.
> If this is the case, the best rule is maximise the $ in hand.
The best rule is to do your research and make your own decisions rather than
blindly following other people's advice.
Regards,
Craig Southeren
-------------------------------------------
Equivalence - Home of FireDoor, MibMaster & PhonePatch
For Open Source H.323 - see http://www.openh323.org
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.equival.com.au
Fax: +61 2 4368 1395 Voice: +61 2 4368 2118
-----------------------------------------------------
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
