Forum Archive Index - March 2000

["hugh webber" <hugh.webber@clear.net.nz>]

I quite agree, but the point (not just me but several posts) is that the
SVY
e venture is a very small one and a very small proportion of its
established operation.
I don't see that as non-constructive or negative, simply a fact. 
Was the litigation lawyer being non-constructive and cynical in pointing
out SVY had
no show of winning anything off the Auck City Council? I don't think so, I
think she
was being realistic.
If it can be demonstrated
that the $500,000 is going to grow at say 1000% then those facts might no
longer
apply depending on the size of SVY's existing ventures. That's the sort of
information I was looking for.
The fact that WN's price was much lower than SVY's a shortish while ago
surely
demonstrates that WN is growing much faster. 
I'm not advocating that every company should stick to its knitting but
trying to
quantify the size and relative importance of what is starting up. There is
now a bias 
against conglomerates in favour of integration and sharp focus which leads
to the question
are SVY BRY and maybe some others rapidly closing down their other
operations
so that they are sharply focussed on tech business? The answer seems to be
no,
so far.
I don't see that as cynicism but valid questions. If I find a company
that's sharply
focussed and growing rapidly and soundly I'm not cynical I buy some of the
action.
Why else did I buy heavily into Sausage and Telecom?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
To remove yourself from this list, please us the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.html.