quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I read where some people in here thought that because Microsoft owns 10% of CompUSA, the stores are pushing Windows XP. I also read about some Mexican billionaire, but didn't quite see the relevance. I just want to clear something up that a lot of people seem to be confused about. Just because a company or person owns stock in another company, DOES NOT mean that they have any say into what that company does. In fact, unless that company or person owns 51% or more of the TOTAL outstanding stock issued by the company, the have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in ANYTHING that the comany does. Public (aka Common Stock) is issued when a company "goes public" or valuances a portion of the worth of the company to be sold on an open exchange market. This stock is sold with the implicit agreement that the owner has a 'stake' in the assets of the corporation and also implies that this person has NO authority in operations of the company. It makes no difference if Microsoft owns 10% or 49% of CompUSA, they have nothing to do with the operations there. The reason that CompUSA is pushing XP is related to what the Marketing industry calls 'slotting fees', where Microsoft pays CompUSA a TON of money to basically market their OS for them. Just remember this little tid bit of wisdom when you (no one in particular) are running around screaming about Microsoft's share holdings and their role in the conquest of the free world.
______________________________________________________________________
Just what do you (no one in particular) think ownership of stock confers? Microsoft is indeed the giant, and what it says go! Of course, I'm aware of slotting fees! Also, CompUSA stock is no longer sold on the public market; it's privately held. If you think that Bill Gates, or his minions, has no say in CompUSA's pushing his products, you're entitled to that belief; erroneous as it may be. The relevance to the Mexican billionaire is that he and Bill Gates are personal friends, and, as such, Gates definitely has a say in what goes in CompUSA. Microsoft didn't buy 10% of CompUSA with the hope of advancing a competitor's position, or because it thought that paper used to print the stocks was pretty; it bought the stock for a self serving interest, which is certainly understandable. If you (no one in particular) owned 10% of any company, you would certainly consider it in your self interest for that company to grow, and that would be achieved by getting your product to market, and that is achieved in many instances by market muscle and pressure, whether it's Microsoft or whomever. You get your product to market by convincing a seller to carry it, and it certainly helps when you are the giant in your field. I spent a number of years as a purchasing agent for a very large industrial distributor; I have somewhat of an inkling how the business game is played, and it isn't always fair! Also the "magic number" of 51% does mean final control, but any company, especially one like CompUSA, whose stock nosedived from $36 in 1997 to $8 when it was taken private in 1999 (at a premium of $10/share), would not ignore a shareholder who held a substantial number of shares, even if they amounted to less than controlling interest. No company can go to their shareholders and say, "Gee, our stock just took a dive, because we upset a guy who owns 10%, even though he is the biggest kid on the block"! I'm not here to get in a p*****g war over this issue, but the business world doesn't always play nicey nicey!
