Oracle Corp. (ORCL)

All Comments on ORCL

  • commenter
    kingofcary
    May 15 11:31 AM
    Enterprise Software: More Room For Downside Surprises [view article]
    The comment wrt large s/w companies struggling i.e. MS, Oracle, SAP is misleading. Of course some campanies struggle as is always the case. However, I see no mention of IBM one of the largest and certainly a bellweather. 4q07, 1q08 ... record revenue, profit, margin, EPS etc and by all measures and exceptional balance sheet. To not include this positive point indicates lack of crediility in the article. Reply
  • commenter
    JD Peterson
    May 15 10:49 AM
    Enterprise Software: More Room For Downside Surprises [view article]
    For ERP software vendors like ORCL and SAP... yes.

    For best breed software and consulting vendors such as supply chain management leader i2 technologies and SaaS vendors sepecially in HR and ACCOUNTING, 2008-2012 is the rapid growth period.

    SAP and ORCL are not growing anymore, their decline will become obvious by end of this year...
    Reply
  • commenter
    User 49180
    May 15 07:10 AM
    Enterprise Software: More Room For Downside Surprises [view article]
    This article seems to be a series of vague conclusions.Is there a point? Reply
  • commenter
    mnot
    May 14 09:19 PM
    My Website
    Who's on First, Services Oriented Architecture or Web Oriented Architecture? [view article]
    I think you hit the nail on the head when you call SOA an offshoot of EAI, and that's what's going to drive its adoption -- and limit it.

    There's nothing fundamentally better / more capable about SOA over WOA, but if you've got (as you say) fifteen different back-end systems to integrate, SOA is more attractive because it was built from the ground up to wrap them; it doesn't impose many limits at all.

    WOA, on the other hand, is usually ill-suited for that task, unless you're willing to go to a *lot* of effort. OTOH it's much simpler and more powerful if you're building fresh -- hence the focus of the startups on it.

    I tend to think that in the long run, SOA's market is pretty limited, but in the short to medium term, it's lucrative. WOA is a better long-term bet, but there's less money in it... for now.     Reply
  • commenter
    Buzzly
    May 14 10:25 AM
    i2 Technologies' Turnaround: Part I [view article]
    Amen to what getiright said.

    Reply
  • commenter
    JD Peterson
    May 13 10:11 AM
    Barron's Looks at Tech Sector M&A Candidates [view article]
    All mindless speculation. How come nobody ever thought about HPQ to acquire EDS...? if these analysts have any sense at all they should all shut their mouths.

    A bunch of blithering idiots....     Reply
  • commenter
    Kris Tuttle
    May 09 08:10 AM
    My Website
    Business Intelligence: An Interview With IBM's Rob Ashe [view article]
    You need IBM GS to implement their BI now because I think they have a stack of about 527 different software products that are used to make it happen! Reply
  • commenter
    InvestorsLiv
    e.com
    May 08 11:44 AM
    My Website
    Business Intelligence: An Interview With IBM's Rob Ashe [view article]
    IBM border line breakout and then we see $150-200

    www.investorslive.com/blog/2008/05/aapl-... /     Reply
  • commenter
    thomas728
    May 06 07:50 AM
    Ode to Joy Global, Cramer's Mad Money (5/1/08) [view article]
    Sell Block.........AAPL ?

    Come back to us Seamus !

    seekingalpha.com/symbol/aapl     Reply
  • commenter
    JD Peterson
    Apr 30 08:42 PM
    i2 Technologies' Turnaround: Part I [view article]
    4/30/2008 comes and goes.

    Today is the date i2 and SAP went to court, i2 is suing SAP for infringing 7 of its SCM patends involving about 300 cases/deals.

    Can you believe that the Markman hearing is over?

    Although we don't know how it went now but we know i2 was well prepared and dead serious about winning this case for several reasons.

    1. SAP used the partnership to steal the patented technologies from i2.

    2. SAP hired i2 employees who were familiar with the technologies to develop products with similiar capability to compete with i2.

    3. SAP bad-mouthed i2 to scare potential customers from buying i2 products products by spreading rumors that i2 will be going out of business.

    If wins the case, i2 intends to seek the maximum damage to SAP including court injunction to prohibit SAP from selling its products and servicing its customers together with maximum monetary damage.

    i2 do not intend to license its technologies to SAP.

    SAP had better be praying hard that i2 do not win the case, otherwise the loss will be devastating.     Reply
  • commenter
    hello_world
    Apr 30 11:22 AM
    Google Named World's #1 Brand [view article]
    Siemens at no. 47?? while SAP higher up at 29?

    Looks like the team that put this up has never been to Europe.

    Plain absurd.     Reply
  • commenter
    MP_Tpa
    Apr 29 07:21 PM
    Oracle Closes BEA Systems Deal - Last Logical Purchase? [view article]
    I believe that Oracle could use an "integrator" to the mix to accentuate its services side. So how about Tibco falling into this acquisitive category? Reply
  • commenter
    JD Peterson
    Apr 28 08:25 PM
    i2 Technologies' Turnaround: Part I [view article]
    By the way... your so called McGrath and his team were McGrath, B. Stinnet and J. Cummings.

    Stinnet was obviously another corp. hopper, very expensive but very unimpressive in terms of performance. A smooth talker but more like a car saleswoman, as to SCM, I don't think she can have a deep conversation with a client who needed help.

    As to J. Cummings, he was the biggest joke. Nobody can stay awake after listening to his presentation for 10 minutes. An i2 shareholder got so pissed and asked McGrath how in the world did the guy get that job.

    Thank God the team is all out of i2.

    McGrath was a quick cost cutter or so-called a chain-saw and he was more than fairly compensated. The i2 board should have let him go 7 months earlier; in other words, the renewed of his last year contract was a mistake and they had to let him go 5 months before the term ended.

    As to the two Wall Street analysts mentioned, you just have to listen to them asking questions at i2 conference calls to realize how clueless these two were. When i2 had a good quarter, they move their target a few bucks higher and vise versa, these people have out-lived their usefulness since i2 is all on fair disclosure.
    Reply
  • commenter
    JD Peterson
    Apr 28 03:22 PM
    i2 Technologies' Turnaround: Part I [view article]
    The contribution of McGrath was cutting cost and selling asset to raie money but he did not grow the revenue, and he wasn't spending much time with i2 clients like i2 executives did and do now.

    It cost almost 12 cents per share per year of i2 earnings to have McGrath, he was paid $1 million plus and he ran over $1 million in charter plane and huge stocks and stock options and all kind of perks you can think of. This man is a typical greed, how can someone ran that kind of tab while the company and all its shareholders were trying to grab a piece of wood just to stay alive?

    Some people don't like Chatterjee but this man is very well respected in i2 and in SCM world. He was born in India with a little accent like all foreign born Americans but he's getting a lot better in presiding the earning conference calls.

    Some of those American born CEO's are such smooth talkers, they scar me to death.     Reply
  • commenter
    getitright
    Apr 27 10:09 PM
    i2 Technologies' Turnaround: Part I [view article]
    In reading your article and looking at your chart it appears i2 had a successful turnaround in motion up to the point they ousted Michael McGrath, not since his departure. i2 stock continues to fall regardless of who is covering it or the thoughts on analysts and unfair practices for reporting.

    As someone who has partnered and worked closely with i2 for over a decade, the only success since Greg Brady was President occurred during the 29 months when Michael McGrath and his turnaround team were in place at i2. They are the individuals to thank for delivering positive results for i2’s growth, not an individual who is collecting off the coattails of success from their efforts.

    Chatterjee has been inside the company since 2000 when he joined as COO. He did not deliver results, changes were made and the board searched for a CEO who had experience to make it happen.

    As one of the most respected individuals in the supply chain consulting world, co-founder of PRTM and the father of SCOR, McGrath resided on i2’s board. After a long, extensive, and unsuccessful search for CEO, the board turned to McGrath and asked him to consider becoming the CEO to take on the turnaround. McGrath felt with support from the board and his knowledge in the market he could make a difference and agreed.

    He built a management team of key individuals who were respected in the market and they dedicated almost 3 years to restructure, rebuild and restore a sense of stability to i2 resulting in the 11 consecutive quarters of profitability and growth. An impressive badge to earn as the company had significant SEC issues when he stepped in.

    He and his team built out a strategy plan based on customer feedback. They listened to their clients and partners. Our partner program was rebuilt. Marketing and development prioritisation was designed around customer and partner input. The focus of McGrath’s team on the client resulted in the delivery of 11 profitable quarters. A successful turnaround. While he was in charge, i2’s stock went from not being listed to being relisted and hitting the mid 20's.

    Many realise he and his team were forced out of i2 and the market has responded to the threat of stability which is reflected in i2’s continual stock drop.

    To claim Pallab Chatterjee as a success because i2 has experienced a couple of follow on successful quarters since McGrath's release is preposterous. Those who are experienced in covering the enterprise software market recognise it takes 3 to 4 quarters to identify a project and bring it to closure due to the length of building out custom demonstrations, contract negotiations, and hitting the budgeting cycles of companies at the right time. These 2 quarters, and probably the next 2, are results from the momentum of the changes put into affect under McGrath's team. Simply check with i2 clients and partners.

    The analysts you mention in your article are top analysts in the software market. They are highly respected by Wall Street, have an accuracy rate which is impressive and they do not make comments based on hearsay. By placing your message on a public post board without having your facts straight on their coverage of i2 is completely unprofessional and not credible.

    If you wish to document the facts, you need to do your research in a balanced manner. In the process of developing your article, did you interview McGrath, Cummings, Walravens, or others? Did you stop to review the history of this company? Do you realise that pipeline is usually 3-4 quarters deep and the last 2 quarters are simply a continuation of the successful development created by McGrath and his team?

    Your comments on the SAP lawsuit are valid with one exception. The legal action was initiated by McGrath. He was the person to recognise the patent infringement. He took the legal action required which now has set i2 up for significant gains.

    McGrath and those he hired to help turnaround the company hold consistent, successful track records outside of i2. They delivered results for i2 only to be thanked by being ousted by the old regime.

    Pallab Chatterjee’s track record has not been impressive. His scorecard cannot be measured until you have year over year results to show whether or not he can deliver.

    You need to remember that many of us have worked with i2 as clients and partners for almost two decades. We know their politics, their people, and who can and cannot deliver. i2 had a team who was leading them to success. They stopped to listen to us as their customers and partners. Trust was being rebuilt. The listening has stopped and the arrogant approach has returned. Whether this results in continued success is yet to be determined.     Reply

Trading Center