Oracle Corp. (ORCL)

Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:

All Comments on ORCL

  • commenter
    p. smith
    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
  • commenter
    A
    midwestern
    neighbor
    Apr 24 04:01 PM
    Google Named World's #1 Brand [view article]
    Greg - I agree. I would also add that despite what *we* think, many in the world still do not spend their evenings...much less their days...on the internet. I have to think that many, many people who don't have a clue what Google is do on the other hand know what Coca-cola is, since we all have to eat and drink. Betcha Coke is more affordable for a poor person in Bhutan than a $100 Negroponte laptop! Reply
  • commenter
    Greg Palusa
    Apr 24 06:57 AM
    My Website
    Google Named World's #1 Brand [view article]
    It's the usual US-centric vision of the world. Very limited, very shortsighted. with just a pinch of China - to reflect current media trends - and a pinch of UK.

    a question: where is Ferrari in the chart?
    it should be at least in the Top 10.

    as a brand Ferrari worth much more than Microsoft.

    as a brand, for its arrogance and for its bad products Microsoft is hated and widely despised all over the world.

    I agree about Google as Nr. 1, and about Apple in the Top 10 - that's ok.

    But Ferrari not being in the Top 100, Gucci at Nr.79, Carteir at Nr.80, well in my opinion this so called "survey" by Milward Brown is not worth the paper on which it is written.

    A 4 years old schoolkid could have made a more reliable and objective chart.

    Greg Palusa
    Director
    Marketing Strategy & Communications
    Vertygo Team     Reply
  • commenter
    Data
    Analyst guy
    Apr 18 11:07 AM
    Will Data Integration Break Out of the Silo? [view article]
    The point you make is correct. Data overlaps across systems but it is organized and structured differently and over time, while the overlap continues, inconsistencies pop up. It is these inconsistencies that cause business heartburn. What data do I trust from which system and when do I trust it?

    The problem is that no one knows what the rules are that relate the common data across systems. In addition, the tools that the major vendors provide do a good job of moving data... only after you know those cross-system rules. Those same vendors provide data analysis tools. But those tools only analyze one data source at a time. That means that to figure out how two systems relate to each other, a data analyst has to do that work by hand. Since data structures are different, and data formats are different and the rules that relate data across systems can be complex, this work can take a long time, is not accurate and puts integration projects at risk before they event get off the ground.

    There is a new but small vendor, Exeros, whose product my company has purchased and they are the only company so far that does cross system data analysis and automates what we have previously had to do manually. The other integration vendors need to catch up to the Exeros functionality if our industry is going to be truly efficient at data integration.

    However, the critical issue you miss is that the ETL companies d     Reply
  • commenter
    Ashleah
    Apr 17 03:18 PM
    My Website
    Largest U.S. Companies by Market Cap: Wal-Mart Gains; Google Drops [view article]
    What's interesting here is not so much the change in fortunes for the companies on this list, but rather, the massive gains and losses experienced by the investing public as these companies have moved. Just think: good ol' GOOG has lost 79,242,278,100 in market cap. Reply
  • commenter
    Dana Gardner
    Apr 16 09:32 PM
    My Website
    The Gathering Clouds: Reconceptualizing Data [view article]
    Marcel: Please step to the front of the class. Reply
  • commenter
    Marcel
    McSweeney
    Apr 16 06:07 PM
    The Gathering Clouds: Reconceptualizing Data [view article]
    The transition appears to be acknowledging value in sharing data rather than focusing on hiding it as a trade secret because there is synergy in sharing. There is also the simultaneous goal of hiding data as a trade secret.
     Reply
  • commenter
    Gorby
    Apr 16 03:37 PM
    The Gathering Clouds: Reconceptualizing Data [view article]
    Great observation Historian1. We suffer from the conceit that somehow we are smarter or less prone to human foibles than our predecessors. All that changes is the hardware. The "wetware" is the same.

    Case in point: every new technological advance in imaging or media is almost immediately used to produce porn.     Reply
  • commenter
    Marcel
    McSweeney
    Apr 16 01:00 PM
    The Gathering Clouds: Reconceptualizing Data [view article]
    To Historian1, I wish it were that simple, but then i don't because it would be too boring.
     Reply
  • commenter
    Historian1
    Apr 16 08:02 AM
    The Gathering Clouds: Reconceptualizing Data [view article]
    To solve the riddle you present, don't look to the future; look to the past. Discern how emerging technology has shifted power in throughout history, and one can generally extrapolate into the future.

    Ask yourself what were the effects of these disruptive information technology events:
    1- Gutenberg's press
    2- universities, schools
    3- cheap paper/pen
    4- postal/internet services
    In all cases these items have reduced the cost to produce/receive information.

    Those with little power have access to the same information as those with much power, yet the powerful continue to hold to find creative ways to hold onto their power. How did they do it?

    The short answer is that nothing has changed in the history of humanity. Those who are adept at forming groups to obtain the currency of power, which in our time is "information"... are the ones who will hold power. The long answer requires reading of Marx and Michel Foucault as they both offer deep insight into the methodology of how groups form to control the flow of information. Marx used a 'bourgeois' model. MF pointed to rituals and the privilege to speak.

    The only thing that one can guarantee is that human nature has not changed. Groups will be formed to control the quantity and quality of information to seek/hold power. Historically, religious groups and women have been most adept at this and it is likely to continue. Corporation are notoriously bad at this task, as their time horizon to seek/hold power is too short.

    Food for thought ...     Reply
  • commenter
    GregoryY
    Apr 15 10:20 AM
    My Website
    Google and Salesforce: Why Don't They Just Merge? [view article]
    Why on Earth would Oracle want to buy Salesforce.com? Larry already have acquired more companies/products in that space that they know what to do with, and these do have licenses and support cash flow under contract. Functionally, CRM integration with email/tasking/calendar... is an absolute necessity, and every customer's investment into this on their own is wasteful, but this "half baked" alliance is yet to show they can do it right. There is more ways than one to skin a cat. Reply
  • commenter
    calvino
    Apr 15 03:14 AM
    Google and Salesforce: Why Don't They Just Merge? [view article]
    It's true, you are right, Google had 200 million of sales last year for their online apps. They are really crushing SAP, Oracle and MSFT. And you are right there with them. Larry Ellison and Bill Gates and Henning Kagermann tremble at the sound of your name. Can you do a laptop review next week, mine is getting old and I don't know which one to get thanks in advance, and don't do any more finance, ok, just stick to software reviews. Reply
  • commenter
    Jeff Devault
    Apr 14 05:34 PM
    Watch for Google Apps, Salesforce to Integrate [view article]
    Google is not going to waste money on a overvalued POS like Salesforce.com. Reply
  • commenter
    Marcel
    McSweeney
    Apr 14 04:30 PM
    Google and Salesforce: Why Don't They Just Merge? [view article]
    In a few years, Google and Salesforce.com will have a package almost as good as Office 2003.
    This might be of concern if MSFT mgmt sat around the office, drank beer, and watched ESPN all day. Since this is not the likely scenario, MSFT has little to worry about. GOOG has won one battle, but MSFT never gives up and is currently focusing on the next battlefield. SeekingAlpha enjoys writing that MSFT is under attack. The question is with 90%+ marketshare, who else should everyone be attacking? AOL? Netscape? Oops, MSFT did away with them years ago.
     Reply

Trading Center