wobatus's Comments

Amazon's Valuation: Sky-High and Crazy

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:01:04 -0500

User, those are good points. I know that 3 or 4 years ago I thought AMZN was pricey in the $80s, I think. Question is, how long can 25-30% growth last? AMZN is a great company, no doubt. In a comment on Lonely's board I agreed with Tom Armistead's comment-too risky to short. But I did think it was over-priced. Certainly at $140 or so i thought so. But good luck to you.

On Dec 08 02:29 PM User 506622 wrote:

> check the free cash flow metrics. (AMZN CH1 on bloomberg).
>
> Simple free cash flow/share (from bloomberg) is $4.01 / $3.40 / $1.69
> for cy08/07/06. Or trailing 4q OCF-capex=$1.9b or $4.43/share. So
> thats only 30x and I bet some guy is using close to $6/share next
> year, so its only 23x for 28% sales growth last quarter (and if roll
> forward to 2011 assuming 25% growth and 25x $7.50 = $187 target for
> end of 2010 using a forward look on 2011)

Amazon Is Overhyped and Overpriced

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:47:16 -0500

I love the fact I got 2 negative recs for saying it is a great company, I think it is too pricey at these levels, but also dangerous to short. People must have thought I was too wishy-washy. Oh well, down a few percent since I posted that. Keep up the good work, Lonely.

On Dec 08 11:18 AM wobatus wrote:

> Agreed, Lonely. Armistead is right too. It may be overvalued but
> that doesn't mean short at will. And if folks don't like EBAY, not
> much not to like about COSTCO. Amazon is a great company, but I'd
> avoid the stock at these levels.

Apple Overvalued? Here's What Else You Can Get for the Price

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:56:54 -0500

The only above post that makes a cogent point is the one about cash flow. I bought some Apple at around $7 or so in 1999 or so. It was trading near cash levels.

I don't know that it is an awful investment here. It is a great company. The author doesn't gainsay that. I think it could double in 3-5 years or so, maybe, if it continues this growth rate somewhat and premium valuation, or the standard 8-9 years for a solid equity. It will eventually run into a wall, law of large numbers, and a lot of its success has to do with a hip cachet that is hard to maintain. When everyone has an iphone, how hip can it be?

Amazon Is Overhyped and Overpriced

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:18:35 -0500

Agreed, Lonely. Armistead is right too. It may be overvalued but that doesn't mean short at will. And if folks don't like EBAY, not much not to like about COSTCO. Amazon is a great company, but I'd avoid the stock at these levels.

Charlie Gasparino: Another Crash 'Has to Happen Again'

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:01:35 -0500

Excellent. At least its not just a chorus of agreement. I was too harsh on Charlie, but he really is trying to sell books to the angry crowd.

But I like how you took a phrase I used and said it meant the exact opposite. Very convenient argument tactic.

And I know a lot of wall street got away with murder. I am talking about the fact that tons of capital did get wiped out, some of it by people who believed they were making rational investing decisions, who did not think they would be bailed out and did not get bailed out. I think there was a large failure to recognize the risk on the part of certain actors that had nothing to do with moral hazard. Yes, moral hazard plays a roll. Government interference in the market plays a roll as well. So does human greed. But these aren't the only factors. To trumpet one aspect above all others, pretty much ignoring the others, is axe-grinding.

On Nov 06 01:05 PM kertch wrote:

> Your comment reflects an ignorant and dangerous way of thinking:
>
>
> "Not to absolve government, but..." - but of course you would like
> to absolve government.
> "... these dopes would have immolated even without the incentives."
> - Dopes? These guys gamed the entire U.S. economy and banking system
> to thier advantatage and walked away with Billions, leaving us with
> the tab. We got immolated: the shareholders, the bondholders, and
> the taxpayers, not the bankers. The dopes are us, the ones paying
> for the mess, believing our "trusted public servants" will keep the
> "stupid evil bankers" from robbing us. If that's what you think
> then "moral hazard" is the only card you've got left to play. BTW,
> you're just the half-wit tinpot calling the kettle black.
>
> On Nov 05 04:33 PM wobatus wrote:

Charlie Gasparino: Another Crash 'Has to Happen Again'

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:52:25 -0500

Interesting ideas. I don't agree with all of them, but I think even libertarians are thinking evidently you can't just let these behemoths think for themselves. The amazing thing is how regularly they f'up. Every 10-20 years it seems.

On Nov 06 06:20 PM Old Wizard wrote:

> The analysis by Gasparino is correct as far as it goes in identifying
> root causes, but doesn't go far enough. I also don't believe that
> regulations couldn't be adopted that would check the out of control
> " risk taking" which I would better label gambling and misrepresentation
> bordering on fraud. Today the banks are borrowing money from the
> taxpayers [ re; gov] at close to zero and then from the subset of
> taxpayers, those who are saving money in banks, at 1% and then lending
> it at 5% or greater. To make matters worse the Gov [ re: taxpayers]
> under the guise of getting credit flowing again buy 300b of securities
> from banks much of which banks had loaned to the Gov[re: taxpayers]
> at between 2and 3% to ensure a safe haven. In all this machination
> the handlers of all these transactions are profiting[ this includes
> the government officials as well as the "bank" officials, those in
> fannie may and freddie mac, past and present, and all the agents
> of the gov who handle the bond transactions for the Gov of which
> Goldman Sachs is a big player]. Then the treasury says the people
> should save more and wall street says that the economic recovery
> will occur when the consumer spends more. Anybody see any inconsistencies
> here. The one salient constant here is that the hardworking individual
> who pays one's bills saves a portion of one's income and generally
> keeps a positive cash flow is the loser. Now meaningful reform can
> occur with some simple laws1] No mortgage or loan can be sold in
> any form more than once 2] Commodity traders must pay at least 50
> cents on the dollar on purchases. 3] hedge fund managers must pay
> at the individual tax rate for income tax 4] No mortgage shall be
> granted by any lending institution with a down payment of less than
> 10%. 5] Lines of credit for small businesses will not be greater
> than 10% of gross sales or for start ups be administered by a special
> officer of the bank and a pool established by the banks with .1 of
> 1% of their profits. 6] Credit card limits for any holder will be
> no more than 10% of an individual's annual income and interest rates
> will be no higher than 10% annually.7] Rating agencies can not be
> part of any other company. While these may not do it all , they would
> go a long way toward decreasing the gambling, exploitation and fraud
> we've experienced and maybe just maybe get capital to make long term
> investments borne of the conviction that new products and services
> will bring adequate returns. All the parties who are now profiting
> don't have enough skin in the game and until the system allows them
> to play[gamble] with other people's money with little skin in the
> game, it ain't goona get any better.

Charlie Gasparino: Another Crash 'Has to Happen Again'

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:45:58 -0500

Good point. That Merrill deal seemed ludicrous at the time. They were about to fail the next week. Their stock was headed to zero. People forget the panic that weekend.

On Nov 06 04:26 PM The Wog wrote:

> Good work in general, but repeated one horrible mistake - although
> to be fair a horrible mistake made by everyone. The question is not
> "bail out or not bail out." The answer is not "let them fail." You
> experimented with that once (Lehman) - don't make that mistake again.
>
>
> The answer is "bail out" - the question is "shareholders or depositors?"
> The mistake in 1998 was not to bail out Wall St, but to bail them
> out WITHOUT diluting or eliminating shareholders like when you bailed
> out GM etc.
>
> And if that's not sufficiently guaranteed to give self-regulation
> and you want market discipline over the cost of capital, don't bail
> out Tier 1 / preferred capital either - give them 40% of the stock
> in New Merrills and take their risks to earn back their lost $ the
> long, slow way.
>
> Guarantee if the management was looking at a Bear Stearns scenario
> rather than a Merrill Lynch one ($50 a share funded by the govt??
> Idiots! Should be $0.50!) they would behave themselves next time
> around.
>
> Repeat after me: "'Too big to fail' does not apply to shares!" until
> the whole country gets it, then publish the policy so it's clear
> what happens next time. Then watch things change.

Charlie Gasparino: Another Crash 'Has to Happen Again'

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:41:25 -0500

Nice and concise summary.

On Nov 06 04:22 PM GotLife wrote:

> My KISS analysis is, Lever up, fall farther. Corporations, banks,
> government entities, and individuals all saw the benefit of leverage
> (controlling assets in the present you cannot afford) but became
> blind to the risk of defaults. My grandfather and father saw this
> risk real time and were inherently financially conservative. We Baby
> Boomers, and later generations, are getting are own noses stuck in
> the pile, have still not internalized this message but will learn
> to remember this stench for a lifetime. And we will have a long way
> to fall, as defaults at all levels will continue for a spell.
>
> The beatings will not stop when morale improves but until the system
> is cleared of all the paper waste.

Charlie Gasparino: Another Crash 'Has to Happen Again'

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:17:34 -0500

If Citi, GS, MS, JPM had all followed LEH and collapsed, if backstops had not been given to money market funds, what do you suppose would have happened to the value of the collateral of the "conservative" banks? 1930s example is not to helpful for your argument on that one. Not to say that more onerous conditions shouldn't have been exacted. Even Charlies says they couldn't walk away last year, but should have sooner, say with LTCM. But LTCM was not a bailout so much as arm-twisting to get banks directly effectected resolve the situation. That type of "bailout" was the way things actually did work pre-Fed, with JP Morgan doing the arm-twisting and not the Fed. Bear Stearns didn't play along back then. memories are long, and Bear Stearns wasn't exactly bailed out, $10 a share notwithstanding.

Frankly, we get overly simplistic explanations meant to sell books and give red meat to the angry investing and non-investing populace. Everyone pushes their own axe-to-grind political explanation of the causes without acknowledging their own side's sins. A colossal foul-up from which almost nobody in this country can be completely absolved.

On Nov 06 01:38 AM ebworthen wrote:

> Refreshing - thank you for sharing.
>
> They actually should have let them fail.
>
> Rather than "save" them with interest free money from the taxpayer;
> the government should have not backstopped them.
>
> Then the trillions in liquidity could have been given to the banks
> and firms still standing.
>
> Punishing bad behavior and rewarding conservative management and
> prudence.
>
> Instead - we have rewarded bad behavior, Charlie is spot on.
>
> Those animal spirits like being rewarded.
>
> The "Ouroboros" end to a lack of adult behavior will be a collapse.

Charlie Gasparino: Another Crash 'Has to Happen Again'

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:30:55 -0500

Unless you toe the line in Seeking Alpha comments you get a lot of negative recs, even if you point out the obvious. To wit, the whole "government should not be involved/government was too involved" want-to-have-it-both-ways commentary you get from "experts". Government sucks, banks are greedy, let them fail, no I agree we need bailouts, they shouldn't have repealed Glass-Steagall, they should stay out of markets, they shouldn't have raised the leverage limits, there should be no government oversight, the banker's are greedy, but they would have been fine if government didn't let them act all greedy....

This is the level of discourse we get. If moral hazard alone allowed this to happen, that would seem odd, since no one had any way of knowing who would get saved and who wouldn't, as witness what actually happened. Did Citi shareholders really think of themseleves as "bailed out" with shares worth $4 that were worth $50? How does Dick Fuld feel about his shareholding in LEH? How do some LEH bondholder's feel?

My point here is not to feel sorry for them. Merely to point out that there were some misunderstanding of risk here that could not have been from moral hazard, but from simple misapprehension of the risk. nd that, awful as the government's role has been, it is being chastised often by the same people for intervening too much on one hand and too little on the other. or for allegedly making bankers some how greedier than they might already be. Let's face some facts: compensation practices were completely askew. yes some folks knew the risks. Others evidently did not (ratings agencies didn't get it or willfully ignored the risk, and so did huge shareholders and many executives). And the fact you could reap wild benefits in good times and even if you made nothing in bad times no one made you give it back. That is what fed the risk mostly.

And whose fault is that? Corporate governance. Shareholders not having enough say, not understanding, but mostly simply not caring. The vast majority of shareholding is done by institutions who don't rock the boat. They invest other people's money. They vote with their feet (i.e., hold or sell shares), not by proxy. They let this happen on their watch, cozy board's, no management oversight and no reigning in of the compensation practices. And then you get the WSJ et al come in and pooh pooh the admittedly awful spectacle of government pay dictation, when they trumpet the "free" market that let this happen, were huge drum-bangers to end Glass-Steagall, to let leverage go where it might in the free market, even knowing of the distorting effects of moral hazard, Fannie and Freddie, CRA, etc.

In the vast scheme of things, plenty of blame to go around: wall street, government, rating agencies, mortage brokers, certain borrowers, and yup, the institutional shareholders and managements they empower that let this happen as thieves of OPM.

On Nov 05 04:33 PM wobatus wrote:

> Not to absolve government, but these dopes would have immolated even
> without the incentives. Moral hazard is such an over-played card.
> Did all the shareholders and bond-holders of LEH really expect to
> get bailed? Well that was wrong, wasn't it? Same with ma and pa Citi
> shareholder. And then we get half-wit tinpot commentary from financial
> illiterates.

Charlie Gasparino: Another Crash 'Has to Happen Again'

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:33:07 -0500

Not to absolve government, but these dopes would have immolated even without the incentives. Moral hazard is such an over-played card. Did all the shareholders and bond-holders of LEH really expect to get bailed? Well that was wrong, wasn't it? Same with ma and pa Citi shareholder. And then we get half-wit tinpot commentary from financial illiterates.

Potential for a Short Squeeze in Akamai

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:13:38 -0500

Strong hands don't really matter. Dated concept. Insties often lend out shares to shorts. Some very heavily shorted shares have a more than 100% instie ownership, for the very reason they lend out so many shares.

But I like AKAM and am also long.

How to Value Amazon?

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:31:03 -0400

I don't think you could replicate and top Amazon for $3 billion. I don't pretend to know why its valuation is so high and going higher, other than it is a short-killing machine and they are definitely some of the buyers these days. A lot of the float is locked up in friendly hands.

That said, someone else here mentioned they don't buy bricks and mortar any more and just on-line. I don't go that far and do plenty of shopping at stores (mostly via the mrs.). However, every xmas, I do almost all that shopping at Amazon. Cheap and easy, they have all my relatives' and friends' addresses, know what I have bought them before, etc. A lot of last minute birthday gifts too.

One stop shopping. It's easy.

On Oct 26 07:36 AM logicalthought wrote:

> AMZN has continued to amaze me in that it has nothing truly proprietary
> (not even the Kindle) and is essentially just an extremely well-designed
> web site backed by fulfillment warehouses. In theory, one could replicate
> the entire company (currently valued at around $50 billion) for,
> say, $3 billion, consisting of $1 billion to replicate the web site
> and warehouses and $2 billion for an absolutely ubiquitous ad campaign
> to build instant name recognition. Requiring, then, a return on just
> $3 billion of invested capital (vs. AMZN's $50 billion valuation),
> one could then theoretically underprice AMZN on just about everything,
> and therefore massively steal its market share. I don't understand
> why no one has ever done this, so meanwhile, lol, I continue to shop
> at Amazon.

TriQuint Semiconductor Savaged After Hours: Another Reason Not to Game Earnings

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:14:47 -0400

Time is money. So is impatience.

When Will Nokia Wake Up?

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:01:27 -0400

Indeed. I think NOK is content with being the top handset maker in the world and staying that way with reams of cash flow. Not everyone can be the Apple. NOK isn't going away.

On Oct 20 06:28 AM Yagottabe Kidding wrote:

> Perhaps Nokia has decided the "smartphone segment" isn't much of
> a segment relative to their other segments so are participating strictly
> because they have a need for a presence.
>
> When featurephones have all the capability that smartphones have
> with, literally, some minor details excluded (in fact, pundits are
> going through excruciating convolutions to define "featurephone"
> and "smartphone" now so they don't totally overlap), why produce
> a smartphone?

Akamai Acknowledges It's Not Delivering HD Video to the iPhone

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:16:48 -0400

I love the fact that I make a true statement and it gets a negative rec.

Akamai Acknowledges It's Not Delivering HD Video to the iPhone

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:50:54 -0400

File this under BFD. The I-Phone can't deliver HD would be more accurate.

Sigma Designs to Acquire CopperGate

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:59:31 -0400

Hey, they could take on a pile of debt and have a higher ROE. :)

On Oct 17 08:37 PM pone wrote:

> Except for two exceptional years in 2007 and 2008, SIGM rarely has
> a return on equity of more than about 8% average, looking back over
> the last seven years. Is this really the kind of growth against
> equity that anyone should get excited about?

The Greatest Depression Is Coming

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:38:22 -0400

The seeds of ultimate recovery are in the very things you site. Consumers saving money by cutting out dining out or new cars before needed ultimately repair their balance sheet and begin to save and that savings fuels more investment and all that brings at a later stage. Job loss ultimately reverses. It always has. There are questions of timing and severity, but you paint an unstoppable loop of more job losses, more foreclosures, less consumption, more job losses, etc. If that was how it worked, we never would have recovered from prior recessions and job declines.

Some person will scrounge whatever they can together and start a business on a shoestring. It will grow despite the capital constraints you name. This will happen many times over. Ultimately, the banks lend again when their balance sheet repairs and they see the recovery gather steam. Has happened time and again.

Akamai's Webcast Recap: Stream Buffers, No Real Answers, No New Story

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:31:56 -0400

Your disclosure is a mere fig-leaf. There are many ways to have an agenda. You have one.

If Housing Were Priced in Gold

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:07:38 -0400

My parents bought their house for about $35,000 in 1964. Gold was $35 back then, so about 1000 oz.

In 2006 it would have gone for about $2,000,000 (my folks sold out in the '80s, but it has sold several times since then). Gold was $603 that year on average. So the house was worth about 3300 oz of gold.

It sold for $1.6 last year. Last year gold averaged about $872, so about 1800 ounces.

I don't know. I think of gold as a hedge, not an investment, although I suppose in this environment it can be both. A house is where you live.

I prefer a diverse bag of equities that have paid a growing dividend over a long course of years, bought in good times and bad.

What Is McDonald's Thinking?

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:32:51 -0400

If something has a 58% payout ratio and long term growth rate of 15%, well, it depends on the interest rate environment, but I don't see how that isn't worth a lot more than 12x earnings. And then to slash the growth rate in half (and 7-8% seems like a more sober assessment of the growth rate) only takes you down less than 1 on the multiple? Perhaps if you fleshed out your dcf analysis and why those ae the multples. But thanks for the input.

Natural Gas Has Spiked 60% Since Labor Day. Why?

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:32:53 -0400

What i found interesting is that, despite the call for near term dark days on prices, the article projects $5-6 in 2010. Which doesn't sound bad for CHK, ERF or RDC, 3 of my holdings. So if a near term slump is expected, intermediate term gains are as well.

Good luck to all.

Buying Apple Today: Like Buying Microsoft in 1998?

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:17:12 -0400

He is using microsoft's split adjusted price, which price also adjusts for the dividends (although at that it wasn't $24 split adjusted on 9/11/1998 per yahoo).

At $24 MSFT was priced at 48 x cash flow in 1998. Apple is at 15 to 20x, and you are not deducting the cash on the balance sheet to arrive at an enterprise value, not capex to get free cash flow.

But if msft has maintained value (and we are going from a peak to almost trough market period you are viewing), if apple has the same performance, at the current price it is a decent bet to triple over the next 10 years.

A double every 9 years is the standard S&P 500 historical return, not counting inflation effects.

Sounds like Apple might not be a bad bet, IF it can maitain a dominant position as msft has. Other investors here can address that better than I can.

You are mistaking the ability to double or triple in a year that a small cap may have with long term wealth appreciation. Warren Buffett certainly shows you can make decent returns buying larger cap companies, even as he made huge money early on with smaller caps.

I have no current position in Apple.

Garmin Unlikely to Be Saved by Introduction of Smartphones

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:40:53 -0400

How is that pair trade working out? Hard to tell since the opposite number wasn't named.

Well, a short of grmn is down 12% in the week since this article. I know,a short term move, and you are talking longer term trouble.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the nuvi will "save" grmn since I really don't think it needs saving.

Further, I am not knocking smart phones in general. I have an iphone.

I just don't think grmn is going to go away because of smart phones, and that based on enterprise value to cash flow, it isn't all that expensive. Then again, I loaded up in the $15 range.

All the best and good luck.

Garmin Unlikely to Be Saved by Introduction of Smartphones

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:22:20 -0400

If you are short a stock you have to pay the dividend. Part of the price of borrowing shares.

On Sep 04 07:58 AM dansocalguy wrote:

> Wobatus .. Thanks for additional insite ... please explain the "pay
> the grmn div" .. are you talking about grmn's dividend?

Garmin Unlikely to Be Saved by Introduction of Smartphones

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:16:14 -0400

Your analysis seems superficial. Have you tried navigating with your i-phone real time as you drive down the highway? Not too easy, huh, and whoops, you may be breaking the law, or worse, getting into deadly accidents. The market for gps devices is far from saturated, auto sales are near a bottom, and while there is competition and margins can't stay fat forever, there's plenty of money to be made. You give short shrift to actual enterprise value to sales and more importantly free cash flow cash flow. These same arguments were made in the teens. Short away (love the ostensible hedge of a pair trade without naming the long), but I don't see why you'd want to pay the grmn div.

How Goldman Sachs Games the System

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:47:09 -0400

Sacandaga, you get it.

On Sep 01 11:18 AM Sacandaga wrote:

>
> Selective disclosure is only a crime when companies do it, because
> they presumably know what they're talking about.
> But GS's purported decision to provide its investment advice to some
> clients before others is perhaps a bad business practice, but not
> a crime, because even GS's advice is opinion, not fact (if the latter,
> they're really in trouble).
> Those who are paying for it but getting it later than others should
> protest or fire GS.
> I'm no defender of GS, and I think the WSJ article has substance.
> But this rehash is a pile of conjecture piled on other people's real
> investigation adds nothing to the WSJ article.

How Goldman Sachs Games the System

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:13:20 -0400

I understand what Spitzer fought against, and I know what you are describing does not sound ethical. However, banning it is esentially saying you are not allowed to sell your opinions or repuation as you see fit. I am not arguing that it adds to liquidity.

If I am in the marketplace for a stock, I make my decisions based on what i think a fair price should be. I have to expect smeone else may know more, or that the stock is up because someone else is recommending it, and that people may be taking advantage of that recommendation and subsequent move in the price to sell their shares, and they may even have acquired the stock and known the opinion was forthcoming. Hell, I would go so far as the opinion could be completely bogus.

You have to make your decisions based on what you know about the company's prospects and price and finances.

The sooner you deal with the market straight caveta emptor, the better off everyone will be. Everyone should learn that and act accordingly.

Perhaps GS will lose clients due to revelationssuch as this. or no one will listen to their calls. They may suffer reputational damage (like they haven't already).

But someone here talked about enforcing the regulatory principle, not just the rule. That is a very slippery slope, and there is far from much evidence that even enforcing the regs as they exist really makes much sense. A good case can be made that insider trading should be legal as well.

There is always someone else on the other end of the trade and there is always informational asymmetry. You wouldn't buy from the other guy unless you thought it was going to go up more than he does, all things being equal.

On Aug 31 12:17 PM TraderMark wrote:

> I disagree
>
> when you have a research arm and a trading arm and they comingle
> that is against what Spitzer fought for
>
> Especially when the research arm is upgrading stocks a week after
> upgrading them in "trading huddles" that gets Goldman's traders and
> top customers into the stock. Its simply gaming the system when it
> gets to that point.
>
> Oops, I mean its "adding liquidity".

How Goldman Sachs Games the System

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:30:12 -0400

If you aren't a client of Goldman Sachs at all I can't see how any of this behavior would bother you. It has no long term effect on the value of a company. Ben Graham, Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett would all tell you to ignore the daily market ticks anyway.

The sooner we get back to straight caveat emptor the better. I know I get negative recs for saying these things, and the easist thing in the world is just to bash this behavior. Frankly, it just doesn't matter in the long run. Essentially, what you are asking for is not only all information from the company to be equally shared, but also all opinions of all people must be equally shared at the same time. That's daft.