David Erbas-White wrote:

> Allen Bauer wrote:
> > Paul Scott wrote:
> > 
> >> Allen,
> > Studio) the product, it is involved in some manner. Given that, we
> > are very careful to ensure we don't do anything that would hinder,
> > or even give the perception of hindering, current sales.
> > 
> 
> 
> All that you've said is well and good, and I'm happy to hear all of
> it (even those parts I may not agree with).  HOWEVER, there are times
> that you may want to consider 'hindering' current sales, if you can
> make the case that it will enhance future sales.  A blip of a couple
> of months on current sales in order to enhance a year or more of
> future sales would seem to be a valid trade-off.

Tell that to the investors who are expecting that we reach a certain
level of earnings. Or how about all the bank convenants that suddenly
become very onerous if we don't quite make the agreed upon earnings
level?


It's like telling your mortgage company, "Hey, I'm not going to be
making that mortgage payment for a few months while I 'invest' in that
new car, m-kay?"


I know it's not quite the same thing, but the analog is still there.
And, yeah, yeah, investors are "short-sighted buffoons..." But, guess
what? They're the investors. It was their money. They get to place
conditions on its use. They don't usually care what the company
strategy is, or whether or not some "long term bet" is going to pay
off. They don't want to be involved in the day-to-day operations. They
invested in the company believing that the leadership will protect
their investment. They've *already* taken their risk by investing. They
don't want to hear that there is suddenly more risk than what they
originally signed up for.


-- 
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer