But if you look at WorldCom, which is the biggest failure to date, they grew dramatically, they were buying companies that were bigger than they were and they were doing it off inflated stock.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think that the failures of Enron and WorldCom and other companies are partially failures of investors to recognize companies that are selling for a thousand times nothing, but chances are they may be worth only that.
You cannot have companies where many of the largest ones lose money indefinitely without someone finally waving the white flag, and IBM is the most recent example of that.
Why is it that big companies fail when the technology changes? It happens in every industry, so what's the pattern? What are they all doing wrong?
An awful lot of successful technology companies ended up being in a slightly different market than they started out in.
As they grow, companies saturate their markets, become more complex and difficult to manage, and face larger and more entrenched competitors.
Usually, the biggest companies are not the most dynamic.
If you thought the advent of the Internet, the spread of cheap and efficient information technology, and the growing fragmentation of the consumer market were all going to help smaller companies thrive at the expense of the slow-moving giants of the Fortune 500, apparently you were wrong.
Lots of companies don't succeed over time. What do they fundamentally do wrong? They usually miss the future.
We don't grow unless we take risks. Any successful company is riddled with failures.
We got bigger, much scarier competitors. We ended up with Microsoft, a company with all the money in the world, the way I look at those guys. And IBM, another company that, historically, dwarfed us.
No opposing quotes found.