by Adam Hartung | Dec 7, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Today’s guest blog is provided by Mike Meikle, hope you enjoy:
Summary
- Oracle is at the top of the heap in the Traditional Software market.
- Traditional Software market is deflating with $7 billion less profit than 2009
- Software as a Service, a component of Cloud Computing, has a forecasted 26% annual growth rate over the next five years.
- Oracle Cloud Computing strategy is muddled with bi-polar corporate marketing and platform dependency.
- Customers feel trapped with Oracle and are looking for alternatives.
- Oracle is trapped in a classic Defend and Extend situation.
- Oracle seems to be following Microsoft in using 1990’s corporate strategy in 2011.
Throughout the 1990’s Microsoft held the dominant position in software. Firmly ensconced in Corporate and Consumer arenas, Microsoft generated enormous profits. With an overflowing war chest, MSFT aggressively quashed or bought out the competition – which eventually attracted the attention of the United States Justice Department.
After a little less than 10 years, Microsoft now fights to stay relevant as multiple challengers have exposed gaping holes in its armor. The tech giant’s senior leadership appears rudderless as product lines fail to get off the mark (Windows Phone 7) or flounder (Vista).
With this in mind let us turn toward Oracle. Long viewed as the top Database Management System (DBMS) for the corporate world, its database software underpins much of the global information economy. It has a large war chest stuffed with the profits created by costly traditional software licensing deals with locked-in customers. It has used that cash to acquire new lines of business (PeopleSoft, Sun) and competitors (ATG, MySQL).
However there are some dark clouds on the horizon. The advent of Cloud Computing is a threat to its current licensing model. How will Oracle adapt to corporations implementing virtual servers and databases in the Cloud? Traditional software licensing is down $7 billion industry-wide from 2009. Meanwhile “software as a service” (SaaS) is seeing explosive growth, with a forecasted 26% annual growth rate over the next five years as a natural component of Cloud Computing.
Oracle has made some efforts to delve into the Cloud Computing fray with the Oracle Exalogic Elastic Cloud, or “Cloud-In-a-Box”, leveraging their SUN and ATG acquisitions. However this arrives several years behind the Amazon, Google, and Microsoft triumvirate of Cloud Computing products. Oracle’s Cloud offering will also have to overcome Oracle’s own negative statements about Cloud Computing. CEO Larry Ellison called Cloud Computing “complete gibberish” in late 2008.
Oracle also has problems with its customers. Chafing under the steep licensing costs and sub-standard support, nearly half are looking to shift to lower cost alternatives as they become available. Many have felt trapped by lack of suitable replacements. MySQL was one such competitor, but with Oracle purchasing SUN and getting MySQL in the bargain, that option disappeared. So customers have continued to (reluctantly) fork over licensing and maintenance fees to Oracle, creating the bulk of the organization’s profit stream.
Sound familiar?
Also, the champions of Oracle software offerings, developers, are dissatisfied with the company. The founders of MySQL and the creator of Java, now key software offerings of Oracle, have jumped ship as a result of disagreements with Oracle’s corporate direction.
Now Oracle finds itself in is a classic Defend & Extend situation. Nearly all their profits rely on historical licensing and maintenance for traditional software, a market that is rapidly shrinking. Current customers are unhappy with cost and service; hungry for alternatives and ready to embrace new solutions. But Oracle has arrived late and timidly to the Cloud Computing maketplace, attempting to leverage recently acquired assets where key personnel have left (and taking who knows how much vital market and product knowledge.) Not only will Oracle have to struggle to differentiate itself from other Cloud offerings going forward, it will have to incorporate their newly acquired assets (including technologies) into a cohesive offering while trying to ramp up top notch service.
Oracle will have to break out of the “consistency trap” if it is to drive profits toward new growth. New services that provide value to the customer will have to be developed and aggressively marketed. To grow future revenue and profits Oracle cannot rely on shoehorning customers into poorly fitting licensing and support models based on the fading market of yesteryear.
Or Oracle could choose to not change its old Success Formula. For advice on that approach Oracle’s Mr. Ellison talk to Microsoft’s Mr. Ballmer to see how well his 1990’s corporate strategy is working as Microsoft stumbles into 2011.
Thanks Mike! Mike Meikle shares his insights at “Musings of a Corporate Consigliere” (http://mikemeikle.wordpress.com/). I hope you read more of his thoughts on innovation and corporate change at his blog site. I thank Mike for contributing this blog for readers of The Phoenix Principle today, and hope you’ve enjoyed his contribution to the discussion about innovation, strategy and market shifts.
If you would like to contribute a guest blog please send me an email. I’d be pleased to pass along additional viewpoints on wide ranging topics.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 23, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Most planning systems rely on extending past performance to predict the future
- But markets are shifting too fast, making such forecasts wildly unreliable
- To compete effectively, companies must anticipate future market shifts
- Planning needs to incorporate a lot more scenario development, and competitor information in order to overcome biases to existing customers and historical products
- Apple and Google have taken over the mobile phone business, while the original leaders have fallen far behind
- Historical mobile phone leaders Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, RIM and Microsoft had the technologies and products to remain leaders, but they lacked scenarios of the future enticing them to develop new markets. Thus they allowed new competitors to overtake them
- Lacking scenarios and deep competitor understanding, companies react to market events – which is slow, costly and ineffective.
“Apple, Android Help Smartphone Sales Double Over Last Year” is the Los Angeles Times headline. Google-supplied Android phones jumped from 3% of the market to 26% versus the same quarter last year. iPhones remained at 17% of the market. Blackberry is now just under 15%, compared to about 21% last year. What’s clear is people are no longer buying traditional mobile phones, as #1 Nokia share fell from 38% to 27%. Like many market changes, the shift has come fast – in only a matter of a few months. And it has been dramatic, as companies not even in the market 5 years ago are now the leaders. Former leaders are struggling to stay in the game as the market shifts.
The lesson Google and Apple are teaching us is that companies must have a good idea of the future, and then send their product development and marketing in that direction. Although traditional cell phone manufacturers, such as Motorola and Samsung, had smartphone technology many years prior to Apple, they were so focused on their traditional markets they failed to look into the future. Busy selling to existing customers an existing technology, they didn’t develop scenarios about 2010 and beyond that would describe how the market could expand – far beyond where traditional phone sales would take it. Both famously said “so what” to the new technology, and used existing customer focus groups of people who had no idea the potential benefit of a smart phone to justify their willingness to remain fixated on the existing business. Lacking a forward planning process based on scenario development, and lacking a good market sensing system that would pick up on the early market shift as novice competitor Apple started to really change the market, these companies are now falling rapidly to the wayside.
Even smartphone pioneer Research in Motion (RIM) was so focused on meeting the needs of its existing “enterprise” customers that it failed to develop scenarios about how to expand the smartphone business into the hands of everyone. RIM missed the value of mobile apps, and the opportunity to build an enormous app database. Now RIM has been surpassed, and is showing no signs of providing effective competition for the market leaders. While the Apple and Android app base continues to explode, based upon 3rd and 4th generation product inducing more developers to sign up, and more customers to buy in, RIM has not effectively built a developer base or app set – causing it to fall further behind quarter by quarter.
Even software giant Microsoft missed the market. Fixated upon putting out an updated operating system for personal computers (Vista then later Windows 7) it let its 45% market share in smart phones circa 2007 disappear. Now approaching 2011 Microsoft has largely missed the market. Again, focused clearly upon its primary goal of defending its existing business in O/S and office automation software, Microsoft did not have a forward focused planning group that was able to warn the company that its new products might well arrive in a market that was stagnating, and on the precipice of a likely decline, because of new technology which could make the PC platform obsolete (a combination of smart mobile devices and cloud computing architecture.) Microsoft’s product development was being driven by its historical products, and market position, rather than an understanding of future markets and how it should develop for them.
We can see this lack of future scenario development and close competitor tracking has confused Microsoft. Desperately trying to recover from a market stall in 2009 when revenues and profits fell, Microsoft has no idea what to do in the rapidly expanding smartphone market today. Its first product, Kin, was dropped only two months after launch, which industry analysts saw as necessary given the product’s lack of advantages. But now Mediapost.com informs us in “Return of the Kin?” Microsoft is considering a re-launch in order to clear out old inventory.
This amidst a launch of the Windows Phone 7 that has gone nowhere. Firstly, there was insufficient advertising to gain any public awareness of the product launch earlier in November (Mediapost “Where’s the Windows Phone 7 Ad Barrage?“) Initial sales have gone nowhere “Windows Phone 7 Lands Without a Sound” [Mediapost], with many stores lacking inventory, very few promoting the product and Microsoft keeping surprisingly mum about initial sales. This has raised the question “Is Windows Phone 7 Dead On Arrival?” [Mediapost] as sales barely achieving 40,000 initial unit sales at launch, compared to daily sales of 200,000 Android phones and 270,000 iphones!
Companies, like Apple and Google, that have clear views of the future, based upon careful analysis of what can be done and tracking market trends, create scenarios that allow them to break out of the pack. Scenario development helps them to understand what the future can be like, and drive their product development toward creating new markets with more customers, more unit sales, higher revenues and improved cash flow. By studying early competitors, especially fringe ones, they create new products which are more highly desired, breaking them out of price competition (remember the Motorola Razr fiasco that nearly bankrupted the company?) and into higher price points and better earnings. Creating and updating future scenarios becomes central to planning – using scenarios to guide investments rather than merely projections based upon past performance.
Companies that base future planning on historical trends find themselves rapidly in trouble. Market shifts leave them struggling to compete, as customers quickly move to new solutions (old fashioned notions of “exit costs” are now dead). Instead of heading for the money, they are confused – lost in a sea of options but with no clear direction. Nokia, Samsung, RIM and Microsoft all have lots of resources, and great historical experience in the market. But lacking good scenario planning they are lost. Unable to chart a course forward, reacting to market leaders, and hoping customers will seek them out because they were once great.
Far too many companies do their planning off of past projections. One could say “planning by looking in the rear view mirror.” In a dynamic, global world this is not sufficient. When monster companies like these can be upset so fast, by someone they didn’t even think of as a traditional competitor (someone likely not even on the radar screen recently) how vulnerable is your company? Do you plan on 2015 looking like 2005? If not, how can future projections based on past actuals be valuable? it’s time more companies change their approach to planning to put an emphasis on scenario development with more competitive (rather than existing customer) input. That’s the only way to get rich, instead of getting lost.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 18, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Most managers think it’s good to lower costs
- Most leaders focus heavily on earnings
- But focusing on costs and earnings leads to a dysmal spiral of decline
- Growth, rather than earings, distinguishes the higher value, and higher paying, companies
- Google is giving across the board pay raises and bonuses, because it has high growth
- Amazon, Facebook and Apple are hiring and paying more because they are growing
- Microsoft is cutting staff and costs, and its value is going nowhere as it focuses on earnings
- Growth is good, Greed (a focus on earnings) is the road to ruin
“Google to Give Staff 10% Raise” is the Wall Street Journal headline. All 23,000 employees (globally) will receive a 10% raise this year. At Mediapost.com in “Google Woos Troops with Cash and Raises” it is reported that additional to the 10% raise everyone will also receive at least a $1,000 cash bonus end of this year. According to CEO Eric Schmidt “We want to make sure that you feel rewarded for all your hard work.” For best performers, Google is making some pretty big (outrageous?) offers. In “Google Paying Big Bucks to Keep Talent” Mediapost reported a staff engineer was awarded $3.5 million in restricted stock to stay at the company.
Has your company announced anything similar? Hold on, didn’t you and your team work really hard? Don’t you deserve recognition for your efforts? And given your value to your employer, shouldn’t you receive something special to retain you, before you run to a higher paying job with better growth opportunities? Are we to believe all the good people, who deserve bonuses, are at Google? Or is something different going on besides just “hard work” leading to this generous cash dispersal to employees?
Google is growing like crazy. And that’s the difference. As Bruce Henderson, founder of the famous Boston Consulting Group once said, “growth hides a multitude of sins.” Growth surrounds the business with lush resources – it’s like being on the equator rather than the poles. When you grow, you can pay more to employees, and your suppliers. You can be Santa Clause, rather than the Grinch. Google is spending more money to keep, and hire, employees because other high growth companies, like Facebook, have been “stealing” them away. It’s a problem of riches in the battle to hire and keep people! Wouldn’t you like to particpate in this one?
Too many leaders confuse growth with greed (remember the famous Gorden Gekko speech from Wall Street about “Greed is Good”?) The outcome is a surplus of focus on “the bottom line” and that leads to cost cutting – which hurts growth. In the rush to show higher earnings, leaders forget earnings are the result of good management – and growth – and they begin looking for short-term ways to improve them. Greed, and the desire for more earnings now, causes them to forget that had they spent more time finding profitable growth markets yesterday the earnings today would be higher, and better. And they forget that without growth earnings are destined to decline!
Growth leads to a virtuous circle. More sales leads to more investment in new products and markets, leading to more sales, leading to more earnings, leading to more hiring, leading to higher pay, leading to better talent, leading to better ideas, leading to more new products taking you into more new markets…. a pretty fun place to work. Wheras greed leads to the whirlpool of despair. Cost cutting, product line rationalization, benefit reductions, lower (or no bonuses), headcount freezes, layoffs, no new hires, lower pay, more pressure on suppliers to cut their prices, no new product introductions, lost accounts, fewer salespeople, layoffs, outsourcing, facility closings ….. very much not a fun place to work. Where growth fuels a great company, focus on earnings inevitably kills the business.
We can see this difference when comparing performance of a few leading companies. Microsoft grew for many years. But now its strict focus on PC software has caused growth to lag. At Techflash.com (Puget Sound Business Journal product) “Hiring: Microsoft Stays Cautious as Google, Amazon Ramp Up” tells the story. Declining PC sales growth has led Microsoft to reduce its workforce by 2% globally the last year (~4,000). Google has expanded by 18% (+23,300 jobs). Since adding Kindle to its product line, and making other expansions, Amazon has added 44% to its workforce (~10,000 or 2.5 times the staff reduction at Microsoft). New products and new markets is helping Google, Facebook and Amazon grow – while focus on old markets has lowered growth at Microsoft.
Now Microsoft is attempting to save face by focusing on expense management, and earnings. Mr. Ballmer and his team hope Wall Street analysts will be happy with greed, by looking only at earnings, rather than growth. Microsoft’s CFO said “the best measure for our financial performance… comes down to EPS [earnings per share]… what we really need to do is drive earnings per share growth.” Microsoft missed the digital music wave, smartphone and tablet waves. It’s now struggling to rediscover growth, so it’s hoping to appeal to greed. Microsoft is taking the old approach of “if you can’t show you understand markets, products and growth then try to convince them you’re a good manager who can cut costs.” But how long can Microsoft manage its earnings when it’s not a significant player in the growth markets? Cost reduction is never the route to prosperity.
The last decade has seen the revenge of cost management. Coming out of the “go go” 1990s many leaders have proudly demonstrated their ability to avoid investment, cut costs, work employees harder, avoid increased pay, avoid new hires, send work to low-pay countries – and manage for the bottom line. Unfortunately, most publicly traded companies are worth less now than they were a decade ago. The DJIA and S&P 500 are worth less. The dollar has taken a shellacking. Fewer Americans are working and unemployment is higher. Tax receipts are down, and (as shown in the last election) Americans are pretty sick of a lousy economy. All this focus on earnings hasn’t done much for America’s workers, most American companies or the overall economy.
If you want to be “rewarded for all your hard work” through a big paycheck, a big raise, a big bonus – and you want employment that is filling and fun – then focus on growth. Help your company create new markets, with new products that people want. If you lead the marketplace with new applications and new solutions that fulfill unmet needs you’ll achieve good growth. Then realize earnings are a result of implementing that growth at effective prices. If you focus on the right thing – growth – then you’ll receive the results you want. Less focus on greed, with more on growth, and you might get rich.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 26, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Apple is worth more than Microsoft today, even though Microsoft is larger, because it has better growth prospects
- Apple is closing in on the most valuable company in the world – Exxon
- Exxon’s value is stalled because it has no growth markets
- Exxon once developed, then abandoned, a growth business called Exxon Office Systems
- Apple’s value may eclipse Exxon, which has almost 8 times the revenue, because its growth prospects are so bright
- Profitable growth is worth more than monopolistic market share – or even huge revenue
We all know that over the last 10 years Apple has moved from the brink of bankruptcy to great success. Apple has been able to dramatically increase its revenues, growing at double-digit rates for several years. And Apple now competes in markets like mobile computing and entertainment where its hardware and software products are demonstrating a leading position as users migrate toward different platforms (iPods and downloadable music or video, iPads and downloadable video or text, iPhones and downloadable apps of all sorts).
Because of this profitable growth, Apple’s market value now exceeds Microsoft’s. An accomplishment nobody predicted a decade ago.
As this chart from Silicon Alley Insider shows, Apple’s profitable revenue growth has allowed its value to soar. Even though Microsoft is larger, and dominates its market of PC operating systems and office automation software, its value has stalled due to lack of growth. Because Apple is in very large, emerging markets with successful products it is generating a very high valuation.
In fact, Apple’s market cap is closing in on the most valuable company in the world – Exxon:
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
Exxon and Apple have nothing in common. Exxon is a petroleum company. It’s growth almost all from acquisition. You could say it’s nonsensical to compare the two.
But for those of us with long memories, we can remember in the early 1980s when Exxon opened Exxon Office Systems. As the price of crude oil, and its refined products, hit record highs Exxon made record profits. Leadership invested a few billion dollars into creating a new business intended to compete with IBM and Xerox – leading office equipment companies of the time. But, when the price of crude oil fell Exxon abandoned this venture – by then already achieving more than $1B/year in revenue. All the suppliers and customers were left in the lurch, and the employees were left looking for new jobs. Within weeks Exxon Office Products disappeared.
Exxon abandoned its opportunity for growth into new markets in order to “focus” on its “core” business of oil exploration and production, oil refining, and marketing of petroleum products. As a result, Exxon – augmented via its many acquisitions across the years – is now the world’s largest “oil” company as well as the world’s highest market capitalization company. But it has no growth. And thus, its value is totally dependent upon the price of oil – a commodity. Over the last 2 years this has caused Exxon’s value to decline.
At $43B in 2009, Apple has nowhere near the revenue of Exxon’s $310B. But what Apple has is new markets, and growth. Someday we’ll run out of oil (long time yet, to be sure). What will Exxon do then? But in the case of Apple we already know there will be future revenues from all the new products for a long time after the Mac has run its course and disappeared from backpacks. It’s that willingness to seek out new markets, to develop new products for emerging markets and constantly push for new, profitable revenues that makes Apple worth so much.
Could Apple become the world’s most valuable company? Possibly. If so, it won’t be from industry domination. That sort of monopolistic thinking drove the industrial era, and companies like AT&T as well as Exxon — and Microsoft. What’s worth more today than monopolism is entering new markets and generating profitable growth. It’s what once made the original Standard Oil worth so much, and it initially made Microsoft worth more than any other tech company. Too many of us forget that profitable growth, more than anything else, generates huge value and wealth. And that’s true in spades in 2010!
by Adam Hartung | Jul 2, 2008 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
This week Bill Gates officially retired completely from Microsoft (article here), and we also learned the company will no longer ship Microsoft XP (article here). At first blush these two press items seem unrelated, but in fact they should give any investor, or customer, of Microsoft real pause.
Microsoft has long dominated desktop computing. From operating systems the company branched out to personal applications, and has held top market share with most of its successful products. Microsoft was a wonderful example of a company that found a high growth market (PC sales), figured out a Success Formula to grow with the market and make money, and then Locked-in on the behaviors and processes which helped it make money. During the Rapids of growth, Microsoft was a model of doing the right things. To the point it was sued for becoming a monopoly due to its high market share.
But sales of PC aren’t growing like they used to. Instead of non-portable desktops or bulky and often heavy laptops consumers of all types are switching platforms. Increasingly everything from mobile phones to PDAs or MP3s are replacing the old platforms – especially as internet connectivity is more easily accessible on these alternative devices. New applications are being used that make it possible for people to do what they want to do (like exchange words or numbers) without the overhead of a big application like Word or Excel. Additionally, sales of Macintosh have re-emerged along with much greater use of Linux in many servers and even some PCs hurting sales of Microsoft products (see OS share chart here). I’m not saying that Microsoft-based PCs aren’t widely available and used, but they aren’t the growth platform they once were. The market in which Microsoft has competed has begun shifting – moving from desktops/laptops to other devices and solutions – and Microsoft is still stuck Defending & Extending its old Success Formula rather than developing the new markets like it did the old.
Even though Microsoft has continued to do what it always did – and do it well – its growth has slowed. Not because of being a poorly run company. Rather, because it is so Locked-in to continuing its past. Microsoft has dominated PCs, but we can now look to the future and see that PCs will be replaced by alternatives in many applications. Thus, Microsoft has moved into the Flats and is increasingly finding itself flailing away in the Swamp of low growth. Instead of being an exciting company, like Google, Microsoft is the company swatting at aligators and mosquitos biting away at its historic industry dominance.
The last time Microsoft faced this sort of Challenge was when the internet emerged. Stuck thinking of the PC as a truly "personal" machine Microsoft had never been a leader in networking machines for information exchange (networking was dominated by Appletalk, Banyan and Novell for many years.) But Mr. Gates was able to see the future risks, grab Microsoft’s R&D and product development budgets, then push the company towards future market needs. Mr. Gates was the company oracle who could redirect the apparatus toward a more connected internet world. He personally led the effort to license browser technology from Spyglass and create Internet Explorer – then bundle it into every sale – so Microsoft could maintain its market position.
By reviewing the past we can see that Microsoft as a company, under the operating leadership of Mr. Ballmer, has long been an organization constantly focused on optimizing products and defending product positions. The ability to identify and redirect resources toward a changing future was held by Mr. Gates. Only Mr. Gates could Disrupt Microsoft and set up White Space for new products. Instead of building an ongoing capability to develop future scenarios, focus on competitors, Disrupt itself internally and use White Space to remain evergreen, Microsoft has been a very Locked-in company that Defends & Extends while relying on its founder to occasionally "reset" direction.
So now Mr. Gates is gone. And the company is so Locked-in to its practices that it is completely ignoring everyone, from customers to competitors, as it simply refuses to ship a product the market wants (XP) – in its effort to force people to buy the product it wants to sell (Vista). This is less about upset customers than it demonstrates the kind of Lock-in which allows competitors to grow. How many potential customers will now buy a different platform from RIM and simply not buy a PC? How many will now really look hard at buying a Linux-based machine? By ignoring competitors, Microsoft is giving them opportunities to succeed.
Microsoft has a huge cash hoard. And PC sales are slowed, but not dead. So the company won’t go bankrupt any time soon. But we can expect a continuation of the kind of meaningless thrashing around the Swamp of low growth we’ve seen lately. Purchasing a tiny share of Facebook rather than Disrupting and using White Space to really understand social networking applications. Or ongoing unsuccessful pitches to buy companies in growth markets – like Yahoo! in internet ads – that fail because Microsoft brings nothing more than money and a whole boatload of negative, stifling management practices.
According to old managment theory, we should decide Microsoft is now "mature." And it is supposedly time for this market monster, which has used billions of external capital dollars to create its dominant market position, to begin paying back to investors by raising its dividend. But what we all know is that in computer technology markets shift fast. Companies that pay out their cash hoard quickly lose cash generation as customers shift to new competitors. The payout evaporates and faster than expected employees lose jobs as sales dwindle. Just look at how fast Wang and Lanier disappeared when PCs replaced word processing systems – or DEC disappeared when PCs replaced high-end CAD/CAM machines.
Microsoft without Mr. Gates is exactly will be unable to plan from the future backward. A company short on "vision" and long on execution that is happy enough to use its market position to attempt forcing customers to use products they don’t want (read article here), and thereby create greater opportunity for competitors. It’s easy to scoff at smaller competitors when a company is huge, but the kind of behavior Microsoft is now exhibiting quickly leads to trouble. Investors are already well aware that Microsoft has lost its competitive edge, as the company valuation has stubbornly remained stagnant for years (see 5 year chart here). Meanwhile, the only person able to Disrupt Microsoft and set up White Space to change the Success Formula is now gone.
Without Disruption and White Space, it is far too easy to predict what the future holds for Microsoft, its employees and investors. Microsoft is no "safe haven" for the "widows and orphans" fund. Rather, its better to put your investment dollars somewhere with growth – probably at Microsoft’s Locked-in expense.
