I don't think they are going to split. Management has indicated that while they are a public company, they would like to run themselves as if they were a private company and you could argue that's a similar path as Berkshire.

I do think from a cultural standpoint that Microsoft is not yet quite thinking in the way that they need to competitively.

Certainly you can argue they have been successful on both fronts. And the demand for luxury sport utility vehicles is increasing.

Investing in their business in order to put in place an infrastructure of the Amazon of tomorrow is becoming, increasingly, an expensive proposition. And it becomes painful, if you will, for investors to wait for that to happen.

I have to give them credit. They are pioneers but are they leaders? And one might want to ask the question that isn't it true that pioneers die with arrows in their backs?

In an environment where operating volumes are down and regulatory compliance is becoming more strict, it doesn't make sense for two companies to pool resources.

They have put in place contingency plans for the year. They have sufficient inventories to not have it affect their market share.

For a full-year basis we're looking at sales basically being flat this year versus where they were last year. But we're still staying at a fairly high rate.

It's not only the companies themselves that benefit from lower costs. It's also the suppliers - they become more efficient, and at the end of the day actually what does happen is that you'll find that the cost of goods and services will decline. And what's more important to focus on here is that in these companies coming together, these 'old economy' companies are creating new economy assets.

It will be affected as far as the quarter is concerned, but you have to look at full year.