No. Sales are way down. And they keep missing projections every quarter, followed by guidance cuts, while insisting they are in “strategic change” mode. There is no choice but to put them in the penalty box, miss after miss makes management look ineffective.
Low projections don’t ring the bell for stock analysts and especially stockholders. Running a public company is like being in a washing machine, spin cycle mode. You need growth every quarter. Growth in sales, growth in revenues, growth in income. It’s why most CEO’s don’t last very long a their jobs. Too stressful. CEO’s make the bulk of their compensation in stock options. And you only cash in when you increase the stock price above the exercise bogey. Cooking the books to match expectations is a sordid affair.
Well, I was really half kidding. But half not. It just seems to me you can still grow a company every quarter without making unrealistic projections, which seems like it just causes everybody to shit their pants.
Granted, some people really enjoy shitting their pants, but most do not.
You’re not wrong. But having spent many years in the monthly and quarterly reporting pressure cooker, it’s easier said than done. Reporting sand bagged numbers would be so much easier.
When it’s done on a criminal level (Enron for example) you really see the dangers. Corporate America doesn’t work on sandbagged numbers.
I remember back in school when those Starter jackets were the big thing, this kid came in and he had one with the San Jose Sharks logo on the back upside down. He said that is how they wear them "on the east coast" but we all knew that his dad was a shitbird alcoholic and likely bought it on clearance at one of those places that sell fuck-ups like Kohls or Marshals after spending his paycheck at the bar.
Apples value has dramatically. Monumentally increased after jobs left and Tim Cook took over. The leftist fag in charge is a legendary ceo and if you look up the value of Apple when he took over until now and then compare it to jobs tenure it’s not even close
If the longevity of an organization depends on one person, that can't be good. Walt Disney has been deader than shit for about 60 years. But that organization did pretty well for a while without him. Of course, it's an evil, fucked-up organization today, but it wasn't always that way, even after Walt went down for the dirt nap.
No. Sales are way down. And they keep missing projections every quarter, followed by guidance cuts, while insisting they are in “strategic change” mode. There is no choice but to put them in the penalty box, miss after miss makes management look ineffective.
Child birth around the world is at an all-time low, hard to find enough pairs of hands to make those sneakers.
Why should it matter if Phil retires, or even if he were dead?