3 ms·

I don't get it. So he made these jokes infront of shareholders just for kicks? Why would someone even say this infront of anyone, I don't understand. I am start

I don't get it. So he made these jokes infront of shareholders just for kicks? Why would someone even say this infront of anyone, I don't understand. I am starting to think he might have been under the influence.

whatshisface 7y ago
In the distant past shareholder calls were not the synthetic fluff they are now, and I'm sure this guy's accident contributed a lot to the transition.
rando444 7y ago
In the other article that is posted in this thread it mentions he was kicked out of grammar school at 15 for 'being too stupid'. Some people are just like that.
dboreham 7y ago
Shareholders and customers are basically on the opposite sides of a trade. All public companies have this problem to some degree: they want to tell their shareholders "we figured out how to offload stuff that we buy cheap onto unsuspecting customers, thereby making more profit for you". Meanwhile they want to tell their customers "look how wonderful and high quality our products are". These days this problem is solved with code-speak that wall st people understand but which sounds relatively benign and boring to cuswif they happen to see it e.g. "margin expansion through input cost reduction".
- dennisgorelik 7y ago
  It is an excellent point about "code-speak" as a tool to be open with experts without pissing off clueless customers.
dennisgorelik 7y ago
It is a delicate balance between open conversations (that allow to build and maintain a clear internal mental model) vs propaganda (in order to improve public perception). Gerald Ratner made a wrong tradeoff in one case [too much openness and honesty for the audience that does NOT appreciate openness and honesty enough].
kraftman 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xs6MTwMTbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xs6MTwMTbo he explains the joke here.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Some people are sadists who like to mock other people, in this case the customers. Ratners customers were mostly poorish people who wanted to dress up a bit or purchase gifts for someone they cared about. Dismissing the (relatively minor) luxury good as cheap crap mocked the intentions and emotions of the people buying it.

whatshisface 7y ago

In the distant past shareholder calls were not the synthetic fluff they are now, and I'm sure this guy's accident contributed a lot to the transition.

rando444 7y ago

In the other article that is posted in this thread it mentions he was kicked out of grammar school at 15 for 'being too stupid'. Some people are just like that.

dboreham 7y ago

Shareholders and customers are basically on the opposite sides of a trade. All public companies have this problem to some degree: they want to tell their shareholders "we figured out how to offload stuff that we buy cheap onto unsuspecting customers, thereby making more profit for you". Meanwhile they want to tell their customers "look how wonderful and high quality our products are". These days this problem is solved with code-speak that wall st people understand but which sounds relatively benign and boring to cuswif they happen to see it e.g. "margin expansion through input cost reduction".

dennisgorelik 7y ago
It is an excellent point about "code-speak" as a tool to be open with experts without pissing off clueless customers.

dennisgorelik 7y ago

It is a delicate balance between open conversations (that allow to build and maintain a clear internal mental model) vs propaganda (in order to improve public perception). Gerald Ratner made a wrong tradeoff in one case [too much openness and honesty for the audience that does NOT appreciate openness and honesty enough].

kraftman 7y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xs6MTwMTbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xs6MTwMTbo he explains the joke here.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Some people are sadists who like to mock other people, in this case the customers. Ratners customers were mostly poorish people who wanted to dress up a bit or purchase gifts for someone they cared about. Dismissing the (relatively minor) luxury good as cheap crap mocked the intentions and emotions of the people buying it.