I disagree and i think this is the most important part: > Investors were increasingly unhappy. HP’s market valuation sank to a point where it was lower than th

I disagree and i think this is the most important part: > Investors were increasingly unhappy. HP’s market valuation sank to a point where it was lower than the value of its individual businesses This+change for the sake of change are the most important factors. I refuse to believe that e.g. GE's CEO is incapable of delegating specific strategy to the Director/CEO/whatever they're called of each division. When you have that, how exactly is the fact that it's a conglomerate stopping anyone from anything? You just have bigger backing/other revenue streams to cover any problems/etc. The main advantage of diversification I see are protection against market downturns in some areas, and some potential for economies of scale/synergies. Take Bombardier, who had to sell off everything (obligatory fuck Boeing and fuck US courts for dodgy attempts at protectionism) and are now only in aviation, and more specifically private jets. That's a very specific niche to be in, and is subject to a bunch of things (e.g. Russian oligarchs getting sanctioned, high prices of fuel, legislation against this, etc.) that could impact them. Had they remained a more diversified company, they would have had much more leeway. Of course the biggest problem is that bigger companies are more complicated to manage, but that's why one would delegate.