4 ms·

Although it's true, that's a hazardous way of thinking. If they had put more of their focus on making steel, keeping up with the technological advances rather t

Although it's true, that's a hazardous way of thinking. If they had put more of their focus on making steel, keeping up with the technological advances rather than being dragged along grudgingly, perhaps they'd be making more money these days.

sgt101 3y ago
It's a very successful strategy in any corporate. Focus on the books, produce results, take the bonus and then jump. When things go pear shaped do not be found holding the bag. If later questioned: "it was all great when I was there, it's so sad that it went south - it was a great place and there was a lot of value on the table." Strangely the big investors don't seem to ever cotton on to this - the big pension funds and sovereign wealth seem to respond by getting out of the equity markets and investing in things like property.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The oposite is true as well so: don't focus on the books, bottom line and so on and the company goes bust as well. Any successful company has to do both.
  - sgt101 3y ago
    you are quite correct - it becomes a plague when one is addressed to the exclusion of the other. As they say "don't run out of cash".
- swexbe 3y ago
  This comment reads like it was written in the 70s. Even with the interest rate hike, this is still the age of VCs with infinite pockets, companies that don’t plan on going profitable for decades, every company in sp500 throwing money in the AI money hole, etc.
  - sgt101 3y ago
    Yes, let us exclude tax scams and money laundering and address the real economy where things get made and real people get paid.
atrus 3y ago
It reminds me of that old quote that democracies die when the citizens realize they can vote themselves money. It's the same with these companies, the upper managements realizing they can just give themselves more money and coast on their companies momentum. It's not the innovators dilemma, it's the c-suite lines their pockets while the company burns dilemma.
- nradov 3y ago
  It's the eternal principal/agent problem. Those things go in cycles. When management goes too far off the rails then corporate raiders and private equity eventually take over to replace management and unlock latent value. Unfortunately, the managers who caused the problem still often end up fabulously wealthy while regular employees get screwed. This problem can be somewhat ameliorated by compensating executives primarily using equity with long vesting or lock-up periods. That keeps their interests aligned with long-term shareholders.
- scotty79 3y ago
  It doesn't really fit the modern collapse. Democracies seem to decline when oligarchs extract so much wealth that the entire economy suffers and common people flock to strong political figures to bring back order and prosperity. > citizens realize they can vote themselves money Although this certainly sounds true if you consider just the richest citizens and by "vote" you mean inflence the votes.
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[dead]
feoren 3y ago
As other replies have pointed out, your problem is with the word "they". There is no "they" at a publicly traded corporation. The key decision-makers are only there for 2 to 5 years, however long it takes them to suck out the blood of the company before they scurry off to parasitize a juicier host. Nobody with decision-making power ever gave two shits whether US Steel was going to make lots of money in N decades.
latency-guy2 3y ago
Not a hazardous way of thinking.

sgt101 3y ago

It's a very successful strategy in any corporate. Focus on the books, produce results, take the bonus and then jump. When things go pear shaped do not be found holding the bag. If later questioned: "it was all great when I was there, it's so sad that it went south - it was a great place and there was a lot of value on the table." Strangely the big investors don't seem to ever cotton on to this - the big pension funds and sovereign wealth seem to respond by getting out of the equity markets and investing in things like property.

hef19898 3y ago
The oposite is true as well so: don't focus on the books, bottom line and so on and the company goes bust as well. Any successful company has to do both.
- sgt101 3y ago
  you are quite correct - it becomes a plague when one is addressed to the exclusion of the other. As they say "don't run out of cash".
swexbe 3y ago
This comment reads like it was written in the 70s. Even with the interest rate hike, this is still the age of VCs with infinite pockets, companies that don’t plan on going profitable for decades, every company in sp500 throwing money in the AI money hole, etc.
- sgt101 3y ago
  Yes, let us exclude tax scams and money laundering and address the real economy where things get made and real people get paid.

atrus 3y ago

It reminds me of that old quote that democracies die when the citizens realize they can vote themselves money. It's the same with these companies, the upper managements realizing they can just give themselves more money and coast on their companies momentum. It's not the innovators dilemma, it's the c-suite lines their pockets while the company burns dilemma.

nradov 3y ago
It's the eternal principal/agent problem. Those things go in cycles. When management goes too far off the rails then corporate raiders and private equity eventually take over to replace management and unlock latent value. Unfortunately, the managers who caused the problem still often end up fabulously wealthy while regular employees get screwed. This problem can be somewhat ameliorated by compensating executives primarily using equity with long vesting or lock-up periods. That keeps their interests aligned with long-term shareholders.
scotty79 3y ago
It doesn't really fit the modern collapse. Democracies seem to decline when oligarchs extract so much wealth that the entire economy suffers and common people flock to strong political figures to bring back order and prosperity. > citizens realize they can vote themselves money Although this certainly sounds true if you consider just the richest citizens and by "vote" you mean inflence the votes.

PM_me_your_math 3y ago

[dead]

feoren 3y ago

As other replies have pointed out, your problem is with the word "they". There is no "they" at a publicly traded corporation. The key decision-makers are only there for 2 to 5 years, however long it takes them to suck out the blood of the company before they scurry off to parasitize a juicier host. Nobody with decision-making power ever gave two shits whether US Steel was going to make lots of money in N decades.

latency-guy2 3y ago

Not a hazardous way of thinking.