by: oversieze 08/05/03 06:29 pm
Msg: 40653 of 40660
She sees a great tech reckoning coming that will unleash cataclysmic consolidation. She says that in the past, high tech grew at five times the growth of the economy (GDP), but it will now grow at only two times GDP. She says the business model that worked for tech in the 1990s will not work in the future. Corporations are already running with the greatly improved productivity that tech provided them in the 1990s. Further gains in productivity will be hard to come up with, so corporate customers will no longer jump to accept new tech products so easily. Tech companies will have to provide more service and power, and at lower costs. The result will be that the tech sector will have to lay off many more workers and outsource to lower cost countries in an effort to survive. "Some companies will get rolled up (acquired), others will slowly slip away. The easy growth they achieved in the past does not prepare them for the slower future." It is her belief that many tech companies with good products that can't create new markets or steal business from competitors will be valued like the old-line maker of washing machines.
Well, you participated in an exchange of posts that focussed on the meaning of the words used by WH in a document. You apparently missed the point of the posts. Why not go back and trace the thread? Perhaps that would help.
Have a great evening.
OK. Let's take your assertion that the company wasn't sliding. First how will we measure it?
I like Total Return to Shareholders, because that's what I am, a shareholder. Who's the competition for a comparative look? Why don't we use the same group of companies that HWP, and now HPQ, historically have used. Who are those guys anyway? Their names appear in the HPQ Proxy statement every year. As a company falls off the list due to merger, etc., it may be replaced. Surprisingly, the list has remained pretty constant.
Check out the last graph/chart, or whatever you find on p. 57 of the most recent Proxy statement. Keep in mind that this is not based on GAAP or non-GAAP earnings, revenues, employee head count, net assets, etc. but on publicly determined SHARE PRICE plus DIVIDENDS, which is how we participate in the game. It assumes reinvestment of dividends. The figures are plotted for the end of each fiscal year and, with the proxies of prior years, you can go back say ten years or more. Recall that CF arrived in mid calendar year 1999.
Have a look and let us know what you find. How's CF doing compared to her predecessors, competitively speaking? This analysis removes the effects of a bad tech market, which CF is not responsible for, a bad economy, which she likewise is not responsible for, etc. Mind the gap!
Tell me what you discover.
I don't need an English lesson, shbrom.
If you were interested in understanding the truth in this matter and conveying said understanding to others, you wouldn't feel a need to change any of the terms in Walter's disclosure. They were simply put, conveying exactly what he wanted to convey. Terms were discussed and reviewed, (i.e ~$115M) it doesn't matter if a formal agreement was reached or not. The best we can do is agree to disagree here.
One thing is certain. Any further discussion with you about these terms or any terms, for that matter, will not necessarily yield a secret agreement between us.
Because he (Lew Platt) was tired of fighting with Dick "the hack" Hackborn.
You like looking at charts, compare Lew's performance during the 90's to Carly's. No comparison, IMO.
IMO, looks good with THREE stock splits.
Under Carly we might get three stock splits.... but they might be reverse splits.... ;-P
Your posts give me a good laugh and I just shake my head.
Well, back to work... ;-)
Probably not genius.
To start with she didn't rescue a sliding company. It only became sliding when she arrived. She is yet to match Lew Platt's earnings even in his worst year.
So it probably isn't genius.
I am so sorry, but you started it. It is abundantly clear that you have no real concept of Financial accounting, I would also argue from your posts, that you are blinkered.
I would really question your intelligence. Got to go beers waiting.
Somebody considerably more intelligent than you are.