Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Xerox Corporation Message Board

  • aud802009 aud802009 Jun 28, 2013 5:31 PM Flag

    board of directors are full of rejects and losers

    charles prince- ceo fired at citigroup robert mcdonald- ceo at PG fired recently for poor performance robert keegan -while ceo of goodyr stock dropped over 50% and than you have a bunch of women who are heads of non-profits and a college professor at the univ of iowa. this sounds like an enron board to me. co is only as good as its leaders. and then you have burns who shouldnt be a ceo of anything.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • the only thing funnier than the longs on this board are the bios of the directors in the XRX annual report saying prince RETIRED from C.

      • 1 Reply to aud802009
      • Prince may have been forced out but what's a lot "funnier" are all the XRX shorts that resort to outrageous posts to obfuscate the bullish fundamental and technical outlook. The stock has surged around +50% since November, and that has really triggered a lot of squealing by the comical XRX bears. It's tough to lose that much money and be wrong for so long - OUCH!

        XRX trades at a PE of only 8.4 times expected 2013 earnings versus 15 for the S&P. I think the bulls can reasonably expect XRX to trade at a PE of 10, or $11 per share, perhaps by the end of the year or early 2014. While shareholders enjoy growing EPS and an expanding PE, they get a decent 2.50% dividend yield. Meanwhile, the short sellers are paying that 2.50% and are fighting positive fundamentals and the tape. Good luck with that!

    • an analysis for Sunday Business,MVC Associates International compared financial statements and executive pay at three tech companies: Google,Qualcomm and Xerox.

      Using data from Morningstar,Mr. Van Clieaf’s firm analyzed each company’s research and development costs,return on invested capital and stock performance over the last five years. He and his colleagues also calculated each company’s economic profit,which is after-tax income excluding acquisitions or divestitures that year,minus a charge for the capital used to generate that income. Then they compared these figures with the pay dispensed to the five executives at each company who were the highest paid over the period.

      The differences were striking. Not surprisingly, spending on research and development over the last five years was high at both Google (averaging 13 percent of revenue) and Qualcomm (22 percent). Sizable returns on invested capital were a result at both companies: Google averaged 18 percent a year while Qualcomm averaged 16 percent.

      At Xerox,it was another story. Research and development costs averaged 4 percent,while return on invested capital was 2.5 percent. Given that the typical cost of capital for a tech company is at least 8 percent,these figures would suggest that Xeroxis earning less than its capital costs.

      The economic profits at the three companies were also disparate. While all three generated net income over the last five years,a different picture emerged when MVC adjusted those earnings for the amount of all capital necessary to run the business.

      While economic profits at Qualcomm and Google were around 70 percent of reported earnings over the period,economic profits at Xeroxwere negative.

      Finally,MVC tallied the executive pay at these companies. Compensation for top executives was certainly larger at Google ($462 million) and Qualcomm ($280 million). But when judged as a percentage of the company’s economic profit over the five years,the pay amounted to 1.6 percent at Google and 2.3 percent at Qualcomm.

      In Mr. Van Clieaf’s view,those two companies’ executives earned their pay. In Xerox’s case,the company paid its top managers $165.7 million over five years,even though its economic profits amounted to a negative $1.65 billion.

      “Corporate boards,pay advisers and proxy governance firms need to rethink how they assess what executives are doing,” he added. “And it’s time for long-horizon investors to demand performance metrics and long-term inventive pay alignment.”

    • I would respect opinions more on this board if you wrote in proper English and used CAPITAL letters where appropriate and actually used words instead of short fast cuts such as co for company. Try English as a second language.

    • Do I detect more misogyny coming from the XRX bashers: "and than you have a bunch of women who are heads of...and then you have burns who shouldnt be a ceo of anything"?

      It makes me wonder why people resort to gender or racial assaults in a desperate attempt to bully the stock lower. I guess they can't effectively analyze the technical or fundamental case against the stock. This explains the shameless uncivil garbage you often find posted here.

      How would you like to live with a bulletin board bully with morals like this? You have to feel very sorry for victims of verbal (and physical?) abuse that do.

 
XRX
9.79+0.02(+0.20%)Jul 22 4:00 PMEDT