|
Post by badgerhoya on Aug 14, 2015 14:01:59 GMT -5
Lots of interesting posts. Bottom line is that Carly started as a secretary (not at HP) and navigated the male dominated shark infested waters of the business world to become CEO of HP. Quite an accomplishment. She graduated from Stanford and received her MBA from the nation's premier business school MIT. Now you may not agree with her politics but she is highly intelligent and talented. As for climate change and cook stoves, you might be interested in knowing that while the most common cause of COPD/emphysema in western cultures is cigarette smoking, the most common cause in non-western countries are pollutants emanating from devices such as cook stoves. At any rate, the science involving climate change is absolutely fascinating. So if you get a chance pick up a book and read about it. I remember reading how the increase in polar ice was an argument against climate change when in fact it is an argument for climate change. The reason is this. As the climate warms, there is more evaporation from the oceans increasing the total water vapor in the air. Now the poles stay frozen even with global warming, but the snow fall at the poles (even though minimal) increases, leading to an increase to the thickness of polar ice. Did you ever wonder how we know what the temperatures were millions even hundreds of millions of years ago?? Really interesting stuff. I agree with you on Carly being intelligent, etc. And she probably did the best job in the debates, but her statements on the environment and what happened at HP (who did not offer my son a job, but Intel did) and Lucent cause me some grief personally. You can admire her personal story, but the fact of the matter is that she ran HP into the ground. No matter how you slice it, the HP/Compaq merger was terrible - slicing off probably 50-60% of the overall value of the company and placing themselves into a low-margin business that hurt it for years to come. Not to mention the fact that she had zero chops for managing the operations side of the business... which was arguably the most important part of running the business. Not surprisingly, there's a reason why HP's stock jumped when she announced her departure. And honestly, if you want an HP CEO to run for President, why not Meg Whitman? Of course, when you're running for president, it doesn't matter what your results are, just how you can promote yourself - a job for which she is eminently qualified.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 6:38:05 GMT -5
Hi Badger and Nevada!
Look, This was a terrible time for tech and most tech companies laid off workers and saw their profits slashed. She did not run HP into the ground. When a company is not doing well and the CEO is replaced, the stock does go up. I would opine that 98% of the CEOs of major tech companies are really, really smart and capable, particularly when you are dealing with women. These CEOs make major decisions and not all of them turn out well. Look at Steve Jobs. He must have been an incompetent also as he was fired. A large part of what happens is related to the economic factors. If you are there when the economy is booming, you look great. The fact is that she was the CEO there for 6 years, and if she was not competent, she would have been replaced long before that.
Now I do have some problems with some of Carly's positions, particularly vaccine choice.
BTW if you want to point out a business incompetent, try Donald Trump. While he claims his worth is 10 billion, most analysts place his worth at somewhere below a billion. Sounds like a lot, but not when you consider he inherited 400 million from his father in the 1970s. If he had put the money in CDs, he would be worth more than he is today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 6:52:02 GMT -5
have to backtrack. Forbes now estimates his worth to be 4 billion. Still not a lot considering the amount he started with by inheritance.
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 15, 2015 8:00:58 GMT -5
Fortune magazine, a business pub in the conservative tradition, has this to say about Fiorina as CEO: ------------------ ExcerptsHaving never held elected office, she has staked her reputation on her business career.
...with a scant 5% of Fortune 500 firms employing women CEOs, her leadership of a huge global enterprise in the macho field of IT is impressive. But how did she do?
The answer in short is: Pretty badly
In 1999, a dysfunctional HP board committee, filled with its own poisoned politics, hired her with no CEO experience, nor interviews with the full board. Fired in 2005, after six years in office, several leading publications titled her one of the worst technology CEOs of all time. In fact, the stock popped 10% on the news of her firing and closed the day up 7%.
Arianna Packard, the granddaughter of HP’s founder, commented when discouraging voters from supporting Fiorina in her 2010 senatorial run, “I know a little bit about Carly Fiorina, having watched her almost destroy the company my grandfather founded.”
Fiorina proclaimed that under her HP command, “We would double its revenues to $90 billion, triple its rate of innovation to 11 patents a day, and go from a laggard to a leader in every product category and every market segment in which we competed.”
Sure, she doubled revenues—through a massive, ill-conceived, controversial acquisition of Compaq Computer in 2002—but Fiorina did nothing to increase profits over her five-year term, with the S&P 500 showing net income across enterprises concomitantly up 70%. Furthermore, shareholder wealth at HP was sliced 52% under her reign against the S&P, which was down only 15% in that bearish period.
Under Meg Whitman’s brilliant leadership, HP’s character and performance have recovered, but we have not seen Fiorina’s parallel resilience just yet. ---------------
The problem with the Compaq acquisition was it was a bet on hardware -- selling boxes -- when the industry trend was moving in the opposite (software) direction. fortune.com/2015/08/14/carly-fiorina-president-2/
We can argue all we want here on the board, but out in the real world of investment analysis the views of Fiorina's performance as CEO of HP are decidedly negative.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Aug 15, 2015 12:41:21 GMT -5
Look, This was a terrible time for tech and most tech companies laid off workers and saw their profits slashed. She did not run HP into the ground. When a company is not doing well and the CEO is replaced, the stock does go up. I would opine that 98% of the CEOs of major tech companies are really, really smart and capable, particularly when you are dealing with women. These CEOs make major decisions and not all of them turn out well. Look at Steve Jobs. He must have been an incompetent also as he was fired. Lloyd Bentsen would say "Carly Fiorina, you're no Steve Jobs." Since you brought him up, let's look at what Apple stock did during the period Carly Fiorina was CEO (1999-2005). Somewhere in the 2000-2001 range Apple stock crashed, Jobs decided to take all the bad news at one gulp, conserved the company's cash, and the stock held pretty firm during the 2002-2004 down period. After 2004 onward, stock rose like a rocket as the iPod took off. Meanwhile, Fiorina was getting fired for that ridiculous Compaq merger.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Aug 15, 2015 13:57:44 GMT -5
Hi Badger and Nevada! Look, This was a terrible time for tech and most tech companies laid off workers and saw their profits slashed. She did not run HP into the ground. When a company is not doing well and the CEO is replaced, the stock does go up. I would opine that 98% of the CEOs of major tech companies are really, really smart and capable, particularly when you are dealing with women. These CEOs make major decisions and not all of them turn out well. Look at Steve Jobs. He must have been an incompetent also as he was fired. A large part of what happens is related to the economic factors. If you are there when the economy is booming, you look great. The fact is that she was the CEO there for 6 years, and if she was not competent, she would have been replaced long before that. Now I do have some problems with some of Carly's positions, particularly vaccine choice. BTW if you want to point out a business incompetent, try Donald Trump. While he claims his worth is 10 billion, most analysts place his worth at somewhere below a billion. Sounds like a lot, but not when you consider he inherited 400 million from his father in the 1970s. If he had put the money in CDs, he would be worth more than he is today. I just don't get the argument. In what world does even "well, she was a bit better than mediocre at her job during a period of major change" qualify someone to be president? If business acumen is what's desired, why not a Meg Whitman, or even a Peter Thiel? In my mind, the only thing Carly was good for was moving shareholder value from the market to her own pocket. Come to think of it, she may be a perfect candidate for President in this day and age after all.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 17, 2015 10:25:44 GMT -5
have to backtrack. Forbes now estimates his worth to be 4 billion. Still not a lot considering the amount he started with by inheritance. Gotta love America, where a $4B net worth is "not a lot."
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 17, 2015 10:26:35 GMT -5
Hi Badger and Nevada! Look, This was a terrible time for tech and most tech companies laid off workers and saw their profits slashed. She did not run HP into the ground. When a company is not doing well and the CEO is replaced, the stock does go up. I would opine that 98% of the CEOs of major tech companies are really, really smart and capable, particularly when you are dealing with women. These CEOs make major decisions and not all of them turn out well. Look at Steve Jobs. He must have been an incompetent also as he was fired. A large part of what happens is related to the economic factors. If you are there when the economy is booming, you look great. The fact is that she was the CEO there for 6 years, and if she was not competent, she would have been replaced long before that. Now I do have some problems with some of Carly's positions, particularly vaccine choice. BTW if you want to point out a business incompetent, try Donald Trump. While he claims his worth is 10 billion, most analysts place his worth at somewhere below a billion. Sounds like a lot, but not when you consider he inherited 400 million from his father in the 1970s. If he had put the money in CDs, he would be worth more than he is today. I just don't get the argument. In what world does even "well, she was a bit better than mediocre at her job during a period of major change" qualify someone to be president? In the world where a community organizer is qualified to be president.
|
|
|
Post by rustyshackleford on Sept 4, 2015 11:39:29 GMT -5
Fortune magazine, a business pub in the conservative tradition, has this to say about Fiorina as CEO: ------------------ ExcerptsHaving never held elected office, she has staked her reputation on her business career.
...with a scant 5% of Fortune 500 firms employing women CEOs, her leadership of a huge global enterprise in the macho field of IT is impressive. But how did she do?
The answer in short is: Pretty badly
In 1999, a dysfunctional HP board committee, filled with its own poisoned politics, hired her with no CEO experience, nor interviews with the full board. Fired in 2005, after six years in office, several leading publications titled her one of the worst technology CEOs of all time. In fact, the stock popped 10% on the news of her firing and closed the day up 7%.
Arianna Packard, the granddaughter of HP’s founder, commented when discouraging voters from supporting Fiorina in her 2010 senatorial run, “I know a little bit about Carly Fiorina, having watched her almost destroy the company my grandfather founded.”
Fiorina proclaimed that under her HP command, “We would double its revenues to $90 billion, triple its rate of innovation to 11 patents a day, and go from a laggard to a leader in every product category and every market segment in which we competed.”
Sure, she doubled revenues—through a massive, ill-conceived, controversial acquisition of Compaq Computer in 2002—but Fiorina did nothing to increase profits over her five-year term, with the S&P 500 showing net income across enterprises concomitantly up 70%. Furthermore, shareholder wealth at HP was sliced 52% under her reign against the S&P, which was down only 15% in that bearish period.
Under Meg Whitman’s brilliant leadership, HP’s character and performance have recovered, but we have not seen Fiorina’s parallel resilience just yet. ---------------
The problem with the Compaq acquisition was it was a bet on hardware -- selling boxes -- when the industry trend was moving in the opposite (software) direction. fortune.com/2015/08/14/carly-fiorina-president-2/
We can argue all we want here on the board, but out in the real world of investment analysis the views of Fiorina's performance as CEO of HP are decidedly negative.
Of course this isn't true - the long term effect of her leadership has been viewed positively by a number of a different finance/economics sources (hell even wiki lists those) ranging from the papers at bloomberg to business and economics professors as highly respected as Sonnenfeld. The repeated discussion about stock prices without detrending market or sector movement here makes me hope none of your do the personal investing on your IRA's.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 4, 2015 11:54:58 GMT -5
Oh sweet irony. In your response to people complaining about hoyaloya's spamming with his junk, you said "Yeah - it really sucks when people make long arguments with evidence that one has to read."
But you just took a long argument with evidence and dismissed it and said "no that doesn't count because other people say different."
Okay.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 4, 2015 12:06:04 GMT -5
Oh sweet irony. In your response to people complaining about hoyaloya's spamming with his junk, you said "Yeah - it really sucks when people make long arguments with evidence that one has to read." But you just took a long argument with evidence and dismissed it and said "no that doesn't count because other people say different." Okay. Does anyone understand what he's talking about?
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 4, 2015 13:09:45 GMT -5
Of course this isn't true - the long term effect of her leadership has been viewed positively by a number of a different finance/economics sources (hell even wiki lists those) ranging from the papers at bloomberg to business and economics professors as highly respected as Sonnenfeld. The repeated discussion about stock prices without detrending market or sector movement here makes me hope none of your do the personal investing on your IRA's. OK Rusty. Let's re-examine Ms. Fiorina's performance -- again. Although I must admit, it came as a surprise to see your critical business analysis relying on info from wiki. But ok, let's take a look at what wiki has to say about Ms. Fiorina, including comparisons with both market performance (for the second time as this was already included in my previous post) and sector performance: ExcerptsHP's revenue doubled due to mergers with Compaq and other companies, and the rate of patent filings increased. According to reports, the company underperformed by a number of metrics: • there were no gains in HP's net income despite a 70% gain in net income of the S&P 500 over this period; • the company's debt rose from ~4.25 billion USD to ~6.75 billion USD; • and stock price fell by 50%, exceeding declines in the S&P 500 Information Technology Sector index and the NASDAQ. • In contrast, stock prices for IBM and Dell fell 27.5% and 3% respectively, during this time period. • The Compaq acquisition, was not as transformative as Fiorina and the board envisioned; in the merger proxy, they forecasted that the PC division of the merged entities would generate an operating margin of 3.0% in 2003, while the actual figure was 0.1% in that year and 0.9% in 2004.[9] In 2004, HP fell dramatically short of its predicted third-quarter earnings, and Fiorina fired three executives during a 5 AM telephone call. ...the board brought back Tom Perkins and forced Fiorina to resign as chair and chief executive officer of the company. The company's stock jumped on news of her departure, adding almost three billion dollars to the value of HP in a single day.
In 2005, the Wall Street Journal described Fiorina as the epitome of "an alluring, controversial new breed of chief executive officers who combine grand visions with charismatic but self-centered and demanding styles". A Stanford Graduate School of Business paper noted Fiorina's request to purchase a $30 million Gulfstream IV for her use, while her predecessor traveled coach. Following her resignation from HP, Fiorina was ranked as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time. In 2008, InfoWorld grouped her with a list of products and ideas as flops, declaring her tenure as CEO of HP to be the sixth worst tech flop of all-time and characterizing her as the "anti-Steve Jobs" for reversing the goodwill of American engineers and alienating existing customers --------------------- Even when we can find a comment that might be viewed as "favorable", it is offset by a more important factor. In 2005, Wharton School of Business professor Michael Useem opined, "Fiorina scored high on leadership style, but she failed to execute strategy".
Rusty, whether or not she was the "worst CEO ever" might be up for debate. But clearly, there is no basis to claim she did an excellent job at HP and that qualifies her to run for president. Maybe you like her. Or maybe you just like anyone who is a Republican. Leaving politics completely out of this, there is nothing in her business track record as CEO of HP that makes her stand out as a presidential candidate. Why is this important? Because that is what she is basing her campaign on.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Sept 4, 2015 13:25:44 GMT -5
Fiorina did a terrible job, but she's definitely not the "worst CEO ever". In fact, given how poorly HP was run, I don't think she's even the worst HP CEO of the ought's. Patty Dunn is probably a better choice there.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 4, 2015 13:40:14 GMT -5
Fiorina did a terrible job, but she's definitely not the "worst CEO ever". In fact, given how poorly HP was run, I don't think she's even the worst HP CEO of the ought's. Patty Dunn is probably a better choice there. I think Craig Esherick was the worst CEO of the ought's.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,731
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 4, 2015 15:06:27 GMT -5
I think Craig Esherick was the worst CEO of the ought's. Sarcasm aside, Basketball Reference.com ranked all 73 Big East coaches since 1980 by winning percentage. Craig was 31st--not great by any means, but not as bad as some of the more forgettable names in Big East coaching lore. Excepting interim or new coaches like Steve Wojciehowski, the top 10 by winning percentage: Jamie Dixon (Pitt) Jim Boeheim (Syracuse) John Thompson (Georgetown) Jim Calhoun (Connecticut) Rick Pitino (Louisville) Lou Carnesecca (St. John's) Tom Davis (BC) Tom Crean (Marquette) Ben Howland (Pitt) John Thompson III (Georgetown) And the bottom 10: Jerry Wainwright (DePaul) Hoddy Mahon (Seton Hall) Joe Mullaney (PC) Gordie Chiesa (PC) Gary Walters (PC) Fred Hill (Rutgers) Bob Wenzel (Rutgers) Ricky Stokes (Virginia Tech) Oliver Purnell (DePaul) Robert McCullum (South Florida)
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on Sept 4, 2015 15:46:07 GMT -5
I think Craig Esherick was the worst CEO of the ought's. Sarcasm aside, Basketball Reference.com ranked all 73 Big East coaches since 1980 by winning percentage. Craig was 31st--not great by any means, but not as bad as some of the more forgettable names in Big East coaching lore. Excepting interim or new coaches like Steve Wojciehowski, the top 10 by winning percentage: Oh, no, not the Esh winning record again. It's indefensible. Did the #31 have an * ? Steve W. is using the old Esh/JT2 "cupcake" stategy to rack up the Ws. He couldn't get around the Wisconsin game because it's a rivalry game. I just bet Wojo is going to trumpet his great record before the BE regular season just as Esh did.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Sept 5, 2015 12:23:52 GMT -5
Fiorina did a terrible job, but she's definitely not the "worst CEO ever". In fact, given how poorly HP was run, I don't think she's even the worst HP CEO of the ought's. Patty Dunn is probably a better choice there. Interesting game, though I don't know why you stop at the aughts. Dunn had the whole spying issue, Hurd "only" sexually harassed (while bringing on EDS, another terrible acquisition), and Mr. Leo bough a software company that had been cooking its books. I mean, one more, and you've got a straight flush in terms of terrible CEOs.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Sept 7, 2015 20:21:57 GMT -5
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Sept 7, 2015 21:24:26 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 17, 2015 14:19:30 GMT -5
|
|