Icahn to Yahoo!: It's On

[mj]

Originally Posted by rhys

The issues are not about cost-cutting or even about access to talent.

IMO, it's about corporate America's rabid obsession with short-term profits. Otherwise known as the decline in quality of a mark that used to mean something "made in america".

When corporations get their cajones back and start telling shareholders that they are focusing on long-term profits, then the situation may start to reverse itself.

.

[BurnsInternet]

Vista is ME II. Destined for the junkpile.

[touchring]

Originally Posted by mj

IMO, it's about corporate America's rabid obsession with short-term profits. Otherwise known as the decline in quality of a mark that used to mean something "made in america".

When corporations get their cajones back and start telling shareholders that they are focusing on long-term profits, then the situation may start to reverse itself.

.

How will that happen when everyone is into money grabbing, the pay is tied to stock price, and shareholders depend on the next dividend to pay their credit debt?

If the shareholders don't get their next dividend to pay their credit card or personal debt, they will vote the CEO and chairman out of the office, and find someone else who can squeeze maximum short term profits out of the corporation!

As i see it, there's no way the current system can change unless the entire government system is changed, which takes a revolution or civil war. Since times are not so hard as to cause a revolution or civil war, there will be no change in at least the next 10-20 years.

[rhys]

Originally Posted by touchring

It is a talent issue. Given equal market exposure, people use the better software. Do you use google or msn to search (at home? ).

Doesn't prove your point. The issue is leadership not talent. Google has no monopoly on technical prowess, what they have is a pretty valuable set of patents. MS could have bought Google for a small little sum at one point but decided to pass on it in order to "build their own better search engine". That's what you call a poor decision (in hindsight anyway) and typical corporate management hubris

[thefabfive]

Originally Posted by touchring

How will that happen when everyone is into money grabbing, the pay is tied to stock price, and shareholders depend on the next dividend to pay their credit debt?

If the shareholders don't get their next dividend to pay their credit card or personal debt, they will vote the CEO and chairman out of the office, and find someone else who can squeeze maximum short term profits out of the corporation!

That's a pretty narrow-minded view. Especially with many major corporations not paying dividends and those that do average, what, 1-2%?

There are many corporations that do have long term focus. And there are many that don't. The ones that can plan ahead, see the change happening, and position themselves for the future will survive.

Take Ford as an example. They concentrated their efforts on heavy duty trucks and SUVs. Why? Because that's where the biggest profit was. Had they felt the change in the air about gasoline prices and energy conservation maybe they would have put more effort into hybrids. Now they say their plan to profitability by 2009 will be pushed back because truck and SUV sales have declined significantly. They should have seen that coming more than 2 years ago. Either they didn't see it coming or chose to ignore it, concentration on their bread and butter at the time. They are now paying the price for their lack of vision. Will they survive? Probably, but they are a shell of what they once were.

Bottom line is the long term strategy is very important. Those companies that can see that and change will thrive. Those that don't may be short term winners but they won't survive in the long run. It's not all about greedy shareholders. Smart investors know the good, long-term growth companies from the "flash-in-the-pan" companies.