| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2642.1 | | CTOAVX::SMITHB | | Sat Aug 28 1993 11:29 | 23 |
| Pat,
We live in a 'blame' culture/society. Just about any personal
type crime these days (rape,murder,assault) has some news story
with it about how the perpertrator had some 'reason' or event
in their life to blame the deed on. Business is no different.
For years we heard how the Europe sluggish economy was to 'blame'
for Digital's problems. That excuse has worn out, so it's Wall
Street to blame. Never mind that when Wall Street was high on
DEC, we never complained. We are in trouble because 75% of the
company sits in cubes wearing Digital blinders, believing all the
garbage our internal organizations turn out about how wonderful
our products are. They never mention how we missed the PC revolution
and are struggling to catch up in minimal margin business. DELL
just posted a loss in this business, and we are pinning some big hopes
in PC sales. We have given away the LAT business, killed DECnet, and
are folding the tent on VMS. No one has figured out that customers
care little about 'open'. What they care about is the quality/price
ratio. MS windows is not an 'open' system, but people are buying
it faster than MS can make it. Reason? It gets the job done for
a cheap price. I could go on and on but it wouldn't matter, blaming
Wall Street won't stop.
Brad.
|
| 2642.2 | | HAAG::HAAG | Rode hard. Put up wet. | Sat Aug 28 1993 15:35 | 3 |
| i find it a bit interesting that many from NYC fail to see how very
little wall street adds to the productivity of this country and how
much it really hurts. but then there is those many trees in the forest.
|
| 2642.3 | | BHUNA::BHARRIS | | Sun Aug 29 1993 08:37 | 7 |
| > Digital is fully responsible for its decline from 199 1/2 to 30 3/8, a
> loss of 85% of the shareholders value in the company.
Why did Digitals stock go up to $199?
Why did the Stock market crash in 1987?
|
| 2642.4 | | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | Via,Veritas,Vita | Mon Aug 30 1993 09:03 | 28 |
| re: .1
Actually, it's an "I failed, but it wasn't my fault"-culture. Sometimes
one doesn't know who to blame.
re: .2
The "productivity" effect of Wall Street on American corporations is an
interesting topic to discuss, but certainly it is not unique to
Digital; as Digital is as much a part of it as any other
publicly-trader company that Digital competes with.
re: .3
Digital's stock rose to $199 because it earned a lot of money.
Profits make a stock price rise. The profits came to Digital from
customers and customers paid a large margin for the products Digital
sold in 1986 and 1987 because there weren't more efficient competitors
out there with a better product and a better cost structure.
The lesson of the last few years is that business environment
represented by the $200,000 minicomputer is gone and will never return.
The stock market crash of 1987 is discussed in the archived INVESTING
conference on SUBWAY. The greatest part of Digital's decline was after
the crash. Most other stocks recovered and have exceeded pre-1987
prices years ago.
|
| 2642.5 | Clarification - 'Wall Street Bashing' | ELMAGO::JMORALES | | Mon Aug 30 1993 15:27 | 31 |
| >>>> Only Digital can hurt/help itself.
100% in agreement
>>>> Blaming Wall Street.
I think when we say Wall Street is not literal. We are not
blaming Wall Street on our poor performance. The poor performance is
Digital's problem 100% owned by us (all).
When I refer to Wall Street short term mentality is the fact that
most analysis (not all of them) are focused ONLY on Quarterly Revenues.
However few of them really focused on: Management, Future Products,
Long Term Feasibility, Technology, Leadership, among others. Those
are some of the things one company will have in the long range to be
in a leadership position.
When our stock was at $199.00, no analyst was saying what we know
now, the technology change of a $ 200,000.00 minicomputer was changing
and a $ 50,000.00 or less computer will be able to do the work,
therefore, Digital, et.al. will be uncompetitive from 1988 on if
they do not scale down the cost/performance curve.
Another example (I will try to be futuristic, you do not have to
agree). I will say that INTEL is in the same position we were in
1985-86, they have to do something to the X86 family of CPU's or they
will suffer as we are doing. Now correct me if I'm wrong, how many
analysts are predicting something like this ? Maybe, they are scared
that it will not become true and moreover, INTEL right now is showing
the best profit margins (just as we did in 1985-86-87) that they have
ever enjoyed.
|
| 2642.6 | | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | Via,Veritas,Vita | Mon Aug 30 1993 17:11 | 15 |
| I don't know any company that will say anything but that they are the
"best" in:
management
future products
long-term feasibility
technology
leadership
The problem is the objective measurment of a company's performance from
an owner's perspective is in the profits that company obtains.
Look to this conference and others and you will see that in 1988, the
company was talking about open client server systems but far to slow on
the implementation to change Digital's competitive position and image.
|
| 2642.7 | In Agreement !!!! | ELMAGO::JMORALES | | Mon Aug 30 1993 19:19 | 14 |
| Excellent point Pat !!!!
The problem is that the companies SAY that they are the best in
management, future products, long term feasibility, technology and
or leadership BUT DO NOTHING or very little to implement them.
All but Cost Competitiveness (read the note number 2635 I wrote)
which as you and me have felt got implemented (TFSO, Salary Reductions,
Benefit Reductions, Outside Training Cuts, Product Cuts, Service Cuts,
Solution Cuts, everthing and anything cut for the COST FOR COST SAKE
CAUSE. The problem is that WE ONLY look at the numbers and what the
numbers say, we don't look down enough to see other potential issues
as the ones you have very well mentioned.
|
| 2642.8 | listen attentively | GRANMA::FDEADY | Big Time Sensuality | Mon Aug 30 1993 20:41 | 6 |
| I believe BP and his SLT have a very definite long term plan, and are
implementing it as we speak. IMHO BP IS NOT an example of the "Peter
Principle". Short Term and Long Term are relative.
another .02
fred deady
|
| 2642.9 | | SOFBAS::SHERMAN | C2508 | Tue Aug 31 1993 10:40 | 24 |
| Top management in corporate America remains stubbornly insulated from
the financial repercussions of their business decisions. Whether their
companies do well or do poorly, almost without exception, top
management is richly compensated.
Especially egregious examples are Frank Lorenzo and W. Grace. Lorenzo
was brought in to "save" Eastern Airlines. Two years later he had
liquidated Eastern; _100,000_ people lost their jobs; and Lorenzo was
paid 32 MILLION dollars for his time. Grace chaired a
government-private industry study group on improving organizational
efficiency. One of his recommendations was the elimination of pensions
to retired government and military people to save money and the steep
cut in pensions to retirees of private companies. Then, someone blew
the whistle on Grace by revealing that _Grace_ collects an annual pension
of over two MILLION dollars, revealing Grace to be just another selfish
hypocrit.
Until and unless top management shares the fallout from bad business
decisions, there will be no change. Why _should_ there be when top
people get rewarded absolutely, regardless of circimstances?
kbs
|
| 2642.10 | Doomsday. | ELMAGO::JMORALES | | Tue Aug 31 1993 14:47 | 19 |
| Re: .9 SOFBAS::SHERMAN
In 150% agreement. The real problem is not that top management
gets compensated inrespective of economic/financial situation of the
company, it is that top management even brings additional weight to
the to be sunken ship with highly paid salaries to help them play
the 'good ol' boy network' syndrome until the company die.
In the meanwhile this corporate killers, play the high lifestyles
of the rich and famous with our families income and our careers.
People were crying Doomsday sayers, it seems that doomsday is here and
now, if now read the press articles on what is happening in California,
Mass. NY, accross the nation, the amount of 'white collar' employees
that are 'on the streets' is incredible. The worst problem, most are
unable to find a job which pays them the amount of salary that they
were earning, because our leaders have decided to ship those jobs
out of the country. So the amount of personal bankrupcy hace elevated
over 100% in the last two years. Now if that is not doomsday, then
someone please tell me what it is.
|