Posted on 09/21/2015 12:54:01 PM PDT by jimbo123
Fiorina is running as an effective CEO. But when she ran HP, shareholders were unhappy.
-snip-
But looked at purely as a stock, HP was a real loser for investors when Fiorina ran it, losing about half its value on the market.
It’s important to emphasize that the tech-stock bubble peaked and then burst not long after she took the job. Not many tech CEOs of her era could point to a rising stock price. But as Yale School of Management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld argues in a new piece in Politico, HP struggled even relative to the broad stock market and other tech companies. Sonnenfeld is a longtime critic of Fiorina as a CEO, and Trump cited him in the second Republican debate.
Here’s how HP performed during Fiorina’s nearly six-year tenure, compared with both the broad S&P 500 index and the technology-heavy Nasdaq.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Causation - correlation thing beware.
HP was already over the cliff and hiring Carly was so she could be the executioner of all the deadwood that caused the demise. The downfall in the stocks was going to happen whether she was brought in or not.
The announced merger with Compaq took place in Septermber of 2001.
Look at the stock movement subsequent to that.
I supposed you could say she at least stopped the bleeding.
Of course you could say that about a corpse too.
Well you can say, Karl Rove lost 100% of his investors’ money and FioRINO only lost half.
That and bribing Russian officials, a practice of bribing officials around the world that started under Carly and continued until they were finally caught by the Justice Department and most recently fined 59 million for doing it.
But hey, she has CLOSE ties to the Russians, as she constantly brags.
Surprising that this topic somehow doesn’t come up when people interview her.
And her sales to IRAN in violation of international sanctions.
I agree and could point to a dozen cases we studied on this very issue when I took econometrics in grad school. That said, the thing about Carly that pisses me off is that she is quick to say that revenues doubled under her leadership and tries to sway the non-thinkers that her critics are lying about her. Alas, the voting public appears to have the IQ of dust. (How else can you explain a two-term Obozo at the helm?)
Even more upsetting is that Trump (or whomever) doesn't point out that revenues matter little when each sale adds more to losses, not profits. A 52% tumble in HP's stock price compared to a 15% tumble across the market doesn't auger well for her leadership. Nor do you hear anyone asking her to explain the loss of 30,000 jobs at the same time. Her leadership got HP into deeper financial distress. Does this country needs someone to design complex macro economic policies for an entire country when she can't even demonstrate viable micro economic policies for her own company? I don't think so.
Carly isn’t going to win. She is there to show the weakness of Trump. Ben Carson isn’t going to win either. He is just there to show the weakness of Trump. Eventually their support will go to the winning candidate. That candidate will be determined by the primaries, not polls or wishful thinking.
What’s the line she uses against Hillary about jetting around the world. She did something. .... May not have been legal but it was something !
She is done her support is real thin
See how much money you would have lost on Lucent
What is telling is she apparently hasn’t had a job since HP.
That is not what the media is saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.