Posted on 08/18/2015 10:31:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“I come from a world outside of politics, where track records and accomplishments count.”
Those were the words of Carly Fiorina, a Republican candidate for president, earlier this year. Readers of the business pages know her as the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard.
For much of this early campaign season, in the crowded field of Republican candidates, Mrs. Fiorina didn’t look as if she had much of a chance at the White House. But recently, in the afterglow of her impressive performance in the first Republican debate, Mrs. Fiorina has begun to make significant gains in the polls that have made her a more formidable candidate. She has attracted attention for her sharply articulated pro-market policies and broadsides against both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump.
And so it is curious to those of us who have reported on her business career that there has not been a greater focus in recent days on her “track records and accomplishments,” as she suggested she should be measured by.
What Carly Fiorina Would Need to Do to Win Even more striking, Mrs. Fiorina, the only former female chief executive among the candidates, continues to promote her business experience on the trail, yet she was fired by Hewlett-Packard after the company’s stock dropped by half in 2005. She has long blamed her failings at running the technology giant on the bursting of the dot-com bubble and deepening recession in Silicon Valley after Sept. 11 attacks.
In an essay published late last week, Fiorina also said she lost her job because of her maverick management style. “When you lead and when you challenge the status quo, you make enemies,” she wrote in the essay published on CNN’s website. “It’s why Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, Walt Disney and Mike Bloomberg have all been fired.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Cruz works for me but I see her results and the near obliteration of HP. I also remember her fiasco of a campaign in California.
Given her rapid rise and fall, she is done.
When Hit Pieces are written about her. They mention HP and Compaq. Well, I worked at the third leg of the stool. Digital Equipment Corporation. She didn’t just go up against the Status Quo. She was up against a CULT. A Cult that saw the future in Corporate Networks on Main Frame Standard Platforms like the VAX 1150. DEC founder Ken Olsen said “why would ordinary people need computers?” This same “traditional value” was shared by the HP leg of the stool. Remember when they turned down the Altair from MicroSoft’s, Paul Allen? Yup, “why would ordinary people need computers?” the HP rep said.
Your opinion of her time in HP doesn’t reflect my actual time at HP. I keep getting the circular argument about “her time at HP” in response to my pointing out that the market’s perception of her time at HP is based on a few biased peoples’ opinion.
I struggle with the power and influence a few analysts have over so many...
she worked out great for short selling :-)
So what does Obama’s or Hillary’s business record look like?
RE: So what does Obama’s or Hillary’s business record look like?
Should we consider the Clinton Foundation a Business?
“Should we consider the Clinton Foundation a Business?”
Well it is a criminal enterprise. I would say yes and reported as such.
You "know" this from opinion articles in NYT and Fortune?
Why not try a little bit of the factual data first — that they omit or distort — and then decide what we really "know"?
Carly Fiorina as a boss: The disappointing truth - FR, post #28, 2015 August 16
Carly Fiorina as a boss: The disappointing truth - FR, post #26, 2015 August 15
Not a Fiorina fan, but the analysis should be against other tech companies in the same business to be a fair analysis. Also they split into Agilent and HP, sold the consulting business to IBM and merged with Compaq so you probably need to look at market cap. as a comparison tool.
As near as I can tell on a quick search she started with a market cap of $106B, That went down to $62B in 2001 (spin off of Agilent and dot com bubble not too bad a loss). She left in 2005 60B market cap which is low considering they acquired Compaq over that time. However it set the stage for HP to become #1 in PCs in the ensuing Hurd years.
She gets blamed for about 30000 layoffs, but Hurd cut 15000 or so more positions when he came in, so the worst you could say is that Carly was too soft as a CEO.
I've seen one internet article that says she increased revenues at HP each year of her tenure except 2001. So was she a perfect CEO no, but there are very few perfect CEOs around. It's hard to run a company. Her successor Hurd made acquisitions that cost more than the market cap the company had when he left. So was he a great CEO? Was he significantly better than Carly?
This is what makes Donald Trump the better candidate. He took over his father's business and turned it into a multibillion dollar enterprise. He had to deal with the tough regulations the Libs put in place in the democratic strongholds in which he worked. He knows first hand what risking your own money and being successful is all about. Carly, and the rest of the Republican field only know how to risk other people's money. (Sorry had to get a plug in, couldn't resist)
There is no doubt that Donald has been very successful over the years, even if not "self-made." But I just want to make an adjustment to the "risking his own money" part.
The Real Estate Income Trust / REITs and public Resorts and Gaming enterprises to which he lent "full faith and credit" of his name and celebrity (not his money) in exchange for a minimum of 25% stake (more in some, including majority control) in the enterprise and the royalties on the use of Trump's name, usually traded on the market under symbols TRMP and DJT.
Basically, ever the showman, he was selling Trump's name as the attraction of "success." His most successful "investment" was lending of the use of his celebrity name, in exchange for OPM (Other People's Money) and huge amounts of collateralized corporate debt, i.e., "junk bond" grade CDOs. As a matter of fact, he used some of that debt from a public company to buy his own casino, Trump Castle, and assuming its/his debt.
Most of these joint ventures / partnerships, including all public/listed ones, later found themselves in at least one bankruptcy but didn't cost him any money or entailed any financial risk on his part — some legal entanglements, sure, but that's what good contract lawyers and agreements are for — actually, they brought hundreds of millions of dollars to The Donald, without him "risking his own money" while possibly "risking" but also taking more than full advantage of his business reputation.
As a matter of fact, I believe he is still in a lawsuit against Carl Icahn, trying to remove his own name from Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino and Trump Taj Mahal, the last of Resorts / Casinos still bearing his name or have anything to do with him — his remaining 10% ownership and use-of-name royalties are contested in bankruptcy court — and he denies control which is technically and legally true. There is a reason he has not been involved with the Resorts and Gaming Industry for a while (except outstanding lawsuits) - the people won't do business with him, let alone use his name for the property again.
As far as I know, he didn't do anything illegal (same way as Mitt Romney, who wasn't a "businessman" as many stated but rather a manager of successful consulting and investment company didn't in 2012) but claiming that overwhelming majority of his fortune was made due to "risking his own money" is simply inaccurate. Like most before him, he made his fortune old-fashioned way — with good lawyers and OPM... not that there is anything wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld used to remind us.
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.