131–140 of 386 posts
Regardless of individual opinions on whether CEOs should be terminated for layoffs or not - there's a surprising amount of comments here that seem to not understand that growing companies don't hire for today, but for where they want to be tomorrow. Where you want to be tomorrow is based on where you and your investors believe the world is going. If the world materially changes enough to shift your expectations about…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The goal of the CEO of a publicly traded company is to make the shareholders money. As much money as possible. If laying people off is the best way to do that, they'll do it. How is failing to predict market conditions a few months into the future and over hiring part of making a publicly traded company money? If anything, these layoffs are an admission from management that they're wasting money.
It's not wasted money. They hired people at peak, and fired them when peak reverted. If they'd ceded market share to competitors who were aggressive when peaking then these CEOs should have been fired.
I never noticed this, but hell, CEOs "manage hires" like most people manage their stock investments.
Or you can desperately lower your standards and pay huge TC to the borderline incompetent people you can attract during hot markets, and insult your existing highly skilled employees by paying morons who were just hired more than the people who got you here, and them fire people basically randomly. This what every tech company seems to do.
Regardless of individual opinions on whether CEOs should be terminated for layoffs or not - there's a surprising amount of comments here that seem to not understand that growing companies don't hire for today, but for where they want to be tomorrow. Where you want to be tomorrow is based on where you and your investors believe the world is going. If the world materially changes enough to shift your expectations about…
What happens if the COVID lockdown demand surge happens and companies don’t hire?
Customers don’t get what they want. Businesses that want to move online can’t or have a worse experience. The companies themselves are under-resourced for the actual demand and can’t invest in the future of their business because they’re struggling to keep the lights on.
I understand people are pissed about layoffs. Entirely reasonable, and as someone laid off I can empathize. But at the same time, COVID was kind of a black swan event. No one know what would happen and companies made their best guesses. Many were wrong! And that’s fine.
For public companies, there was public information about their strategies and the bets they were taking. For private companies, it probably depends on what they’d share during hiring. I knew going into Stripe in January 2022 what their bets were, my confidence level in leadership, and my personal risk tolerance for an uncertain future.
We shouldn’t be ripping companies apart when they’re wrong. At least not with over-hiring that had a plausible justification behind it. I don’t want to work for a CEO who doesn’t take risks. I don’t believe that’s better for the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>when COVID hit and tech companies saw large surges because investors and CEOs saw industries leaping 5-10 years into the future overnight, they hired to support that growth Yes, they all egregiously failed. A massive, widespread, collective failure for which they should lose their jobs, as many other people do. On the face of it, it was obvious, that's not even hindsight bias - it was the topsy turvy world that bad…
> On the face of it, it was obvious If it was obvious, then the market would have priced it in. But it didn't. So the crowdsourced collective wisdom was indeed that industries were leaping 5-10 years into the future overnight. That was the thing that was "obvious" to most people. You may have disagreed at the time, and if you'd shorted stocks you could have made some money. But the idea that "on the face of it, it wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>when COVID hit and tech companies saw large surges because investors and CEOs saw industries leaping 5-10 years into the future overnight, they hired to support that growth Yes, they all egregiously failed. A massive, widespread, collective failure for which they should lose their jobs, as many other people do. On the face of it, it was obvious, that's not even hindsight bias - it was the topsy turvy world that bad…
If it was obvious, did you initiate any shorts while it was happening?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Any form of R&D spending. Biotech companies are an extreme case of this, many making no money at all for years until they get FDA approval or go bankrupt. A lot of companies will invest in new development of new machines in order to gain an edge in the long run. - Any form of expansion into new markets. Will take a lot of cash to get started and may take years before it becomes successful. - Most marketing for bran…
I said this in another comment, but the gp is talking about stock price, not profits. Your examples seem to refer to P&L.
Regardless of individual opinions on whether CEOs should be terminated for layoffs or not - there's a surprising amount of comments here that seem to not understand that growing companies don't hire for today, but for where they want to be tomorrow. Where you want to be tomorrow is based on where you and your investors believe the world is going. If the world materially changes enough to shift your expectations about…
None of this addresses the responsibility part.
By extension -- who doesn't hold the ceo responsible? The court of public opinion, which is what all of these comments and articles spilling barrels of ink on this issue think should be the case, but is not actually the case (and for obviously good reasons). A company is not a democracy (again, for obviously good reasons).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me put it this way. If I were to hire an engineer that writes 10x more code than the next, but all the code needs to be rewritten after a year because he made some very questionable decisions, I would definitely fire that guy. Similarly, if I hire a CEO who hires 20,000 people, then lays 12,000 off after a year, I would have to question his ability as the head of the company. It is not about being able to predict…
Alphabet is absolutely posting troublesome trends in their revenue reports. Google ad results down, YouTube results down two quarters in a row… That’s what pays the bills at Alphabet.