371–380 of 491 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Delisting and going private is always an option if you want to go at your own pace and talk to your investors 1:1.
They would not be allowed to do so - too many shareholders. That’s why e.g. SpaceX will be going public even though Elon Musk would want to keep it private
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a common complaint of value investors that boards (especially in this post-Sarbox world) are solely focused on quarterly earnings reports, to the detriment of long term strategy. One way to talk about the added and persistent value of some companies is to note that many of them have powerful, recalcitrant, or somehow anti-quarterly-cadence founders: buffet, zuck, you could make a list.
I mean those personalities are also hyperfocused on share price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not proof of anything and most of the companies you find there are cashing on decades old businesses whether it's oil, ads or iPhones.
“Cashing in” is on bets made many years ago is making my point. Amazon didn’t stop once it had the book market or even the online retail market (see AWS), Apple didn’t stop with ipod or iphone (see M processors/Airpods/Watch/etc), Meta didn’t stop with Facebook (see instagram/whatsapp/VR), Alphabet didn’t stop with Google (Waymo, Gmail, Drive), Eli Lilly with GLP-1 trials, etc. They could stop, and switch to quarter…
At the end of the day most of these CEOs are valued by the stock price and they need to follow investors expectations which are very often short sighted.
Intel, Boeing and countless others are obvious examples.
All the companies you listed went the "let's cut personnel or bets even if we're making gazzilions to appease the stock market".
But I also like to believe that Santa is, in fact, real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Cashing in” is on bets made many years ago is making my point. Amazon didn’t stop once it had the book market or even the online retail market (see AWS), Apple didn’t stop with ipod or iphone (see M processors/Airpods/Watch/etc), Meta didn’t stop with Facebook (see instagram/whatsapp/VR), Alphabet didn’t stop with Google (Waymo, Gmail, Drive), Eli Lilly with GLP-1 trials, etc. They could stop, and switch to quarter…
You know I can easily give you plenty of counter examples of decisions made for short term gains and stock pumping, right? At the end of the day most of these CEOs are valued by the stock price and they need to follow investors expectations which are very often short sighted. Intel, Boeing and countless others are obvious examples. All the companies you listed went the "let's cut personnel or bets even if we're makin…
nonethewiser made the claim that if quarterly financials are required, then businesses will make short term decisions.
Disproving this only requires me to provide 1 example, although I provided quite a few examples of businesses that provided quarterly financials and still made long term decisions.
I never claimed that quarterly financials prevent short term decisions, so your counterexamples are disproving a claim I did not make.
> All the companies you listed went the "let's cut personnel or bets even if we're making gazzilions to appease the stock market".
It is possible for businesses to change from making long term decisions to short term decisions (and back), and it is also possible that cutting personnel was not done solely to appease the stock market due to fluctuations in demand for labor.
What company doesn’t produce monthly financial statements, let alone quarterly. I could understand this for small caps. I also don’t see how less granularity in financials is a good thing, yes if you have bad quarter that bad (but at least you can make it up the next quarter vs a bad six months likely introduces more volatility (I think?). Also I think one of the biggest complaint is “short termism” in markets, but I…
> don’t see how less granularity in financials is a good thing Transaction costs. Preparing this transparency costs money and attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can't be arsed to ship it before the last day of the report, it's your fault and asking the truck driver to drive like a maniac to compensate is amateurish, dangerous. That's not something I'd be proud of.
It's an extreme example that shortens the time frame and shrinks the cast of characters to illustrate the point. Substitute "telling the truck driver to run stop signs" with "order the factory to increase production", it's the same thing.
Then in Q2, you panic because you don't have enough inventory, so you order the factory to produce at 150% to catch up. Both 50% and 150% are inefficient factory states; if you weren't thinking about snapshot reporting you'd have just let it run at 100% and your Q1+Q2 results would be overall better.
I have personally seen this happen at a household-name Fortune 50 company. It's insane and causes real damage to the business in many ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
62% of adult Americans own stock.
And how many of those people are actively making decisions about what companies they are investing in instead of blindly putting money into a black box 401k account because they are financially punished for not doing so?