Live data from Hacker News

What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

commoncog.com

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

#41

> The new manager believed he could gain significant market share by cutting prices. He was successful—at first. Sales grew over the next three months, and so did the unit’s share of the market. However, the competition responded in kind... all the price cutting caused revenues, profits, and cash generation to shrink throughout the industry, hurting Global Building along with everyone else. Sounds like the system wor…

Isn’t it wonderful when business is more anti-market than straight up socialists and everyone’s like “yeah, that’s obvious”. Feels kafkaesque for sure.

Re: What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

#42

I for one would really like to know why the CEO gets paid so much, why are the employees not getting paid proportionally, why RTO is absolutely necessary, why the stock buybacks are necessary when investment in the business is going down, etc.

> why the stock buybacks are necessary when investment in the business is going down The business theory answer is that buybacks are used when there is no better investment opportunity. Let's say the stock trades at 10 times earnings. Can you fund an internal project that's going to return 10% a year? [0] Can you buy another company that will return 10% a year? If not, then a buyback gives the best return to the comp…

So, basically, when a company buys their own stock back (or issues a dividend), they are saying "We can't think of a single thing better to do with this money than simply hand it back to investors who might be able to put it to better use!" Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the company, to be honest.

Re: What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

#43

> Charan makes a rather controversial assertion in the introduction to this section: if your company isn’t growing, then it is dying. The argument goes something like this: in a world that grows every day, a company that is standing still or doing ‘just fine’ is falling behind. A company that is overtaken by a competitor eventually gets boxed in. It loses many of its advantages over time. Charan’s conclusion: growth…

[flagged]

You're right - GP comment is lazy and uninteresting, and frankly probably violates the HN guidelines. It shouldn't be here.

Re: What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

#44
post #24

> A sales rep who negotiates a 30-day payment term instead of a 45-day payment term is cash-wise. The company can get the money sooner and is able to put it to use elsewhere. I don't understand using a sales rep as the first example. Don't you just tell the salesperson how their compensation is tied to deals signed, revenue, and the speediness of payments? Doesn't that formula alone tell you what the behavior will be…

Comp is typically aligned to Revenue rather than payment schedule, unless the rep is involved in the A/R process which is unusual but not unheard of. The incentive comes from deal language standards for which exceptions must be approved by senior leaders for things like delayed payments or other arrangements. In the above scenario, the more likely situation would be the rep goes to bat internally for a 45-day term so…

I'd say it's more common nowadays, otherwise it's easy to sell tons of stuff with 90 day invoices, take your bonus, and run off 6 months later with massive outstanding AR.

Re: What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why the stock buybacks are necessary when investment in the business is going down The business theory answer is that buybacks are used when there is no better investment opportunity. Let's say the stock trades at 10 times earnings. Can you fund an internal project that's going to return 10% a year? [0] Can you buy another company that will return 10% a year? If not, then a buyback gives the best return to the comp…

So, basically, when a company buys their own stock back (or issues a dividend), they are saying "We can't think of a single thing better to do with this money than simply hand it back to investors who might be able to put it to better use!" Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the company, to be honest.

Why? The company is good at what it does. It generates money. Someone else is expert at something else, but needs capital. Why do you need one company to do everything on Earth?

Warren Buffet's wealth comes from finding companies who are good at what they do, and moving money from ones with excess cash to those that need more cash.

Would you rather put your money or capital into a company that promised to never do buybacks? To never, ever give you a return on your investment? Why would you buy that stock? Why would anyone ever buy that stock from you?

Re: What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

#46
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't comment on Boeing specifically, but if a company has a bunch of cash on hand and doesn't have enough plausible projects to invest in that could return better than the benchmark rate, then I think it makes sense to return it to investors. Even in a well-run company (Apple?) it's reasonable to imagine that cash on hand could exceed the company's present capacity for new research projects. Scaling up an R&D depart…

> Can't comment on Boeing specifically, but if a company has a bunch of cash on hand and doesn't have enough plausible projects to invest in that could return better than the benchmark rate, then I think it makes sense to return it to investors. Isn't that what dividends are for though? Stock buybacks distort the valuation detached from what the market is pricing the company, it still does not make sense in my mind.

Buybacks at market price don't distort the valuation. You could make the same wrong about claim about dividends distorting market price my making the stock temporarily more valuable shortly before the dividend pays out.

A buyback is a more efficient dividend. It doesn't force a realized gain, and stockholders can choose the size of their cash out whenever they want, instead of the company forcing it.

Re: What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

#47
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I could change one thing about corporate culture, I think it might be this attitude of "success necessarily produces growth". There is nothing wrong with reaching a successful size and staying there. A good company charges money to solve a problem. The company only needs to be as big as the problem. Anything beyond that is just an exercise for investors. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it should not b…

in the West this is related to money lending IMHO

Luckily in the supposed alternatives, like the middle east (which has lending+interest, they just lie about it for religious reasons. "It's not interest, it's just a administrative fee per dollar lent. Not Interest! No sir!"), or China. Or China's efforts in Africa, for example. Luckily there nature is doing well!

Oh wait a second ...

Re: What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

#48
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I could change one thing about corporate culture, I think it might be this attitude of "success necessarily produces growth". There is nothing wrong with reaching a successful size and staying there. A good company charges money to solve a problem. The company only needs to be as big as the problem. Anything beyond that is just an exercise for investors. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it should not b…

I agree with you, but it might be worth noting that a business which is not increasing profits in absolute terms is shrinking due to inflation. In other words if their costs increase 5% and their revenue increases 5% then a 5% increase in profits is expected.

[dead]

Re: What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

#49
post #46
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't comment on Boeing specifically, but if a company has a bunch of cash on hand and doesn't have enough plausible projects to invest in that could return better than the benchmark rate, then I think it makes sense to return it to investors. Isn't that what dividends are for though? Stock buybacks distort the valuation detached from what the market is pricing the company, it still does not make sense in my mind.

Buybacks at market price don't distort the valuation. You could make the same wrong about claim about dividends distorting market price my making the stock temporarily more valuable shortly before the dividend pays out. A buyback is a more efficient dividend. It doesn't force a realized gain, and stockholders can choose the size of their cash out whenever they want, instead of the company forcing it.

> A buyback is a more efficient dividend. It doesn't force a realized gain, and stockholders can choose the size of their cash out whenever they want, instead of the company forcing it.

That goes into financial accounting engineering, something I'm really not fond of, efficiency in dribbling taxes due is not something I consider an advantage, it's a bug of the system.

> You could make the same wrong about claim about dividends distorting market price my making the stock temporarily more valuable shortly before the dividend pays out.

Probably another inherent issue I see in the current system, dividends should be paid out in proportion to the time an investor held the shares, they took higher risk by holding them for longer and deserve the full reward, someone just speculating right before a dividend payout should not have much reward since they had no skin in the game while the company accrued their extra cash in hand to be paid out.

The current incentives reward more speculative and short-term decision making rather than companies generating the most value to society in the longer term. I do not think that's the most efficient way to price companies: return of shareholder value, that should be a consequence of a good company, not an objective in itself (as it's been since the Jack Welch plague over MBAs).

Again, I look at the case of Boeing, a company that gained a lot of value due to producing good products, with quality, and the downfall it's going through from maximising shareholder value with buyback programs, cutting corners, etc. The current incentives do not punish this kind of egregious behaviour enough.

Re: What the CEO wants you to know (2023)

#50
post #5

A sales rep who negotiates a 30-day payment term instead of a 45-day payment term is cash-wise. The company can get the money sooner and is able to put it to use elsewhere. Well yes but at the cost of the customer’s goodwill. Now you’ve potentially lost the customer in the long-term for an extremely low short-term benefit. “Premature optimization is the root of all evil” should apply to business as much as it does co…

Deals with customers are always going to involve tradeoffs like this; if the 30-day payment term is standard but you offer an increase to 45-days that will earn some goodwill at the expense of those 15 days, for example. If a customer has a very different time-value of money than you do, giving them a discount for prompt payment could end up working well for everybody. It's also not a short-term benefit if they are a recurring customer.

I can't seem to find the article now, but I remember reading about somebody buying food for their restaurant and getting 50% discounts for paying immediately instead 30 days later. There are some obvious drawbacks to this, but it's also easy to see how the restaurant can come out ahead with a discount that large.

Post reply on HN