Layoffs are bad for business
Russell
"Much of the wisdom about layoffs - that they drive a company's stock
price higher or increase profitability or productivity - turns out to
be wrong."
Not that it does millions of people much good for that story to be
printed
now.
Cheers,
Russell
Old Pif
Here is the best analytical review of the problem I red in the last
years:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201003/jobless-america-future
Sort of Art used to write before switching to feeding squires.
How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America
by Don Peck
Brilliant analysis and grim picture.
kamal
> That's the title of the cover story of the Feb. 15 Newsweek.
I didn't read it.
> "Much of the wisdom about layoffs - that they drive a company's stock
> price higher or increase profitability or productivity - turns out to
> be wrong."
stock price can go higher or lower for any myriad number of reasons.
When it looked like the sky as falling on everybody's head last year -
HP CEO mark hurd made a statement to investors "we cannot control our
sales -but we can control our bottomline". That means that as the
revenue of a business unit dropped, it was justified on part of mgmt
to cut costs to keep the BU profitable. The alternative theory popular
here and also valid is that people making big bonuses should have shed
them instead and allowed people living off peanuts to contunue being
employed.
regards
-kamal
Russell
> On Feb 11, 10:08 pm, Russell <russell.mar...@wdn.com> wrote:
>
> > That's the title of the cover story of the Feb. 15 Newsweek.
>
> I didn't read it.
Maybe you should. It's only a few pages long.
>
> > "Much of the wisdom about layoffs - that they drive a company's stock
> > price higher or increase profitability or productivity - turns out to
> > be wrong."
>
> stock price can go higher or lower for any myriad number of reasons.
Right, but the research shows that after accounting for those
other factors the average is that stocks fall rather than rise after
layoffs. As the article points out, "you can't do double-blind,
placebo-controlled studies", but that's why we (that is scientists
and mathematicians) invented the field of statistics.
> When it looked like the sky as falling on everybody's head last year -
> HP CEO mark hurd made a statement to investors "we cannot control our
> sales -but we can control our bottomline". That means that as the
> revenue of a business unit dropped, it was justified on part of mgmt
> to cut costs to keep the BU profitable. The alternative theory popular
> here and also valid is that people making big bonuses should have shed
> them instead and allowed people living off peanuts to contunue being
> employed.
>
> regards
> -kamal
>
The alternate model is, as the article presents, that the
management doesn't have to give up its money or take the
peanuts away from the other employees, but that avoiding
layoffs can be a win-win, not that I'm against the idea of
less caviar for management and more peanuts for the
rest.
Cheers,
Russell
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Old Pif wrote:
> On Feb 11, 12:08 pm, Russell <russell.mar...@wdn.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's the title of the cover story of the Feb. 15 Newsweek.
>> "Much of the wisdom about layoffs - that they drive a company's stock
>> price higher or increase profitability or productivity - turns out to
>> be wrong."
>> Not that it does millions of people much good for that story to be
>> printed
>> now.
>>
>
> Here is the best analytical review of the problem I red in the last
> years:
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201003/jobless-america-future
>
> Sort of Art used to write before switching to feeding squires.
The squirrels appreciate the food.
> How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America
> by Don Peck
Spiral to the bottom.
> Brilliant analysis and grim picture.
>
Did it take brilliant brain to do that analysis?
rick++
research, plus economists patting themselves on
their backs with Nobel Prizes, they might figure out
how to run the economy.
No way!
Old Pif
>
> > Brilliant analysis and grim picture.
>
> Did it take brilliant brain to do that analysis?
>
It does take some brain but most importantly it is a comprehensive
synthetic view of the problem that makes impression.
kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid
There is no Noble Prize in economics.
There is a a prize in economics granted by the Swedish national bank in
honour of Alfred Nobels memory prize founded 1967?). The prize is rewarded
the same day as the real prizes to give the economics prize more prestige.
--
Kaj
kamal
> On Feb 12, 2:57 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 11, 10:08 pm, Russell <russell.mar...@wdn.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's the title of the cover story of the Feb. 15 Newsweek.
>
> > I didn't read it.
>
> Maybe you should. It's only a few pages long.
>
>
>
> > > "Much of the wisdom about layoffs - that they drive a company's stock
> > > price higher or increase profitability or productivity - turns out to
> > > be wrong."
>
> > stock price can go higher or lower for any myriad number of reasons.
>
> Right, but the research shows that after accounting for those
> other factors the average is that stocks fall rather than rise after
> layoffs. As the article points out, "you can't do double-blind,
> placebo-controlled studies", but that's why we (that is scientists
> and mathematicians) invented the field of statistics.
>
results are made public. So, the stock was anyways headed down -but
the mgmt tries to douse the flames by announcing a series of cost-
cutting measures. To say that cost-cutting measures make things worse
because the stock went down would be incorrect.
> > When it looked like the sky as falling on everybody's head last year -
> > HP CEO mark hurd made a statement to investors "we cannot control our
> > sales -but we can control our bottomline". That means that as the
> > revenue of a business unit dropped, it was justified on part of mgmt
> > to cut costs to keep the BU profitable. The alternative theory popular
> > here and also valid is that people making big bonuses should have shed
> > them instead and allowed people living off peanuts to contunue being
> > employed.
>
> > regards
> > -kamal
>
> The alternate model is, as the article presents, that the
> management doesn't have to give up its money or take the
> peanuts away from the other employees, but that avoiding
> layoffs can be a win-win, not that I'm against the idea of
possibly true. You can see some reaction on this at:-
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Hewlett-Packard-Reviews-E327.htm
The reviews from last year give an opinion on whether the cost-
cutting was good or bad.
> less caviar for management and more peanuts for the
> rest.
>
They fired people from the top as well as lower down. All throughout -
the emphasis was -can we do without this person? That also translates
to -can we do without this business unit? if yes -fire the staff
assigned to this BU and give them an option to resign or transfer. The
point to note is that -CEO didn't conspire to fire people, but did as
investors wanted him to.
regards
-kamal
> Cheers,
> Russell
Old Pif
>
> from what I have observed, layoffs are announced after bad financial
> results are made public.
>
This is not the only scenario. Often the corporations cut the jobs
before the announcement to make the results look better.
What I observed in this recession was that some companies cut the jobs
upfront without any real justification for that which spread like a
forest fire across economy. Impression was that they do it out of the
principle: "My neighbor CEO did it and so do I".
Some other companies waited till the next financial year and then
announced layoffs based on the next year forecast.
I think that if they did it out of real necessity the blow to economy
would substantially less sever.
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid wrote:
> rick++ <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Even after two centuries of "scientific economic"
>> research, plus economists patting themselves on
>> their backs with Nobel Prizes, they might figure out
>> how to run the economy.
>
> There is no Noble Prize in economics.
Yes there is. All of the media refer to it as such, despite the fact that
it is--technically--not among the _original_ roster of prizes.
Me, ...again!
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:01 pm, Russell <russell.mar...@wdn.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 2:57 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 10:08 pm, Russell <russell.mar...@wdn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> That's the title of the cover story of the Feb. 15 Newsweek.
>>
>>> I didn't read it.
>>
>> Maybe you should. It's only a few pages long.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "Much of the wisdom about layoffs - that they drive a company's stock
>>>> price higher or increase profitability or productivity - turns out to
>>>> be wrong."
>>
>>> stock price can go higher or lower for any myriad number of reasons.
>>
>> Right, but the research shows that after accounting for those
>> other factors the average is that stocks fall rather than rise after
>> layoffs. As the article points out, "you can't do double-blind,
>> placebo-controlled studies", but that's why we (that is scientists
>> and mathematicians) invented the field of statistics.
>>
> from what I have observed, layoffs are announced after bad financial
> results are made public.
From numerous articles in the WSj over the last two decades, layoffs can
be announced at any time, including examples where the company has had
record net earnings.
So, the stock was anyways headed down -but
> the mgmt tries to douse the flames by announcing a series of cost-
> cutting measures.
It is an old strategy that if you can't pound on the facts, then pound on
the table.
To say that cost-cutting measures make things worse
> because the stock went down would be incorrect.
Russell cited his source as a respectable study. You certainly did not ask
him for the citation details so you were prejudiced against it.
>>> When it looked like the sky as falling on everybody's head last year -
>>> HP CEO mark hurd made a statement to investors "we cannot control our
>>> sales -but we can control our bottomline". That means that as the
>>> revenue of a business unit dropped, it was justified on part of mgmt
>>> to cut costs to keep the BU profitable. The alternative theory popular
>>> here and also valid is that people making big bonuses should have shed
>>> them instead and allowed people living off peanuts to contunue being
>>> employed.
>>
>>> regards
>>> -kamal
>>
>> The alternate model is, as the article presents, that the
>> management doesn't have to give up its money or take the
>> peanuts away from the other employees, but that avoiding
>> layoffs can be a win-win, not that I'm against the idea of
>
> possibly true. You can see some reaction on this at:-
>
> http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Hewlett-Packard-Reviews-E327.htm
>
> The reviews from last year give an opinion on whether the cost-
> cutting was good or bad.
You can always find some review which also disagrees with another review.
>> less caviar for management and more peanuts for the
>> rest.
>>
> They fired people from the top as well as lower down.
There are fewer people on the top and those fewer that got fired also got
their golden parachutes. The underlings don't get that.
All throughout -
> the emphasis was -can we do without this person?
I would like to emphasize that we can do without YOU.
That also translates
> to -can we do without this business unit?
I know of many examples where profit-centers were terminated and
cost-centers were allowed to stay in existence.
if yes -fire the staff
> assigned to this BU and give them an option to resign or transfer.
This happens very rarely.
The
> point to note is that -CEO didn't conspire to fire people,
No, the CEO conspires to use all of his power and priviledge to enhance
his own enrichment.
but did as
> investors wanted him to.
I cited several WSJ articles years ago that showed that investors have
zero power over CEOs. The CEOs are even happy if their stock goes down
because then they can back-date their option grants to the low value to
gain more when the stock goes up.
> regards
> -kamal
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Russell
>
>
Me, ...again!
I have a different theory. CEOs (etc) usually act because they _LOVE_
power. They also _LOVE_ to excercise power.
For example, emperors and kings, long ago, really usually _LOVED_ to be
emperors or kings. This also expanded itself in terms of ego. Such that
you can find in some history books that some kings and emperors began to
confuse their own selves with gods. eg. Alexander-the-Great, who, they
say, at one time really thought he was a god and was immortal. However,
after many battles where he always won, and was never hurt, one day came
where he got hit by an arrow, and it changed him forever.
So, be careful if you ever get the chance to be on a pedestal. The higher
you are placed (or the higher you place yourself), then the farther the
fall when the fall comes.
In one book I read, the author said that none of the Roman emperors died
happy.
As I recall, Yeltsin (Russian Prez), resigned the night before a January
1, and some part of his final statement was something like "I hope people
can forgive me for things I've done."
Me? For all my noise, my pedestal is a sheet of typing paper laying on the
floor, so I'm elevated by that thickness. Seems pretty modest to me.
Keyboard Potatoe,
with diarhea of the keyboard,
an incurable disease.
kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid wrote:
>> rick++ <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Even after two centuries of "scientific economic"
>>> research, plus economists patting themselves on
>>> their backs with Nobel Prizes, they might figure out
>>> how to run the economy.
>>
>> There is no Noble Prize in economics.
> Yes there is. All of the media refer to it as such, despite the fact that
> it is--technically--not among the _original_ roster of prizes.
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the money is not from Nobel's estate, and at
least according to some biography Alfred Nobels thoughts of economy as a
science has him rotating in his grave due to this prize.
Wikipedia has an excellent short article:
http://tinyurl.com/ydhyhpr
--
Kaj
Russell
> On Feb 12, 9:01 pm, Russell <russell.mar...@wdn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 2:57 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 11, 10:08 pm, Russell <russell.mar...@wdn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > That's the title of the cover story of the Feb. 15 Newsweek.
>
> > > I didn't read it.
>
> > Maybe you should. It's only a few pages long.
>
> > > > "Much of the wisdom about layoffs - that they drive a company's stock
> > > > price higher or increase profitability or productivity - turns out to
> > > > be wrong."
>
> > > stock price can go higher or lower for any myriad number of reasons.
>
> > Right, but the research shows that after accounting for those
> > other factors the average is that stocks fall rather than rise after
> > layoffs. As the article points out, "you can't do double-blind,
> > placebo-controlled studies", but that's why we (that is scientists
> > and mathematicians) invented the field of statistics.
>
> from what I have observed, layoffs are announced after bad financial
> results are made public. So, the stock was anyways headed down -but
> the mgmt tries to douse the flames by announcing a series of cost-
> cutting measures. To say that cost-cutting measures make things worse
> because the stock went down would be incorrect.
Read the research.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > When it looked like the sky as falling on everybody's head last year -
> > > HP CEO mark hurd made a statement to investors "we cannot control our
> > > sales -but we can control our bottomline". That means that as the
> > > revenue of a business unit dropped, it was justified on part of mgmt
> > > to cut costs to keep the BU profitable. The alternative theory popular
> > > here and also valid is that people making big bonuses should have shed
> > > them instead and allowed people living off peanuts to contunue being
> > > employed.
>
> > > regards
> > > -kamal
>
> > The alternate model is, as the article presents, that the
> > management doesn't have to give up its money or take the
> > peanuts away from the other employees, but that avoiding
> > layoffs can be a win-win, not that I'm against the idea of
>
> possibly true. You can see some reaction on this at:-
>
> http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Hewlett-Packard-Reviews-E327.htm
>
> The reviews from last year give an opinion on whether the cost-
> cutting was good or bad.
>
> > less caviar for management and more peanuts for the
> > rest.
>
> They fired people from the top as well as lower down.
A relative few.
> All throughout -
> the emphasis was -can we do without this person? That also translates
> to -can we do without this business unit? if yes -fire the staff
> assigned to this BU and give them an option to resign or transfer. The
> point to note is that -CEO didn't conspire to fire people, but did as
> investors wanted him to.
LOL. You've have a distorted view of the control of
investors in the modern corporation. The Market, maybe,
but the Market is not congruent with investors.
Cheers,
Russell
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid wrote:
> Me, ...again! <arth...@mv.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid wrote:
>
>>> rick++ <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Even after two centuries of "scientific economic"
>>>> research, plus economists patting themselves on
>>>> their backs with Nobel Prizes, they might figure out
>>>> how to run the economy.
>>>
>>> There is no Noble Prize in economics.
>
>> Yes there is. All of the media refer to it as such, despite the fact that
>> it is--technically--not among the _original_ roster of prizes.
>
> Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the money is not from Nobel's estate, and at
> least according to some biography Alfred Nobels thoughts of economy as a
> science has him rotating in his grave due to this prize.
I will repeat the fact that if you look up any of the recent economists
who were reported in any and all of the meadia, you will read that the
name of the prize they won was the "Nobel Prize."
You are welcome to "nitpick" all you want. The fact is, they got the
plaque, and the bundle of money, and the recognition.
I do know that the origin of the prize in "economics" is technically
different than the original prizes.
Wikipedia is shitopedia, complete with tamperings, editings for
propaganda purposes, and even subtractions, and recognized other
shortcomings.
I have found many wiki "articles" that were worthless.
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Russell wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:19 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 9:01 pm, Russell <russell.mar...@wdn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2:57 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 11, 10:08 pm, Russell <russell.mar...@wdn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> That's the title of the cover story of the Feb. 15 Newsweek.
>>
>>>> I didn't read it.
>>
>>> Maybe you should. It's only a few pages long.
>>
>>>>> "Much of the wisdom about layoffs - that they drive a company's stock
>>>>> price higher or increase profitability or productivity - turns out to
>>>>> be wrong."
>>
>>>> stock price can go higher or lower for any myriad number of reasons.
>>
>>> Right, but the research shows that after accounting for those
>>> other factors the average is that stocks fall rather than rise after
>>> layoffs. As the article points out, "you can't do double-blind,
>>> placebo-controlled studies", but that's why we (that is scientists
>>> and mathematicians) invented the field of statistics.
>>
>> from what I have observed, layoffs are announced after bad financial
>> results are made public. So, the stock was anyways headed down -but
>> the mgmt tries to douse the flames by announcing a series of cost-
>> cutting measures. To say that cost-cutting measures make things worse
>> because the stock went down would be incorrect.
>
> Read the research.
Kamal thinks he already knows everything. I doubt if he will heed your
advice.
I've even typed up stuff and showed it to him hundreds of times...it goes
in one of his ears, then comes right back out of the same ear. Never even
getting inside his brain.
Actually, there are financial services organizations (eg. hedge funds)
where the investors are well controlled by the fund. i.e. they take
investors money and don't tell the investors anything and don't guarantee
anything, either.
Then, there is Madoff.
And, my wife and I know someone who "invested" with Madoff, and is now
totally bathed to the point of ultimate cleanliness. Zero "dirt" left.
> Cheers,
> Russell
>
Russell
Yeah, and people are begging them to let them invest, or
at least were. The book we mentioned recently, "Lecturing
Birds on Flying", is really interesting reading. although I find
aspects of the author's writing style to be a bit off-putting.
I'm going to have to get out my books on options and
study a few of the finer points to fully appreciate the crap
that was going on.
Cheers,
Russell
>
> Then, there is Madoff.
>
> And, my wife and I know someone who "invested" with Madoff, and is now
> totally bathed to the point of ultimate cleanliness. Zero "dirt" left.
>
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Russell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid wrote:
>> Me, ...again! <arth...@mv.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid wrote:
>>>> There is no Noble Prize in economics.
>>
>>> Yes there is. All of the media refer to it as such, despite the fact that
>>> it is--technically--not among the _original_ roster of prizes.
>>
>> Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the money is not from Nobel's estate, and at
>> least according to some biography Alfred Nobels thoughts of economy as a
>> science has him rotating in his grave due to this prize.
> I will repeat the fact that if you look up any of the recent economists
> who were reported in any and all of the meadia, you will read that the
> name of the prize they won was the "Nobel Prize."
I can state the fact that if you read any swedish newspaper you would
find that they make a distinction. And every year the same debate
arises, why is the economy prize get a free PR-ride from the Nobel
festivities. (Above you asked for "any and all" of the media...).
> You are welcome to "nitpick" all you want. The fact is, they got the
> plaque, and the bundle of money, and the recognition.
Yes. And so do the winners of the Fields medal.
> Wikipedia is shitopedia, complete with tamperings, editings for
> propaganda purposes, and even subtractions, and recognized other
> shortcomings.
Fortunately my experiences are not that bad. Of course it depends on
what you look for, inflammed topics easily result in crappy articles.
But OK, here is the home page of the Royal Academy of Sciences:
http://www.kva.se/en/Prizes/Prize-in-Economic-Sciences/
--
Kaj
Russell
True, but it is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in
Economics instead of "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in
Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", which
you must admit does not exactly roll off the tongue. So,
as you suggest below, you are nitpicking.
Cheers,
Russell
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid wrote:
> Me, ...again! <arth...@mv.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid wrote:
>
>>> Me, ...again! <arth...@mv.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 kaj.st...@helsinki.fi.invalid wrote:
>
>>>>> There is no Noble Prize in economics.
>>>
>>>> Yes there is. All of the media refer to it as such, despite the fact that
>>>> it is--technically--not among the _original_ roster of prizes.
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the money is not from Nobel's estate, and at
>>> least according to some biography Alfred Nobels thoughts of economy as a
>>> science has him rotating in his grave due to this prize.
>
>> I will repeat the fact that if you look up any of the recent economists
>> who were reported in any and all of the meadia, you will read that the
>> name of the prize they won was the "Nobel Prize."
>
> I can state the fact that if you read any swedish newspaper you would
> find that they make a distinction. And every year the same debate
> arises, why is the economy prize get a free PR-ride from the Nobel
> festivities. (Above you asked for "any and all" of the media...).
OK, I will revise my statement: "any and all media except Swedish media".
Does that make you feel better? (sorry if I read for example WSJ [USA] and
Financial Times [UK/London] and they make no distinction).
>> You are welcome to "nitpick" all you want. The fact is, they got the
>> plaque, and the bundle of money, and the recognition.
>
> Yes. And so do the winners of the Fields medal.
>
>> Wikipedia is shitopedia, complete with tamperings, editings for
>> propaganda purposes, and even subtractions, and recognized other
>> shortcomings.
>
> Fortunately my experiences are not that bad. Of course it depends on
> what you look for, inflammed topics easily result in crappy articles.
> But OK, here is the home page of the Royal Academy of Sciences:
> http://www.kva.se/en/Prizes/Prize-in-Economic-Sciences/
That's better. At least the home page of the home site should be accurate
but I also know examples where the institution has eroneous information on
their website, and they know it is wrong, and they never change it to be
right even after years.
This is why I like books. I have over 1,000 history books, and I've read
over 200 of them, and I still feel ignorant.
> --
> Kaj
>
Old Pif
>
> And, my wife and I know someone who "invested" with Madoff, and is now
> totally bathed to the point of ultimate cleanliness. Zero "dirt" left.
>
Diversify! That is the typical advice in such circumstances.
If you invest, say, one third with Madoff another third with Ken Lay
and the remaining third to WorldCom, then your wealth would disappear
gradually and not in one blip.
Russell
You forgot Lehman Brothers stock No balanced portfolio
is complete without a play in investment banking. ;-)
Cheers,
Russell
Old Pif
Right. We do have a choice. Diversify!
Me, ...again!
Hey, that's a great idea(?). ;-)
Had a conversation with my brother the other day. He's big on silver. I
was asking him "Well, when you need to buy a hamburger down at McDs, do
you think you can hand them a piece of silver and get some food?"
He didn't have an answer for that.
You might want to stash some real greenbacks somewhere in the house in
case the banks go under (a real possibility if we get a major panic among
the public). Or, SD box at the bank.
I have yet to see any business establishment hang up signs that say: "In
case the economy goes to hell, we will refuse payment in legal tender,
checks, cc, and only take gold, silver, diamonds for payment."
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Russell wrote:
You forgot LTCM, and the "When Genius Failed" book. ;-)
> Cheers,
> Russell
>
Me, ...again!
You could also invest in genuine Tiffany lamps. The high end ones are
$100,000 to $300,000 on the antique markets.
Watch Antiques Roadshow and eat your heart out.
Antonio Huerta
Old Pif wrote:
> On Feb 11, 12:08 pm, Russell <russell.mar...@wdn.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's the title of the cover story of the Feb. 15 Newsweek.
> > "Much of the wisdom about layoffs - that they drive a company's stock
> > price higher or increase profitability or productivity - turns out to
> > be wrong."
> > Not that it does millions of people much good for that story to be
> > printed
> > now.
> >
>
> Here is the best analytical review of the problem I red in the last
> years:
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201003/jobless-america-future
>
> Sort of Art used to write before switching to feeding squires.
>
> How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America
> by Don Peck
>
> Brilliant analysis and grim picture.
Thank you for posting the link. I enjoyed the reading. The article
described in detail how the sorry asses of the Generation Y would be
served on a dish to them. It made my day.
Russell
Of course, LTCM was a hedge fund and investors had to have
a minimum net worth and amount to invest far beyond that
possessed by any of us, unless you're holding out on us. ;-)
Cheers,
Russell
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, morris croy wrote:
> On Feb 15, 6:57 pm, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Right. We do have a choice. Diversify!
>
> Diversification has always been a myth.
>
> Technically it should be called "deworsify".
>
Hey, I like that idea, term.
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Russell wrote:
> On Feb 15, 7:57 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Russell wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 6:47 pm, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 15, 10:48 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And, my wife and I know someone who "invested" with Madoff, and is now
>>>>> totally bathed to the point of ultimate cleanliness. Zero "dirt" left.
>>
>>>> Diversify! That is the typical advice in such circumstances.
>>
>>>> If you invest, say, one third with Madoff another third with Ken Lay
>>>> and the remaining third to WorldCom, then your wealth would disappear
>>>> gradually and not in one blip.
>>
>>> You forgot Lehman Brothers stock No balanced portfolio
>>> is complete without a play in investment banking. ;-)
>>
>> You forgot LTCM, and the "When Genius Failed" book. ;-)
>
> Of course, LTCM was a hedge fund and investors had to have
> a minimum net worth and amount to invest far beyond that
> possessed by any of us, unless you're holding out on us. ;-)
Believe me, I'm not a high roller with big bucks. We're (wifey and myself)
comfortable with our (modest) resources and I'm very thankful and grateful
for that. Yeah, that "minimum net worth" is way outta our pocketbooks,
too. CEOs can play gods, but its not in my gameplan.
But, I'm sure those rich that lost bundles wound up using that red ink to
lower their tax liability, too. The real game is to convert every $1 of
actual losses into $5-10 of paper losses, so they screw the rest of us by
making the deficit fall on the public. See your high powered CPA for
details (eg. so-called "abusive tax shelters"). Or, read Johnston's book
"Perfectly Legal" and vomit.
kamal
> On Feb 15, 1:19 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > from what I have observed, layoffs are announced after bad financial
> > results are made public.
>
> This is not the only scenario. Often the corporations cut the jobs
> before the announcement to make the results look better.
>
announcing the bad news or before. The aim is to cut down on expenses
because revenues are going down.
> What I observed in this recession was that some companies cut the jobs
> upfront without any real justification for that which spread like a
> forest fire across economy. Impression was that they do it out of the
> principle: "My neighbor CEO did it and so do I".
>
yes -they did it without an accompanying bad news to prepare
themselves for a situation where things get worse before they get
better. Overall, costs have been cut to the extent possible and
producty stretched in the other direction to ensure that the guy at
the top doesn't get the axe.
> Some other companies waited till the next financial year and then
> announced layoffs based on the next year forecast.
>
fits into the theory stated above.
> I think that if they did it out of real necessity the blow to economy
> would substantially less sever.
It may not have been a necessity, but you need to understand that
there won't be a bailout over losses incurred due to a recession. Its
the investors who will have to foot the bill for higher cost of
employees in the face of declining revenues/profits. The fact that
many a senior position has been eliminated is proof that its not a
conspiracy hatched at the top. One common strategy employed was "send
the head of a division on unpaid leave for 3 mths and see if we can
dow ithout him".
regards
-kamal
Old Pif
>
> It may not have been a necessity, but you need to understand that
> there won't be a bailout over losses incurred due to a recession. Its
> the investors who will have to foot the bill for higher cost of
> employees in the face of declining revenues/profits.
>
Hmm, ... for some strange reason the same mythological investors never
forget to foot the bill for the executive bonuses.
kamal
maybe they are not being suave. But it is eventually their own money
and they are free to spend it the way they like it.
regards
-kamal
Old Pif
Who are "they"? They must act in the interests of shareholders. Paying
bonuses to the failed management is reinforcement of bad performance
and is against their interest.