Choose your color scheme:
The Vette Barn  
 
Go Back   The Vette Barn > Off Topic/Babes/Other > Politics & Religion

Politics & Religion Discussion of politics and religion

User Tag List

Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-30-2012, 11:52am   #181
Stangkiller
Charter Member
Barn Stall Owner #5
Barn Raising I,II,III,IV
NCM Supporter '11,'12,'13,'14,'16,'17,'19,'20,'21
Bantayan Kids '13
Points: 50,765, Level: 100
Activity: 2.2%
 
Stangkiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 18,810
Thanks: 6,103
Thanked 5,435 Times in 2,934 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $2173478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joecooool View Post
A company run for the primary benefit of the shareholders puts more emphasis on the short term profit margins at the direct expense of employees. The average length of time a person is a shareholder in any specific company is - less than four months. Those people have zero interest in the long term goals of a corporation.

What's wrong with maximising shareholder value? | Guardian Sustainable Business | Guardian Professional

Bullshit. It is exactly how ventura capitalist - like Romney - made his money.
So you honestly actually believe all CEO's only care about 4 month outlooks? I didn't think the reefer was legal in the Conch Republic.
Stangkiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 12:52pm   #182
Joecooool
Barn Stall Owner #10
Points: 40,307, Level: 100
Activity: 0%
 
Joecooool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Florida Keys
Posts: 6,625
Thanks: 363
Thanked 1,765 Times in 758 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $8563902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangkiller View Post
So you honestly actually believe all CEO's only care about 4 month outlooks? I didn't think the reefer was legal in the Conch Republic.
It is time to take a hard look at the universally accepted principle that the goal of business is to maximise shareholder value.

Although the concept seems entrenched in business practise, it actually originated in a 1976 article by two business school professors at the University of Rochester who postulated that corporate executives act as agents on behalf of the shareholders, who are in turn the corporation's principals.

This raised the spectre of 'agency costs', which might be incurred if executives acted in their own interests rather than in the interests of their principals. The only safeguard against executives profiting at the expense of shareholders was to align both of their interests through a commitment to maximising shareholder value, and best incentivised by stock options for senior executives.

This idea is so deeply ingrained that many people assume corporations are legally required to maximise shareholder value. But this erroneous assumption is thoroughly dispelled by Lynn Stout of Cornell Law School in a recent book, The Shareholder Value Myth and in a recent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review by Antony Page and Robert Katz. These legal scholars persuasively debunk any such legal or fiduciary duty.

Another excellent book, Fixing the Game, by Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, goes further by pointing out that maximising shareholder value is actually a bad way to run a business.

Martin explains the danger of managers who aim to optimise the price of the stock rather than the performance of the company with an analogy of football players betting on their own games. If the players focus on winning the game, all of their incentives align with excellent performance. However, if they are rewarded based on the betting pool, they begin to worry about managing the odds.

Betting odds are like stocks

Betting odds, like stocks, are based on expectations of future performance. The better a team does, the higher expectations run. Players who want to make money by betting must manage the bookies' expectations, either by strategically losing some games to lower expectations, or by taking greater and greater risks to achieve unprecedented levels of success. Either way, when players start playing to meet 'expectations' rather than to win the game itself, their team's performance suffers.

The same insidious incentives arise when executives start managing to meet analysts' expectations rather than managing the business itself.

Martin and Stout both compile evidence to suggest that the primacy of shareholder value has not actually benefitted shareholders but has instead turned into a bonanza for senior executives: in 1970, only 1% of a Fortune 500 chief executive's compensation was in stock options and the average salary of was $700,000 (£438,000). Today stock and stock options account for 80% of the vastly inflated average compensation, which has increased more than 1,800% to $12.9m (£8m).

The ultimate irony

The ultimate irony may be that the allegiance to shareholder value has caused the very problem it was intended to cure: enriching senior executives at the shareholders' expense.

Given long enough time on the horizon, the interests of the company, the investors, and the executives would ultimately align. But with an average chief executive tenure of four and a half years, and an average stock holding period of only four months, short-term pressures exacerbate the focus on manipulating the stock rather than building the business. The increase in high speed trading and the proliferation of hedge funds and private equity firms has further increased the short-term pressure for financial engineering rather than long-term value creation.

The biggest cost of all, however, is neither to the company nor its shareholders, but to our society and our planet. The ubiquitous mandate to maximise short-term shareholder value has driven a deep wedge between business and society. The long term success of any company depends on the health and wellbeing of its employees, customers, and the communities in which it operates.

Unfortunately, these factors do not affect the quarterly earnings that drive analysts' expectations. CEOs who manage the stock, rather than the company, have little reason to think about the social and environmental consequences of their actions. And the result – whether in oil spills or credit derivatives – brings devastation far beyond the company's own shareholders.

But a small, yet growing cadre of sophisticated business leaders are beginning to expand their focus beyond merely maximising shareholder value to creating shared value. They are building strong companies and healthier societies at the same time; making money by reducing their environmental footprint, meeting the needs of low-income populations, and finding innovative, profitable solutions to social problems. One might expect that such an "altruistic" approach would diminish shareholder returns: instead, it keeps corporate leaders focused on the most powerful emerging trends and the long term fundamentals of their businesses.

As investors like Generation Investment Management are increasingly discovering, maximising shared value is the best way to maximise shareholder value.
Joecooool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 1:16pm   #183
Millenium Vette
Barn Stall Owner #101
GTMS ‘18
Points: 22,000, Level: 100
Activity: 6.5%
 
Millenium Vette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 14,411
Thanks: 10,086
Thanked 2,668 Times in 1,534 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $6269655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco Vette View Post
The good CEO's work for the long term benefit of the company's owners (the shareholders) and realize that the way to do that includes, among many other things, keeping employees happy and productive. But to stay in business your employees have to cost you less than they produce. There is no flaw in my argument.

Your second sentence is just radicalleftspeak designed to justify wealth redistribution, or more properly called asset seizure or nationalization of private assets.
Actually, that argument is very flawed. The shareholders of any company, publicly or privately traded, should not mean shit. Put the employee's interests first. It has worked in the past, no reason for it not to work in the future. For example, how about the former General Motors. More recent example? How about Hostess. While we are at it, fuck the bondholders also.

Millenium Vette is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Millenium Vette For This Useful Post:
Old 11-30-2012, 2:01pm   #184
Stangkiller
Charter Member
Barn Stall Owner #5
Barn Raising I,II,III,IV
NCM Supporter '11,'12,'13,'14,'16,'17,'19,'20,'21
Bantayan Kids '13
Points: 50,765, Level: 100
Activity: 2.2%
 
Stangkiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 18,810
Thanks: 6,103
Thanked 5,435 Times in 2,934 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $2173478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Millenium Vette View Post
Actually, that argument is very flawed. The shareholders of any company, publicly or privately traded, should not mean shit. Put the employee's interests first. It has worked in the past, no reason for it not to work in the future. For example, how about the former General Motors. More recent example? How about Hostess. While we are at it, fuck the bondholders also.

yup, youre right, might as well give the whole company to the employees, nobody else matters anyways. With Pensions so generous the company will go belly up in a few years, it's the *right* thing to do.
Stangkiller is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Stangkiller For This Useful Post:
Old 11-30-2012, 2:06pm   #185
Stangkiller
Charter Member
Barn Stall Owner #5
Barn Raising I,II,III,IV
NCM Supporter '11,'12,'13,'14,'16,'17,'19,'20,'21
Bantayan Kids '13
Points: 50,765, Level: 100
Activity: 2.2%
 
Stangkiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 18,810
Thanks: 6,103
Thanked 5,435 Times in 2,934 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $2173478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joecooool View Post
The same insidious incentives arise when executives start managing to meet analysts' expectations rather than managing the business itself.

The ultimate irony

The ultimate irony may be that the allegiance to shareholder value has caused the very problem it was intended to cure: enriching senior executives at the shareholders' expense.

Given long enough time on the horizon, the interests of the company, the investors, and the executives would ultimately align. But with an average chief executive tenure of four and a half years, and an average stock holding period of only four months, short-term pressures exacerbate the focus on manipulating the stock rather than building the business. The increase in high speed trading and the proliferation of hedge funds and private equity firms has further increased the short-term pressure for financial engineering rather than long-term value creation.

The biggest cost of all, however, is neither to the company nor its shareholders, but to our society and our planet. The ubiquitous mandate to maximise short-term shareholder value has driven a deep wedge between business and society. The long term success of any company depends on the health and wellbeing of its employees, customers, and the communities in which it operates.

Unfortunately, these factors do not affect the quarterly earnings that drive analysts' expectations. CEOs who manage the stock, rather than the company, have little reason to think about the social and environmental consequences of their actions. And the result – whether in oil spills or credit derivatives – brings devastation far beyond the company's own shareholders.

But a small, yet growing cadre of sophisticated business leaders are beginning to expand their focus beyond merely maximising shareholder value to creating shared value. They are building strong companies and healthier societies at the same time; making money by reducing their environmental footprint, meeting the needs of low-income populations, and finding innovative, profitable solutions to social problems. One might expect that such an "altruistic" approach would diminish shareholder returns: instead, it keeps corporate leaders focused on the most powerful emerging trends and the long term fundamentals of their businesses.

As investors like Generation Investment Management are increasingly discovering, maximising shared value is the best way to maximise shareholder value.
Of course you have issues with stock options. IT's that whole rich thing you really have a problem with.

The whole goal of a business is to make money, and by making money a company increases it's value. You do that by making long reaching goals, and placing yourself into a position to realize those goals. You do not get there by giving the house to the employees. Sure certain measures must be taken to ensure a stable workforce, but a workforce is merely a piece of a profit center. Sure some short sighted managers are there only to maximize their stock options, however if properly managed the stock options are based on long term goals to help minimize this effect.
Stangkiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 2:09pm   #186
Millenium Vette
Barn Stall Owner #101
GTMS ‘18
Points: 22,000, Level: 100
Activity: 6.5%
 
Millenium Vette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 14,411
Thanks: 10,086
Thanked 2,668 Times in 1,534 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $6269655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangkiller View Post
yup, youre right, might as well give the whole company to the employees, nobody else matters anyways. With Pensions so generous the company will go belly up in a few years, it's the *right* thing to do.
More specifically, give the place to the union. The shareholders are the greedy bastards. We all know the unions, as well as the government, can never be greedy.
Millenium Vette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 4:42pm   #187
SteelCityBlue
A Real Barner
Points: 12,448, Level: 77
Activity: 0.4%
 
SteelCityBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Smashville, TN
Posts: 1,487
Thanks: 413
Thanked 224 Times in 160 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $106691
bilmem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joecooool View Post

A CEO's primary responsibility is to the company and its employees. Any business run for the primary benefit of the shareholders becomes focused only on short-term earnings at the expense of the long-term view and the more important, societal consequences of the company's behavior.

In fact, the whole concept of CEO's running their companies for the primary benefit of shareholders is just a convenient rationale for enriching corporate officers and investors at the expense of the ordinary workers.
I have no idea why you bother. This is gospel truth except the company is run for both sharholders and employees. The ****ing baby boomers that run the shit show that is now big pharma can rationalize anything. They just want to get theirs and get out; there is no long term plan. Pump and dump, baby. Perfect example: Pfizer.

I don't understand why this isn't obvious to everyone?

The only problem is industry pales in comparison to government. How can anyone look at Susan Rice's resume and figure out how she became a millionare several times over?
SteelCityBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 4:58pm   #188
Giraffe (He/Him)
Goldilocks
Barn Stall Owner #905

Bantayan Kids '13,'15
Points: 110,529, Level: 100
Activity: 0%
 
Giraffe (He/Him)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: My butt's been wiped.
Posts: 30,980
Thanks: 5,226
Thanked 16,607 Times in 7,133 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $1009320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityBlue View Post
I have no idea why you bother. This is gospel truth except the company is run for both sharholders and employees. The ****ing baby boomers that run the shit show that is now big pharma can rationalize anything. They just want to get theirs and get out; there is no long term plan. Pump and dump, baby. Perfect example: Pfizer.

I don't understand why this isn't obvious to everyone?

The only problem is industry pales in comparison to government. How can anyone look at Susan Rice's resume and figure out how she became a millionare several times over?
Giraffe (He/Him) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 5:14pm   #189
SteelCityBlue
A Real Barner
Points: 12,448, Level: 77
Activity: 0.4%
 
SteelCityBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Smashville, TN
Posts: 1,487
Thanks: 413
Thanked 224 Times in 160 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $106691
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas View Post
Screw that. the best part is how everyone not in "senior management" is held to a different set of rules. They'll get their bonus no matter what.

When on a conf call the other day, changes to year end bonuses were announced. I asked if this was just us or if sr management would get options and bonus as usual like Hostess? people on the call started laughing.
SteelCityBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 5:24pm   #190
Giraffe (He/Him)
Goldilocks
Barn Stall Owner #905

Bantayan Kids '13,'15
Points: 110,529, Level: 100
Activity: 0%
 
Giraffe (He/Him)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: My butt's been wiped.
Posts: 30,980
Thanks: 5,226
Thanked 16,607 Times in 7,133 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $1009320
Default

This is interesting since it's way out of my orbit.
Giraffe (He/Him) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 5:38pm   #191
SteelCityBlue
A Real Barner
Points: 12,448, Level: 77
Activity: 0.4%
 
SteelCityBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Smashville, TN
Posts: 1,487
Thanks: 413
Thanked 224 Times in 160 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $106691
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas View Post
This is interesting since it's way out of my orbit.
The best part is how some jerk off is going to tell me if I don't like it to move on. Well we are. And the biotechs thrive and big pharma dies.

And after I move on, who exactly do you replace me with? And since I have no turnover in two years, who do you think these employees are loyal too? I've already been sued once for telling some old **** to pound salt and taking the best 25 with me. Never stuck.

I once had a senior VP tell me,"there's the door"

I told him if I left today I'd have a job next friday only because I want to take the week off. ACS certs with tier 1 MBAS and MSF are hard to find.

The attitude on this board is why a lot of traditional powerhouses are dying horrible deaths now.
SteelCityBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 9:26am   #192
Loco Vette
Barn Stall Owner #54
Barn Raising II,III

Bantayan Kids '13,'17
Points: 39,523, Level: 100
Activity: 5.8%
 
Loco Vette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 15,675
Thanks: 9,677
Thanked 6,904 Times in 2,607 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $6027980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joecooool View Post
It is time to take a hard look at the universally accepted principle that the goal of business is to maximise shareholder value.

Although the concept seems entrenched in business practise, it actually originated in a 1976 article by two business school professors at the University of Rochester who postulated that corporate executives act as agents on behalf of the shareholders, who are in turn the corporation's principals.

This raised the spectre of 'agency costs', which might be incurred if executives acted in their own interests rather than in the interests of their principals. The only safeguard against executives profiting at the expense of shareholders was to align both of their interests through a commitment to maximising shareholder value, and best incentivised by stock options for senior executives.

This idea is so deeply ingrained that many people assume corporations are legally required to maximise shareholder value. But this erroneous assumption is thoroughly dispelled by Lynn Stout of Cornell Law School in a recent book, The Shareholder Value Myth and in a recent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review by Antony Page and Robert Katz. These legal scholars persuasively debunk any such legal or fiduciary duty.

Another excellent book, Fixing the Game, by Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, goes further by pointing out that maximising shareholder value is actually a bad way to run a business.

Martin explains the danger of managers who aim to optimise the price of the stock rather than the performance of the company with an analogy of football players betting on their own games. If the players focus on winning the game, all of their incentives align with excellent performance. However, if they are rewarded based on the betting pool, they begin to worry about managing the odds.

Betting odds are like stocks

Betting odds, like stocks, are based on expectations of future performance. The better a team does, the higher expectations run. Players who want to make money by betting must manage the bookies' expectations, either by strategically losing some games to lower expectations, or by taking greater and greater risks to achieve unprecedented levels of success. Either way, when players start playing to meet 'expectations' rather than to win the game itself, their team's performance suffers.

The same insidious incentives arise when executives start managing to meet analysts' expectations rather than managing the business itself.

Martin and Stout both compile evidence to suggest that the primacy of shareholder value has not actually benefitted shareholders but has instead turned into a bonanza for senior executives: in 1970, only 1% of a Fortune 500 chief executive's compensation was in stock options and the average salary of was $700,000 (£438,000). Today stock and stock options account for 80% of the vastly inflated average compensation, which has increased more than 1,800% to $12.9m (£8m).

The ultimate irony

The ultimate irony may be that the allegiance to shareholder value has caused the very problem it was intended to cure: enriching senior executives at the shareholders' expense.

Given long enough time on the horizon, the interests of the company, the investors, and the executives would ultimately align. But with an average chief executive tenure of four and a half years, and an average stock holding period of only four months, short-term pressures exacerbate the focus on manipulating the stock rather than building the business. The increase in high speed trading and the proliferation of hedge funds and private equity firms has further increased the short-term pressure for financial engineering rather than long-term value creation.

The biggest cost of all, however, is neither to the company nor its shareholders, but to our society and our planet. The ubiquitous mandate to maximise short-term shareholder value has driven a deep wedge between business and society. The long term success of any company depends on the health and wellbeing of its employees, customers, and the communities in which it operates.

Unfortunately, these factors do not affect the quarterly earnings that drive analysts' expectations. CEOs who manage the stock, rather than the company, have little reason to think about the social and environmental consequences of their actions. And the result – whether in oil spills or credit derivatives – brings devastation far beyond the company's own shareholders.

But a small, yet growing cadre of sophisticated business leaders are beginning to expand their focus beyond merely maximising shareholder value to creating shared value. They are building strong companies and healthier societies at the same time; making money by reducing their environmental footprint, meeting the needs of low-income populations, and finding innovative, profitable solutions to social problems. One might expect that such an "altruistic" approach would diminish shareholder returns: instead, it keeps corporate leaders focused on the most powerful emerging trends and the long term fundamentals of their businesses.

As investors like Generation Investment Management are increasingly discovering, maximising shared value is the best way to maximise shareholder value.
Gee, a cut/paste without citation posing as original thought. What are the odds.

Even if this tripe had any merit, the principle the people (CEO's) are responsible to the people who hire them (Shareholders via the board of directors) is fundamental. This pseudointellectual crap that people who made a deal to do a job for a salary are somehow annoited with rights superior to the owners of the business is horseshit and if allowed to be incorporated would mean the destruction of the concept of business.

Last edited by Loco Vette; 12-01-2012 at 3:32pm.
Loco Vette is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 9:34am   #193
jaxgator
Barn Stall Owner #99
NCM Supporter '11,'13
Bantayan Kids '13,'14
Points: 38,631, Level: 100
Activity: 0%
 
jaxgator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 14,880
Thanks: 2,442
Thanked 2,434 Times in 1,743 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $1017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangkiller View Post
Of course you have issues with stock options. IT's that whole rich thing you really have a problem with.
The blatant hypocrisy is that the majority of people would consider Phil to be rich.
jaxgator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 10:51am   #194
Joecooool
Barn Stall Owner #10
Points: 40,307, Level: 100
Activity: 0%
 
Joecooool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Florida Keys
Posts: 6,625
Thanks: 363
Thanked 1,765 Times in 758 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $8563902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco Vette View Post
Gee, a cut/paste without citation posing as original thought. What are the odds.

Even if this tripe had any merit, the principle the people (CEO's) are responsible to the people who hire them (Shareholders via the board of directors) is fundamental. This pseudointellectual crap that people who made a deal to do a job for a salary are somehow annoited with rights superior to the owners of the business is horseshit and if allowed to be incorporated would mean the destruction of the concept of business.
Is the info in the link I had previously posted had you bothered to read it the first time you would have known that.

And apparently you need to read it again because it in no way states or even implies that the workers are anointed with special rights.
Joecooool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 11:46am   #195
Taurus
A Real Barner
Points: 32,758, Level: 100
Activity: 4.7%
 
Taurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10,088
Thanks: 2,883
Thanked 5,707 Times in 2,702 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $3895593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityBlue View Post
The best part is how some jerk off is going to tell me if I don't like it to move on. Well we are. And the biotechs thrive and big pharma dies.

And after I move on, who exactly do you replace me with? And since I have no turnover in two years, who do you think these employees are loyal too? I've already been sued once for telling some old **** to pound salt and taking the best 25 with me. Never stuck.

I once had a senior VP tell me,"there's the door"

I told him if I left today I'd have a job next friday only because I want to take the week off. ACS certs with tier 1 MBAS and MSF are hard to find.

The attitude on this board is why a lot of traditional powerhouses are dying horrible deaths now.
Of course it couldn't be due to attitudes like yours. Give me what I want or I walk with your best people. Did you incite the others to leave if so what kind of employee are you? Any one who honestly believe a business exists for the benefit of the employees just doesn't get it. It exists to provide a return on the investor's risk period. You want to make the rules, you put your money at risk. The investors don't owe you anything other than the compensation packed YOU agreed to. If you don't like it or they change the rules you have the right to move on, the investor doesn't have that ability. You should have been sued, you don't like what you got, go somewhere else. You have the qualifications, just go.
Taurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 4:13pm   #196
Loco Vette
Barn Stall Owner #54
Barn Raising II,III

Bantayan Kids '13,'17
Points: 39,523, Level: 100
Activity: 5.8%
 
Loco Vette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 15,675
Thanks: 9,677
Thanked 6,904 Times in 2,607 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $6027980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joecooool View Post
Is the info in the link I had previously posted had you bothered to read it the first time you would have known that.

And apparently you need to read it again because it in no way states or even implies that the workers are anointed with special rights.
There's no link in the post I quoted. If you mean that you cut something out of your OP to attempt to provide legitimacy through repetition, then that weeklong break you took from this thread might have allowed me to confuse some of your leftist rantings.

Regardless of where it came from the quote at issue does note refute the idea that CEO's first duty is to the shareholders, it just condemns those who pursue the short term results too zealously (as do I).

And as for reading, when I was about 6 I ate some potato salad at a picnic that had been in the sun too long and wound up in the hospital. That taught me not to trust mayonnaise that had been out of the fridge too long. By the same token, I have read enough of what you post here that I know most of it is of no value and tends to produce abdominal cramps and diarrhea.

Last edited by Loco Vette; 12-05-2012 at 5:04pm.
Loco Vette is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

The Vette Barn > Off Topic/Babes/Other > Politics & Religion


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:40am.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 - 2024 The Vette Barn


Support the Barn:
 
Download the Mobile App;
 
Follow us on Facebook:

Become a Stall Owner

 

Apple iOS App        Google Android App

 

Visit our Facebook page