It seems that every time Bill O'Reilly mentions GE, Jeff Immelt and Iran on his Fox News program, my blog visits skyrocket. When people Google any two, or all three, of the words 'Iran GE/Immelt O'Reilly,' one of the top results is one of my blog posts regarding my appearance on O'Reilly's program last month discussing the business aspects of GE's dismal performance under CEO Immelt.
This morning, however, I received a visit from a reader who found my blog from this referring post. I don't really follow the O'Reilly-Olbermann feud, although I have friends who keep me abreast of it from time to time.
What I find interesting about the post and its author is its apparently objective viewpoint that, based on the facts, O'Reilly is probably right on this one. And, thus, with his link to my blog, which is unabashedly critical of Immelt's inept management of GE, he also sustains my own views on the matter.
I have yet to find anyone who can counter the points I have made in my many GE- and Immelt-related posts (conveniently located by searching under those labels on the right-hand side of this page). Whatever Olbermann's faults may be, there's no denying his boss-of-bosses, Immelt, has pretty much flatlined GE after its many years of at least market-paced performance under his predecessor, Jack Welch.
Cable Gamer ends his GE-related post,
I should stop there, but I do have just one more thing on my mind: GE shareholders should be mindful that none of this controversy is doing them any good. This blogger, The Reasoned Skeptic, makes the point that GE has been hurt financially by all this ruckus. And when I see that GE stock is at 32, I think that surely somebody is going to come and rescue shareholders from this worst of both of both worlds--an amoral relationship with an American enemy, as well as poor economic performance.
In keeping with my recent rant about what shareholder democracy really means- and there will be an upcoming post exploring this in more depth- let me reprint a key passage. I wrote,
"But the investment angle of the story, as represented by Mr. O'Reilly's institutional manager/guest last night, now focuses on the wrong point.
The wonderful thing about our American economic system and environment is that you don't have to own GE! Or any other underperforming asset!
There are thousands of investing options available to both institutional and retail investors alike.
Rather than wait, like those poor souls anticipating Godot's arrival, for the seemingly-always-coming 'corporate governance' solution, investors are better off to just sell what they don't like and buy something else."
Someone come to GE's shareholders' rescue? How about they just do the sensible thing and sell the damn stock???!!!!
I spoke with my partner about this a few nights ago. Why, he asked, do people hold onto equities of companies that are such long-term poor performers.
He believes it is due to a basic element of human nature- a tendency to be in denial about the bad outcome of prior (investment) decisions. Rather than admit a mistake and sell the equity, keep it and hope someone will 'fix' it.
I don't think I can express it any better than I did in that post, so I'll just reprint the conclusion-
"There are so many opportunities for investment in the American economy that there's simply no reason to hold onto a problematic equity and either hope, yet again, that this year will bring change for the better, or, worse, lobby for 'management change' or 'board action.'
It probably makes more sense to trust the senior management and board of the firm in which you invest to do a great job with the assets under their control than to invest in a company which you think could, or wish would, do better than it has with the company's assets, and then try to change the management and/or board's behavior."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
How low can the GE stock go? I think Immelt can officially change his last name to "Im-melting."
Post a Comment