On Aug 7, 8:08 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:

That's not what I read on cbs.marke****ch.com and in the "Wall Street
Journal":

Your confusing share price with actual company performance

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/story/nardelli-poised-tackle-lengthy-...

It was essentially the stockholders (remember them, the OWNERS?) who
fired him. If the company was so profitable, I doubt the shareholders
would have driven him out. Shareholders usually LOVE mavericks who
return results. The only results Nardelli returned were to his own
net worth.

Got any news that proves otherwise?

How about this?
http://www.marke****ch.com/news/story/evidence-bad-management-plain-s...

Duh! Your link says
"Now, is Home Depot done for? I don't think so. It has a good brand and
market position, though a bit tarnished lately. It certainly seems a value
at 12 times earnings, low double-digit sales growth and a relatively solid
(for retail) 7% net profit margin"

With a little research you will find sales increased around 100% and profits
around 106% under his watch...as in more than doubled in 6 years.

Many investors or stockholders care more about current share price than
company fundamentals.....remember the dot.com boom and resultant bust? Many
"wise" investors plunked billions into flaky not ever profitable soon to not
exist companies.

While in principle I deplore "excessive" corporate salaries I don't fault
the guy for getting what he can but rather the "investors" for signing the
contract...they offered, he accepted.....is he really supposed to refuse
after the fact? Rod

Try looking at this comparsion between HD and Lowes....

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...nardelli_x.htm

It doesn't look like they were doing that good.

And let us not forget that we have just finished the biggest building
boom in decades....which would make even a poorly run company look
good...for awhile.

TMT