On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:00:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 05/01/2016 12:34 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:00:57 -0700, T wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated
by Laurence J. Peter in which the selection of a candidate for
a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current
role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role.
Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no
longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of
their incompetence."
After what she pulled at Lucent, I am shocked that HP picked her up.
I am also somewhat baffled as to why she did not go to prison.
I'm familiar with the principle. Been surrounded by it all my life.
Saw a Warden install a flag pole after a base commander denied his
request to do so. The Warden ended up in center office in a closet
with no windows. He was caught talking on the phone one day, so the
phone was removed from his desk. Don't mess with a military commander
when you are a guest by the host agency.
What evidence can you provide about Lucent that Carly warranted a
prison term? Still needing your links to criminal activity.
Here is a rather long winded article detailing what went on.
I pretty much told you what happened. Only read if you have a lot of
time on your hands.
http://fortune.com/2010/10/15/carly-...-telecom-past/
The stock holders were misled and many lost big time. As to
which laws were broken, I can not say, but the fraud laws
and SEC rules on disclosure certainly would apply. Or should
have. These kinds of things are very "selectively" enforced.
No where in that article does Fortune say that the stockholders
were mislead or that they think any crime was committed.
They also don't seem to understand accounting.
They complain that Lucent made loans to customers, then put them
on the balance sheet as assets. Where would Fortune have put them?
They are assets and I'd bet that if you look at the 10Ks, etc
that they had statements in there disclosing that these were loans
to customers. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't also some
discussion of the risks involved with those loans.
The late 90s were the internet bubble years. There were all kinds
of new startups promising great things, raising capital, buying
eqpt and getting it financed various ways. So, it doesn't seem
too nuts for Lucent to be offering financing for eqpt sales.
I'd note that there is a lot missing here. For example, while they
try to use this one transaction against Fiorina, why is it that
they don't tell us how much, if anything, Lucent actually lost on it?
They say that there was an agreement for Lucent to provided $440 mil
in loans, but nothing about how much was actually lent, what was lost,
etc. Pretty crappy reporting. Those loans were to buy eqpt from
Lucent over God knows what period and for all we know Pathnet may not
have gotten very far in actually buying and/or deploying anything.
Lucent clearly didn't just hand them $440 mil, it would have to have
occurred over time as eqpt was ordered and installed.
Netpath was out of business in just a few years, hard to imagine they
bought $440 mil of anything from Lucent or were ever lent anything like
that amount. The article also points out
that Lucent's competitors were doing the same things. It wasn't anything
that was hidden from investors. Back then, investors knew that companies
with no sales were being started by 20 year olds, they didn't care and
bid their stock up to market caps of $500 mil or more. So, for investors
to not pay attention to the fact that Lucent was lending money to these
types to buy eqpt shouldn't surprise anyone. Hell, if Fiorina refused
to provide financing, while Nortel, Siemens, etc did, Wall Street would
probably have been calling for her to be fired.
I'm not convinced Fiorina was a great business exec or worthy of being
HP's CEO, etc. But this kind of hit piece, with very little substance
isn't convincing.