#strategy

IBM has become such a dysfunctional relic that the most merciful thing left is for the company to sell itself to someone who actually knows how to run a tech business. Years of clueless leadership, bloated acquisitions, pointless reorgs, and nonstop layoffs have turned the place into a slow-motion train wreck where innovation goes to die and the employees who keep the lights on get punished for it. IBM isn’t “transforming” — it’s circling the drain. A sale might be the only shot this dinosaur has at survival.

So new board chair was on CNBC and spoke about the need to act and why. The story was factually incorrect though- why overly dramatize the doom and gloom? Yes, VZ has had a problematic trend and yes the company needs to alter strategy to address it, however he stated VZ has gone from 1st to 3rd in bond ratings (false, VZ still enjoys better bond ratings than TMO and ATT), market cap (pick the day and T/VZ swap between 2nd and 3rd, so not entirely factually incorrect), and marketshare- additionally share has fallen 30% over the last 8 years (false, share is not down 30% and VZ still has the most wireless customers- assuming that is what he was referencing). Change was/is needed, but the company isn’t failing- the income and cashflow statements are enough to prove that point. As a boardmember, executive, etc the focus is almost universally to drive confidence in the company- highlight successes, vision, strategies for growth, etc so that investors and others see the positive story (even when the true situation is more of a mixed bag). Why go on the largest business network and bash the company you chair with false facts? Either he needs to spend more time understanding the company he chairs, or this is to sandbag and lay the groundwork and justification for an absolutely unthinkable scale of change in the short/intermediate term. The later is unfortunately the likely answer.

15,000 jobs gone. A ‘streamlined’ future promised. Yet executive pay stays sky‑high and friends get hired into new divisions. If we truly want transformation, let’s stop cutting the backbone of the company and start listening to the people who actually make it work.

Rawool Fernandass announced with great enthusiasm “My leadership is uniquely leaning itself toward strategic penetration as we fully embrace a deep engagement with our organization’s Assponential operating framework".

Today’s car buyers market is mostly made up of trailer trash, dregs, welfare queens, serial shoplifters, crackheads, alcoholics, me-h heads, basically your all around gutter trash.
So what does Ford need vehicles wise to get these losers into Ford Dealers to buy a car?

The answer is designing cheap new beaters with a fresh coat of paint and no warranty. Ford could mass-produce cars like this just as like old Henry Ford did. Price them cheap, sale them fast should be Fords strategy.

it feels even more insane than normal. All the million different shops trying to maintain a strong strategy presentation which I do get but if you would just staff your stores adequately you would see a return on investment. Like why do we need a “cozy throw shop”, plus the joyland shop and then have different price points subcategories all thrown in the mix. It’s confusing to us in the store trying to set it up and get the stuff out, it has to be confusing to the customer or they get so overwhelmed trying to understand the visual impacts but gets lost because there are so many. 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫 idk it’s a lottttt.

dealing with amazon might be sweet in the beginning but it will ki-l you down the line.

Yes, amazon will deliver few billion dollars of sales immediately but keeping them close will ki-l you down the line by cutting independence, originality, fresh new views, objectivity!!
Look at Toys are us, book publishers and latest victim is turns out is UPS. This is short list that comes to my head

Nike be free and independent !!!

So no they are not laying off field techs .Infact they are actually Hiring like crazy .The reality is that long ago the company 1 focus turned solely to wireless which we all knew was not gonna be forever.All while turning their back on the back bone bread and butter of wireline that fed their cell towers served their longtime customers towns buisness. This also was bad for wireless since if you been beaten up and abused by a company on wireline you be your not gonna go buy a wireless plan from them.Next they spent more money and time on hiring Managers upon managers to waste time trying to micromanage the people actually doing the work everyday .We now have brand that’s been beaten down has a bad look.Too much management most of who know nothing .All managing a smaller work force with less customers .Hence Layoffs

These Value brands used to be their own business's and pay Verizon for “access”.

Nancy got moved to protect her nearly 40 year tenure.

Indirect dealers have been beefing up their operational staff with old Verizon execs.

Should be interesting next week.

What is the over/under Of Verizon getting out of the PS business all together just shifting all focus to wireless and broadband?

Bryan appears to either be simple-minded on his approach to running SOLV (into the ground) or being directed by a higher power or deity who has no idea how to run a HC company (Peltz). Either way, he has once again proven that the GE style (Welch, McNerney, Nardelli) of "leadership" simply emaciates a once-strong company into a parceled mess of unrelated businesses waiting for a spin or break-up.

Thankfully, I got to leave during the Covid wave of layoffs and enjoy retirement and coffee mornings on the porch, but still care from time to time about what was left behind.

When Bryan was named CEO before the actual spin and gave his first townhall, people on this board sounded so optimistic, which made sense since Roman was a complete buffoon as CEO. Not sure if he talked much about actual strategies for growth and investment or he just used soothing words and bubblegum phrases to get people to like him, but the shine has clearly worn off.

Annual layoffs, as occurred at 3M under Roman and now at SOLV, only prove you have either NO long-term strategy except for HOPE or you have a strategy that changes faster than the weather in Minnesota every spring and fall day. Either way, Wall Street has (finally!) learned that such a "strategy" is a loser and has kept SOLV stock changing mostly sideways while the SP500 is up over 15%.

Having read a few of the public SOLV releases to shareholders, it appears that SOLV is not likely to have any major runout during Bryan's term. NO long-term growth = no long-term ROI. He has never indicated either to employees or Wall Street what his plan is to reduce the massive debt 3M left in his mailbox. He is the antithesis to Lee Iacocca who earned $1 per year and potentially worthless stock options while flying commercial to DC to lobby for loan guarantees.

Perhaps the only strategy that will work is a series of mergers and spins with other HC companies to spread the debt across multiple companies, hopefully stronger and run for growth. But where would this leave Bryan and his guaranteed 40 million per year? That's the sting! I'm convinced a McKnight CEO would quickly be forced out by some activist investor wanting a quick return for their buck like Peltz.

If there's any consolation, Peltz is basically sitting on dead money with 600+ million invested, almost zero gain on the stock price, and no dividend for perhaps years to come. No wonder he keeps pushing for more layoffs. But the layoffs people talked about this week appear to wiping out business critical roles that will only hurt SOLV and help the competition.

Sorry to hear about this 2nd round of Holiday layoffs. The people at 3M/SOLV deserved much better than Roman, Hanson, and Brown.

One of the things I really miss about corporate life is playing the “which, if you’re unfamiliar with it, is where you go to meetings with the express intent of taking zero actions whatsoever. And if you’re thinking, what is this corporate lingo, then an action is something that you actually have to do. And you might think, “Well, isn’t that the whole point of work, that you actually get stuff done?” To which I would say, “No, foolishness!” You’re too busy attending meetings at which you’re avoiding actions to actually have time to do anything.

So how do you avoid taking any actions? Well, you might think, maybe just don’t show up to the meeting, which would be a terrible strategy, because then the people at the meeting will give you all of the actions, and you hear about it later. So that’s a rookie mistake. There are a variety of strategies for avoiding taking actions, one of which is to just remain perfectly still. This is the Jurassic Park approach. You hope that if you just don’t move, the dinosaur won’t see you, like this. But sadly, the dinosaurs often do spot you, so it’s not a good strategy.

A much better strategy is to constantly be positive in meetings and compliment people, saying things like, “That’s a really great idea!”, “I just wanted to double down on that point…”, “I completely agree!” or “Let me just build on that…”, because that gives people the impression that you’re contributing to the meeting without actually contributing anything.

There is a risk, though, that at some point an action will start to come your way. You need to spot that and head it off quite quickly. You do that by saying things like, “We’re just so busy right now,” or “My team just don’t have the bandwidth,” or even a kind of inferred threat where you say, “We’d have to deprioritize some of our strategically aligned work.” That usually stops them.

You might think that leaders of these meetings would get very frustrated with everybody avoiding taking actions, but they don’t, generally, because that’s how they got where they are, by being very good at giving the impression that they’re doing something whilst at the same time not actually doing anything whatsoever. And I know you’ve got this lingering suspicion: in that case, how does any work actually get done? Well, good question.

The answer is, you give it to somebody else to do. If you have budget, you lodge that with a third party, a vendor, who can actually do the doing, and then you take the credit for the doing. But if you don’t have budget, then you just kind of moan incessantly about not having sufficient budget. “My team doesn’t have enough budget.” “We just don’t have the budget to get anything done this year.” That ensures that you can continue attending meetings where you avoid taking any actions but nevertheless give the impression that you’re actually doing work.

Is this attainable given top line decline rates are 9%

MW is promising something like 12% production increases per year to account for production declines and well failures.

Is this doable or will more companies need to be purchased?
Possibly a Permian Pure Play, and a multinational large independent

Verizon to focus on Verizon brands

Total drag on Verizon! Two V’s don’t make a W!

If AI is supposed to replace mundane, everyday tasks then why wouldn’t we reduce GP headcount further? Some of these GPs do not add any strategic value, they seldom make critical decisions and don’t have the competency to lead the people through 2030. We can cut further cost to fund the 2030 ambition and still attain sound input through AI.

Rumors are leaking out that once again McKinsey is bilking IBM for some serious cash and IBM seems to be going down the path of this McKinsey Three Horizons of Growth nonsense to grow sales and cut costs I guess. Inquiring minds would like to know how many tens of millions IBM has paid McKinsey going back to Gerstner where he was a director there for 13 years 1965-1978. Lets guess since Gerstner came in 1993 IBM has shelled out $3M/year to McKinsey. 32 years x $3M (likely more) is a cool $96,000,000. For what?

1 of a thousand failed examples here...IBM's Personal Computer division reached $4 billion in revenue by 1984, which was more than twice that of Apple at the time. The company continued to be a major player in the global PC market in the following years.
But by 2004, when IBM sold its PC business to Lenovo for $1.75B, annual sales for the division were approximately $10 billion. The company faced increasing competition from "clone" manufacturers throughout the late 1980s and 1990s, which eroded its market dominance and profit margins.

IBM completely F'd up it's wonderful PC business by not properly protecting the HW IP from Intel and the SW IP from MSFT. Combine that with IBM F'ing up MCA micro channel architecture, Token Ring, SNA and OS/2 and that is tens of billions of dollars lost to ineptness.

TODAY: Lenovo turned a $1.75B investment into $57,000,000,000 and IBM approx $62,000,000,000. An unknown Chinese firm in 2005 now rivals IBM for annual sales?! Could IBM use $60B of revenue for the next forever?!

IBM's latest Hail Mary here with McKinsey => https://flevy.com/topic/mckinsey-three-horizons-of-growth/case-growth-strategy-redesign-professional-services-competitive-market?srsltid=AfmBOoqmaY7ObrlfwqN8tDc9rAtBsbhQri_INrMLx8-zVOaRvYhjsN-9

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mohamedamer_retailstrategy-organizationaltransformation-activity-7392217719959396353-hAdx?utm_medium=ios_app&rcm=ACoAAAgtY3sBYDFnclM5iLdHkOCfHOYJbmAQVAQ&utm_source=social_share_send&utm_campaign=copy_link

Is Alvind purposely trying to pork up the balance sheet so much , he wants more obligations ?

I was told the company needs to be leaner and they need to bring down costs but what the he11 are these acquisitions for ?

Just good press? Bragging rights ?

Make it make sense

https://investors.solventum.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/135/solventum-reports-third-quarter-2025-financial-results

Reeks of Inge's $500M/year claimed savings which never manifested. SAP started circulation at 3M in something like 2010, with the fever dream reaching maximum levels in perhaps 2014-2018. They had mandatory "Here, you matter" meetings and plastered the walls of the Quad with SAP propaganda (graphics of people holding a red ball and "You play a part" or whatever nonsense).

https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/3/NYSE_MMM_2016.pdf

My gut is that Transform for the Future is attempting to juice the stock based on returns that will never manifest. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a rebrand of 3M's SAP promises, as the whole "Transform for the Future" verbiage is so vague. What are they spending $500M on, and where will the $500M/year come from? Could they really mean "We're going to spend $500M to complete 3M's partial SAP roll-out" and re-promising the same savings as 3M did in 2015?

I noted that "innovation" is put last, while redundant terms (cost structure and operational efficiency) are up front. Only savings are cited, not increased sales or new products (who are our "customers," again?). Doesn't inspire confidence that we'll be, you know, actually improving patients' lives. Feels like monkeying with financial levers to "create value" (C-suite money bags) where there is none.

Curious what others think.

“Once hyped as a ‘smartphone that can tow,’ production of the money-losing EV pickup may be shut down for good.”

May be shut down…should have never been produced.

So CIBC analyst asked around the pace:
"How should we kind of think about the cadence of divestitures over the next several quarters here as you look to divest 15%-20% of the overall revenue? Yeah, that's a great question. We've been grappling with that and talking to Steve about the right way to do it. Clearly, there are multiple business units here that are non-core. I think what you'll see is we'll establish a pace of doing one per quarter because it does take a lot of effort."...." I think you will see us generally be done within the next year. "

So sounds like 4-5 major sell offs of units...trying to read the tea leaves, who are the top 4-5 targets? Guessing anything non "Content" is fair game but could be individual products under Business Network ITOM, Cyber (Ent), Cyber (SMB/Consumer), ADM and Analytics. Who has the best guess here?

This business, just spun out, was responsible for just 10% of HON revenues, but the market prices it’s stock at 25% of the remaining Honeywell. How did VK and SV let go of this profitable segment? Could they not see the potential?

Is the long-promised turnaround coming? Is there any reason to believe (and stay)?

• Tripadvisor announced layoffs affecting about 20% of its workforce across the core Tripadvisor brand, Viator, and administrative teams.
• CEO Matt Goldberg said the restructuring aims to prioritize “experiences and AI-enabled discovery, planning and booking.”
• The core Tripadvisor brand, though still profitable, has been shrinking and took the largest share of the job cuts.
• Skift reported that the layoffs were confirmed after internal communications detailed a broader operational merger plan.
• The move reflects Tripadvisor’s strategy shift to adapt to AI-driven tools and a changing online travel landscape.
  Source:

  https://skift.com/2025/11/05/layoffs-hit-20-of-tripadvisor-viator-and-administrative-staff-scoop/

Lessons learned?

Can't wait for another effective strategy loaded with buzz words thats been kept secret till now. CDW-G is still struggling from the last go to market idea.

When will TRP outsource retail account servicing like they did for their workplace retirement and 529 businesses? Seems like they could be more profitable as a pure asset manager with less overhead.

Is it true the that Verizon wants to RIF most employees in non-directional locations in late 2026 and 2027 as part of the broader strategy to go lean?

Now that we have three main directional locations, Dan wants to accelerate the plan to shutdown real estate in non-directional locations (cost reduction), make 5 days in office and then start removing the employees in non directional locations. Of course some key ones would be asked to relocate.

This is probably not the case for the RIF this month but coming in 2026!

What is the plan for indirect? VZ could do like AT&T and T-Mobile and just chop the position completely.

2026 CDGP - Continuous Delay of Growth and Prosperity 😊

Roger Entner, Recon Analytics
Roger Entner of Recon Analytics discusses Verizon's new CEO, Dan Schulman, in the podcast "The Week with Roger". In the episode "Change is Afoot- All About Verizon's New CEO Dan Schulman," Entner and co-analyst Don Kellogg analyze the appointment, predicting Schulman will initiate significant changes to improve customer experience and financial health after Verizon's recent struggles.
Mandate for Change: Entner explains Schulman, a seasoned consumer disruptor, has a two-year mandate to overhaul Verizon's strategy, including re-evaluating profitability targets and making "painful cuts" to right the company's course.
Strategic Shift: Schulman is expected to shift the focus from solely financial metrics to customer metrics as well, after the previous strategy of extracting more money from fewer customers proved unsustainable.
Leadership Experience: His experience as the founding CEO of Virgin Mobile USA and transforming PayPal is seen as valuable for this "rescue mission" at Verizon, although the telecom market is more mature than the expanding digital payments market Schulman previously worked in.
Future Outlook: The analysts anticipate a more competitive Verizon that prioritizes customer experience and value, following a period of subscriber losses.
The Week with Roger | Podcast on Spotify
All Episodes. This Week: Change is Afoot- All About Verizon's New CEO Dan Schulman. The Week with Roger
https://the-week-with-roger.captivate.fm
Change is Afoot- All About Verizon's New CEO Dan Schulman
AnalystsDon Kellogg and Roger Entner discuss Verizon's appointment of Dan Schulmanas its new CEO, exploring what his leadership could mean for Verizon.

Stock market didn’t like today’s earnings, despite record upstream performance.

Because a move to Edmonton, and its crazy write offs, which makes no business sense.

Could have easily right sized the corp and stayed in Calgary.

You can’t raise fees forever, and you can’t keep cutting people indefinitely. At some point you either build a sound business, or everything eventually falls apart.

The right one to lead the bank out of this self-inflicted downward spiral. How many word fumbles and nervous gestures are allowed? Who is the backup? When will the bank be sold? For the good of the membership, just like the Investment Management Co. All valid questions.

Judging by the market reaction to David Ellison's layoffs, his plan for Paramount alongside his lack of CEO experience, poor, risky decision making in the past and letting one of the best content creators walk into Universals arms, I think he has two years at best before he either sells up or he is ousted.

Also depends on Trumps dictatorship bid in a few years.

What does today’s earnings call mean?

In a research note, MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett said Schulman "described a shift towards being a customer-centric company, with the 'best value proposition' in the market. There is a clear focus on subscriber metrics. He called it a 'full reboot.' The obvious question is… how? Verizon is no longer perceived to have the best network. And it is perceived to have the highest prices. His promise to reverse subscriber losses without relying on promotions and price strikes us as more of a wish than a strategy."