Why don’t we just replace the entire c-suite, then work our way down removing all the dead wood? That would make us so much more profitable and less chance of being an acquisition target. Is this something our shareholder could implement on his own or does he believe that there is no extra value to be gained from VMware?
17 replies (most recent on top)
No one really knows where it will go, not even the oracles at Gartner.
Gartner is the Jim Cramer of business prognostication.
The market has already priced VMware at $115 if the deal falls through. Do some research.
Then post your research here, professor!
No one really knows where it will go, not even the oracles at Gartner. Has anyone ever gone back and actually checked their claims after the fact?
The media loves catastrophe and over reacts all the time.
Diversify your holdings as best you can.
Stop the fear mongering. The market has already priced VMware at $115 if the deal falls through. Do some research. The market does not want this deal. Look at what the analysts put out this week like Gartner.
You want Broadcom if you care about your stock. The guaranteed $142.50 is a massive overvaluation of an irrelevant company.
If the deal fails, brace for $50-60 shares then VC to finish the job Hock couldn’t due to government regulations.
If you have shares waiting for the payday, just cash them now.
Broadcom needs us, otherwise they can’t continue to grow by acquisition. The 44% stock price premium shows their level of desperation.
Think about that for a moment - 44%
It is also the best indicator of how bloated VMware has become.
"Heck, it wouldn't even need that much turn around - just cut all the nonsense out,
close underutilized real estate, shut down all the science projects that don't yield
revenue, and actually hold people accountable to deliver. Easy, right?"
Great ideas, but how do you hold them accountable?
Who is going to set the goals?
This is really where the BOD should be present to set measurable goals and have a third party do assessments.
"Heck, it wouldn't even need that much turn around - just cut all the nonsense out, close underutilized real estate, shut down all the science projects that don't yield revenue, and actually hold people accountable to deliver. Easy, right?"
Yep, Broadcom isn't flashy but they get the basic business decisions right - you might not like it personally and may challenge you etc but they are clear with their strategy and are there to run a business not make populous decisions for people to feel warm and confortable in jobs for life.
"...this entire place operates like a corrupt nonprofit." <---My observation exactly.
Companies can only be turned around by owners, hence why the LBO model works so well: only aggressive owners who are motivated to pay off the debt they raised to buy the company can pull off the magic trick of a massive turnaround.
MD is not a manager or a leader - he's a financial engineer.
Heck, it wouldn't even need that much turn around - just cut all the nonsense out, close underutilized real estate, shut down all the science projects that don't yield revenue, and actually hold people accountable to deliver. Easy, right?
Seems like that is way too difficult to achieve, no matter how much you pay the c-suite.
@ xcn+1mxjhiB8
Spot On!
It's the wrong question to ask. The world doesn't work that way.
VMware shareholders (and the board they elect) are 100% focused on what's best for the shareholders. Not customers, not employees, not the "the company". If any company wants to be immune from takeovers, they should not go public and control any transfer of shares carefully. Very few companies can do that, though.
So, again. D-mb question (sorry!). Selling VMW at $140 or thereabouts is the best and fastest way for shareholders to get that kind of money. Broadcom (or any other entity acquiring VMW whole or in part) believe that the transaction will yield more shareholder value (not revenues, employees, profits per se, or ESG/DEI scores) in a reasonably amount of time with a reasonable amount of risk. That's it. Plain and simple. If this deal falls through, shareholders will shop for other suitors because that again is considered faster and easier compared to installing real leadership who are willing to work hard and turn the company around. Heck, it wouldn't even need that much turn around - just cut all the nonsense out, close underutilized real estate, shut down all the science projects that don't yield revenue, and actually hold people accountable to deliver. Easy, right?
More like why does BC need VMware? Because they are a company that creates profits by constantly buying up other companies, breaking them apart, selling off bits and pieces, keeping only the core profitable bits and then trapping customers into paying higher rates. That's really the extent of what they do. They are essentially like a locust swarm that needs a steady stream of companies to do as mentioned above constantly. And that is exactly why the deal looks less and likely to go through. Because none of that above is very productive or beneficial to anyone other than their board and investors. Its a unsustainable business model. And that is why BC needs VMW more than VMW needs them.
Could VMware turn around itself? the simple answer is: No. Why? because if they wanted someone to drive the business, they would have put execs in place to do that. Our current CEO and our president? CFO? come on. No visionaries. No articulated vision for what VMware COULD BE with a plan to drive there. Just "We may some tech, and check out our DEI scores!"
Nope. You have place holders put there by the board and the investors to get out of this play.
The investors want their money back and their profit and out of VMW which they see is trending down (value wise) and dont have the ability to fix it.
They are not going to try and find a turn around CEO with a tech vision (rare) to turn this place around. Then all the cuts, and awfulness are on that new team all while the investors wait several years. Then for a couple of years its rough and maybe the turn around works or maybe it doesn't. And after a couple of years of waiting and pain, and refocusing, etc, etc, that the stock price is not guaranteed at $142+ that is on the table right now.
If there was a will to turn this into a tight run ship, by the investors, it would have been done. If the current mgmt had the chops, they would have done it. They don't.
Broadcom has a unique history that SHOWS they do the tough stuff and big cuts, etc. Thus why they could pay a premium for a soft as icecream company that could be hardened up and turned back into a money maker.
Too much work. Too much exclusion of productivity in cultural equation. Just tooo much
Incompetent C level only concerned with themselves and how much money / bonuses they can acquire through Mikey as pillages - lunatics running the asylum. Middle management is an over paid group of clowns too 🤡 and this entire place operates like a corrupt nonprofit. I’d burn this dumpster fire to the ground then figure it out.
oh stop your wishing.