Like many of you, I have to choose White vs Blue. I've read with interest some of the analyses comparing the merits of being laid of by SM vs HT. However, I think that the decision is more fundamental. If we, the shareholders, don't fix QC, it will fail. And failure comes fast in this industry. Remember Nokia and Blackberry. This is a capital intensive business. Once the tail spin starts, it is hard to pull out.
QC is a business which has been languishing for years. You could have sold stock in 2012 for more than today, and that is with the stock buoyed by the Broadcom offer. The executives, in the meantime, have been lining their pockets. Since 2012, SM alone has been awarded hundreds of millions. For what? Where is the linkage to performance? Has he no shame?
SM has had plenty of time to right this ship. Now, at the eleventh hour, he makes wild promises to massively cut costs and lift earnings. Why does he think this is credible? And if we happen to believe these promises, what in his past conduct suggests he will be able to sustain higher performance?
If QC enters a death spiral, everyone will ultimately lose their job. The executives appear to comfortable to continue remunerating themselves handsomely all the way down. And the board appears comfortable to watch them do it.
This is the promise of a white vote.
A blue vote will surely lead to layoffs. But it also promises better leadership. BC has a track record of no b---s--- and making money. It has a track record of successful acquisitions. It is not mired in endless legal action from its own customers.
Those of you who remember the old QC remember the amazing things our engineers could build when unencumbered by endless layers of corporate b---s---. Voting blue just might free up engineers to innovate again.
Ultimately, make up your own mind. But I'm leaning to blue because anything beats circling the drain.