And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:06:44 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:07:31 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> "Six-point tactical initiative
>>  Okay no really just stop right there
>
> ;-)
>
>> "Okay folks listen up. We're going to take the tactical initiative by  
>> continuing to enhance our shareholder's wealth. Now I know that's been  
>> the policy of this company since it's inception and is the policy of

"its inception" see I can't even get my own grammar right.

>> every other company on the globe, but that just goes to prove how damn  
>> important it is. Now are you with me?"
>
> I especially like how I get this same email every 7 days, and it's  
> written in 24-point Impact in bright orange at the top of the email.
>
> [I like even more the fact that it *was* a 4-point initiative, and every  
> few months it gets a few points longer.]
>
> [[Even better still, many of the "points" are actually multiple points.]]
>
> [[[OMG, nested recursion!]]]

It's sent every weel to remind you of these key points. To my mind no  
important list should ever go beyond three points because by the time you  
get to number 5 everyone's forgotten the first one. If you have to keep  
either a piece of paper with the list or remind everyone about them once a  
week then they can't exactly be important and or relevant to what the  
workforce are actually doing.

"Shall I have coffee or tea? Hmm which one will help to enhance our  
shareholders' wealth."

On that note does is say "shareholder's wealth" or "shareholders' wealth"  
as the former would indicate that there was only shareholder. If it is the  
former perhaps you could email back and enquire who that person was so you  
can liase with them directly.

>>> Besides, last time I checked, there is no way to control a company's  
>>> share price. Sure, theoretically you can improve the company's  
>>> performance. But you cannot do anything to the share price...
>>  "Company X speculates on take-over of Company Y"
>> "Company X says new equipment will lead to a four-fold increase in  
>> productivity"
>>  What you think all those puff-pieces on the news/media sections of  
>> company websites were just for show?
>
> Indeed. It's a game of poker. You try to make everybody *think* you've  
> got a royal flush in your hand, and hope they increase your share price.  
> If you're good at bluffing, they believe you. If you're not, they don't.  
> And, if you're unlucky, maybe you really *do* have a royal flush, they  
> don't believe you anyway, and your share price *still* sucks...

Except at some point you really do need to be holding a royal flush on  
occasion or no-one will believe anything you say.

>>> [E.g., if Micro$oft were suddenly facing financial ruin, their share  
>>> price would still be astronomically high, becuase it's "impossible"  
>>> for them to fail.]
>>  Unless any of the major stock-holders started divesting themselves of  
>> large amounts of stock in a hurry.
>
> I meant that the general public "believe" that Micro$oft cannot possibly  
> fail. Obviously *all* companies *can*, in fact, fail. It's just that not  
> all people seem to comprehend this simple fact.

People are highly sensible when it comes to stocks, just ignore the South  
Sea Bubble, Wall Street Crash, Dot-com Bubble, Black Wednesday, and the  
current Sub-Prime Scandal and you won't see a single instance of  
laissez-faire capitialism being misused by them.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message