"Six-point tactical initiative

[...]

#6 Continue to enhance shareholder's wealth, creating a secure 
environment for the Company's most valued asset, our people."

Who WRITES this gibberish?!

Besides, last time I checked, there is no way to control a company's 
share price. [Otherwise somebody somewhere would be very rich!] The 
share price rises and falls essentially at random, vaguely influenced by 
the percieved performance of the company, which is very loosely 
correlated with the *actual* performance of the company. Sure, 
theoretically you can improve the company's performance. But you cannot 
do anything to the share price...

[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.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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

> [...]
>
> #6 Continue to enhance shareholder's wealth, creating a secure  
> environment for the Company's most valued asset, our people."
>
> Who WRITES this gibberish?!

Who checks it for grammar? Ah well this sort of junk always makes it into  
lists though what the hell it's got to do with tactical iniative beats me.  
"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 every  
other company on the globe, but that just goes to prove how damn important  
it is. Now are you with me?"

> Besides, last time I checked, there is no way to control a company's  
> share price. [Otherwise somebody somewhere would be very rich!] The  
> share price rises and falls essentially at random, vaguely influenced by  
> the percieved performance of the company, which is very loosely  
> correlated with the *actual* performance of the company. 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?

> [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.

-- 
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

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> "Six-point tactical initiative
>
> [...]
>
> #6 Continue to enhance shareholder's wealth, creating a secure
> environment for the Company's most valued asset, our people."
>
> Who WRITES this gibberish?!

Didn't you know?... The process has been automated:
http://www.mwls.co.uk/jargon.htm

Optimal Felicitous Valediction,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

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 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!]]]

>> 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...

>> [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.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:

>> Who WRITES this gibberish?!
> 
> Didn't you know?... The process has been automated:
> http://www.mwls.co.uk/jargon.htm

This is another case of "ha ha only serious", isn't it?

Seriously. This looks EXACTLY like most of the stuff that comes out of 
HQ! o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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

>> 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.
> 
> 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.

Indeed...

> On that note does is say "shareholder's wealth" or "shareholders' 
> wealth" as the former would indicate that there was only shareholder.

Yeah, but not a lot of people know that. I mean, heck, we're talking 
about people who can't pronounce "aluminium" correctly. ;-)

>> 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.

One person? Perhaps. A large corporation? Well, you can say "new 
management" and stuff. Unlike people, companies can change. (Although 
it's still fairly rare.)

>> 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.

Wow. That's advanced. I can't even tell if you're serious of not. LOL!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:22:19 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>>> 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.
>>  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.
>
> Indeed...

Weel: 1) Term given to the standard five-day work week
       2) Regional variation of well "Weel I'd give it a few more minutes  
if I were you"
       3) Mis-spelling of the word week caused by drowsiness

>> On that note does is say "shareholder's wealth" or "shareholders'  
>> wealth" as the former would indicate that there was only shareholder.
>
> Yeah, but not a lot of people know that. I mean, heck, we're talking  
> about people who can't pronounce "aluminium" correctly. ;-)

Yeah, but it would be good for a giggle wouldn't it, just 'correct' it as  
"Continue to enhance the wealth of our shareholder" and see if anyone  
notices.

>>> 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.
>
> One person? Perhaps. A large corporation? Well, you can say "new  
> management" and stuff. Unlike people, companies can change. (Although  
> it's still fairly rare.)

What I meant was in poker if everyone folds then your cards remain hidden,  
if you've announced you're looking forward to a big profit and you don't  
get one that's difficult (but not impossible) to hide.

>>> 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.
>
> Wow. That's advanced. I can't even tell if you're serious of not. LOL!

Heh to summarise they're cases where people thought they could make quick  
and easy money with little or no risk. Like 99% of such cases they were  
wrong. It's the 1% that makes the money and keeps people trying... either  
that or having a huge wad invested in a diverse portfolio whereby the  
overall long-term trend up-wards cancels out any short-term losses. Or  
having the initials GWB and illegally selling all your shares just before  
the announcements of how much money your company has lost is reported.  
(I'd like to point out for the record that the SEC investigated that  
instance and the man in charge of the investigation, who was a really good  
friend of the defendent's father, didn't think there was a case worth  
pursuing)

-- 
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

Phil Cook wrote:

>>> On that note does is say "shareholder's wealth" or "shareholders' 
>>> wealth" as the former would indicate that there was only shareholder.
>>
>> Yeah, but not a lot of people know that. I mean, heck, we're talking 
>> about people who can't pronounce "aluminium" correctly. ;-)
> 
> Yeah, but it would be good for a giggle wouldn't it, just 'correct' it 
> as "Continue to enhance the wealth of our shareholder" and see if anyone 
> notices.

I guarantee nobody will notice. ;-)

[98% certainty.]

>> One person? Perhaps. A large corporation? Well, you can say "new 
>> management" and stuff. Unlike people, companies can change. (Although 
>> it's still fairly rare.)
> 
> What I meant was in poker if everyone folds then your cards remain 
> hidden, if you've announced you're looking forward to a big profit and 
> you don't get one that's difficult (but not impossible) to hide.

Ah yes, but then you say "ah, we _would_ have made a profit but we 
forgot about X; this time we really WILL make a killing!" It works for a 
while...

>>>  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.
>>
>> Wow. That's advanced. I can't even tell if you're serious of not. LOL!
> 
> Heh to summarise they're cases where people thought they could make 
> quick and easy money with little or no risk. Like 99% of such cases they 
> were wrong. It's the 1% that makes the money and keeps people trying... 
> either that or having a huge wad invested in a diverse portfolio whereby 
> the overall long-term trend up-wards cancels out any short-term losses. 
> Or having the initials GWB and illegally selling all your shares just 
> before the announcements of how much money your company has lost is 
> reported. (I'd like to point out for the record that the SEC 
> investigated that instance and the man in charge of the investigation, 
> who was a really good friend of the defendent's father, didn't think 
> there was a case worth pursuing)

Riiiight. Erm, what were we talking about in the first place now? I 
forget? heh.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

I forget if it was in this group or elsewhere that someone said if it 
doesn't have a quantifiable measurement, it's marketing gibberish. I'm apt 
to extend that to if you can't express it in SI units it is marketting 
gibberish.

Post a reply to this message