- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Thought experiment.
You are a shareholder. You have a choice between two CEOs.
The first is an avowed boor. He is brash, nasty, and unlikeable. He offends people left and right. But, he’s an absolute winner as a CEO. He delivers earnings growth quarter after quarter.
The second is a polished, consummate professional. He says all the right things, schmoozes all the right people, and cuts a profile that anybody would be proud to be near. He struggles to lead the company and performance is uneven, to the degree that it threatens the company’s future.
Which do you choose to lead your company?
How is this different in politics? Do you choose the “looks good” CEO any more frequently when it comes to elected office? If so, why? Is it because an inspiring profile can motivate the populace more than a degenerate who delivers?
Biden has all the hallmarks of the “safe choice” who can’t lead. This isn’t a surprise but it isn’t at all clear to me that we have upgraded over the other guy. We have fewer tweets to get the vapors over, but–even counting 2020–the prior admin was more thematically consistent and predictable. It’s looking like a very rough, untethered ride for us coming up.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
-
I voted with my vote:).
We think too much like VCs or hedge fund guys or even buy out types. So our answers are obvious. I am not sure teachers, social workers, lawyers etc… see things that way.
I make the same exact analogy. Have a guy I don’t necessarily like at the helm, but who delivers every quarter v/s the nice guy/ willing shmuck who screws it up everywhere. What choice do I have as a fiduciary. I go with Orange.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.