Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Target chooses long-term customers over short-term investors. It's a bold strategy, Cotton; let's see if it pays off for 'em   ( cnbc.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Target, Target Corporation, Target shares, Hypermarket, Big-box store, Minneapolis-based Target, Retailing, Department store  
•       •       •

1520 clicks; posted to Business » on 09 Sep 2017 at 5:55 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



16 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-09-09 04:59:38 AM  
Most MBAs would shiat their pants in fear at a strategy like this.
 
2017-09-09 07:00:56 AM  
I was told that the gay bathroom issue would cause Target to head towards bankruptcy.
 
2017-09-09 07:49:29 AM  
Target chose long term profitability over becoming K-Mart, Subby.
 
2017-09-09 08:36:06 AM  
Shareholders are the blood-suckers of any business.
 
2017-09-09 09:16:21 AM  
"We want our guests to feel a sense of satisfaction every time they shop at Target," Mark Tritton, Target's chief merchandising officer, said in a statement

If that's the case, why did you wait until AFTER a competitor did something and not when your "guests" made the request originally, unless this has nothing to do with your guests but is just a marketing ploy.

I wish businesses would just be upfront with why they are doing things instead of lying.

"Come to Target we want to keep your business now that Amazon is in the game cutting prices everywhere and we want you to see that we are willing to compete for your business.  *disclaimer we don't care about you or your feelings and wishes about prices just your business when there's a real threat to you leaving in large numbers*
 
2017-09-09 09:26:14 AM  

RoLleRKoaSTeR: Shareholders are the blood-suckers of any business.


They are the legal owners. The shareholders select those who control a company's direction. If a company is being run in a way that causes long-term damage, it has an impact on the shareholders (in the form of stock price).

If you want to work for a company where you and the shareholders are aligned with priorities and goals, then start or purchase your own business. You can then be the a$$h0le bloodsucker who only cares about things like returns and growth and efficiency.
 
2017-09-09 01:04:29 PM  
Whatever Target is doing they need to keep doing it.   I never flinch at the thought of going into Target when I need toothpaste, sunscreen, a PS4 controller or something else I need right now and not when Amazon can get here.

With Walmart it has to be a very pressing need in an area where there are no other options.   And when it comes to K-Mart nothing has been that important in at least 20 years.
 
2017-09-09 01:11:44 PM  

roostercube: RoLleRKoaSTeR: Shareholders are the blood-suckers of any business.

They are the legal owners. The shareholders select those who control a company's direction. If a company is being run in a way that causes long-term damage, it has an impact on the shareholders (in the form of stock price).


Except this is bullshiat and you know it.
A few people/shareholders have enough votes to make a difference. They also happen to be the ones for whom the risk as a percent of their total wealth is minimal compared to those whose votes are insignificant.
They can set their own strategy and suddenly become NOT an owner any time they choose.
It's like saying I own a drilling rig in the gulf of mexico, so if I fark up the gulf of mexico it's really bad for me.
Except I can just take a relatively miniscule fine, and move away the next day. Meanwhile the fisherman is farked forever.
 
2017-09-09 01:41:24 PM  

quo vadimus: roostercube: RoLleRKoaSTeR: Shareholders are the blood-suckers of any business.

They are the legal owners. The shareholders select those who control a company's direction. If a company is being run in a way that causes long-term damage, it has an impact on the shareholders (in the form of stock price).

Except this is bullshiat and you know it.
A few people/shareholders have enough votes to make a difference. They also happen to be the ones for whom the risk as a percent of their total wealth is minimal compared to those whose votes are insignificant.
They can set their own strategy and suddenly become NOT an owner any time they choose.
It's like saying I own a drilling rig in the gulf of mexico, so if I fark up the gulf of mexico it's really bad for me.
Except I can just take a relatively miniscule fine, and move away the next day. Meanwhile the fisherman is farked forever.


 What?

The shareholders with the most at risk in a company are those who own the greatest number of shares in that company. That's.... *literally*.... all you can state. A wealthy shareholder might have most (or all) wealth positioned within that single company. Take the Walton family: I'm sure they diversify a bit, but their wealth is very much tied to the success or failure of Wal-Mart. So, "They also happen to be the ones for whom the risk as a percent of their total wealth is minimal compared to those whose votes are insignificant." is flatly wrong. If you want to point out that large financial firms own a lot of businesses and steer them towards immediate profits at the expense of long-term success, well, that's not a new problem and it's simply part of the system. Invest your money knowing that's the case.

But to your bigger point: a shareholder (or group) with controlling interest can absolutely drive a company into insolvency. It happens all the time, and it's not necessarily illegal or immoral. But it's not a "free cash!" situation. If these shareholders ruin a company, the stock price will drop considerably. Few people want to pay top dollar for a worthless, or poorly-performing company (these people are idiots or are naive). If you get caught as a shareholder when these decisions start to be made, sell. If you see a company doing these things, don't buy their shares unless you get them cheap and you can turn things around. If you are employed in such a business, push for higher pay and be ready to seek new employment when the company 'realigns'.
 
2017-09-09 02:27:44 PM  
I think his argument was that shareholders can sell their stock at any time, and so (assuming they can get out in time) they're actually at very little risk. They don't have to move to a new city or train for a new task.

Meanwhile, for the employees, getting out means finding a new job, and possibly uprooting their family and children to a new area.

From this perspective, the shareholder has "less to lose" than the employee.
 
2017-09-09 02:51:42 PM  

roostercube: quo vadimus: roostercube: RoLleRKoaSTeR: Shareholders are the blood-suckers of any business.

They are the legal owners. The shareholders select those who control a company's direction. If a company is being run in a way that causes long-term damage, it has an impact on the shareholders (in the form of stock price).

Except this is bullshiat and you know it.
A few people/shareholders have enough votes to make a difference. They also happen to be the ones for whom the risk as a percent of their total wealth is minimal compared to those whose votes are insignificant.
They can set their own strategy and suddenly become NOT an owner any time they choose.
It's like saying I own a drilling rig in the gulf of mexico, so if I fark up the gulf of mexico it's really bad for me.
Except I can just take a relatively miniscule fine, and move away the next day. Meanwhile the fisherman is farked forever.

 What?

The shareholders with the most at risk in a company are those who own the greatest number of shares in that company. That's.... *literally*.... all you can state. A wealthy shareholder might have most (or all) wealth positioned within that single company. Take the Walton family: I'm sure they diversify a bit, but their wealth is very much tied to the success or failure of Wal-Mart. So, "They also happen to be the ones for whom the risk as a percent of their total wealth is minimal compared to those whose votes are insignificant." is flatly wrong. If you want to point out that large financial firms own a lot of businesses and steer them towards immediate profits at the expense of long-term success, well, that's not a new problem and it's simply part of the system. Invest your money knowing that's the case.


reading comprehension.

although your following, immediate willingness to semi-concede my point and then say "plan for it" tells me comprehension isn't the real problem.
 
2017-09-09 03:41:26 PM  

roostercube: RoLleRKoaSTeR: Shareholders are the blood-suckers of any business.

They are the legal owners. The shareholders select those who control a company's direction. If a company is being run in a way that causes long-term damage, it has an impact on the shareholders (in the form of stock price).

If you want to work for a company where you and the shareholders are aligned with priorities and goals, then start or purchase your own business. You can then be the a$$h0le bloodsucker who only cares about things like returns and growth and efficiency.


From what I've seen the short term and institutional holders are the bloodsuckers. Long term individual investors aren't looking for a pump and dump.
 
2017-09-09 03:54:38 PM  

quo vadimus: roostercube: quo vadimus: roostercube: RoLleRKoaSTeR: Shareholders are the blood-suckers of any business.

They are the legal owners. The shareholders select those who control a company's direction. If a company is being run in a way that causes long-term damage, it has an impact on the shareholders (in the form of stock price).

Except this is bullshiat and you know it.
A few people/shareholders have enough votes to make a difference. They also happen to be the ones for whom the risk as a percent of their total wealth is minimal compared to those whose votes are insignificant.
They can set their own strategy and suddenly become NOT an owner any time they choose.
It's like saying I own a drilling rig in the gulf of mexico, so if I fark up the gulf of mexico it's really bad for me.
Except I can just take a relatively miniscule fine, and move away the next day. Meanwhile the fisherman is farked forever.

 What?

The shareholders with the most at risk in a company are those who own the greatest number of shares in that company. That's.... *literally*.... all you can state. A wealthy shareholder might have most (or all) wealth positioned within that single company. Take the Walton family: I'm sure they diversify a bit, but their wealth is very much tied to the success or failure of Wal-Mart. So, "They also happen to be the ones for whom the risk as a percent of their total wealth is minimal compared to those whose votes are insignificant." is flatly wrong. If you want to point out that large financial firms own a lot of businesses and steer them towards immediate profits at the expense of long-term success, well, that's not a new problem and it's simply part of the system. Invest your money knowing that's the case.

reading comprehension.

although your following, immediate willingness to semi-concede my point and then say "plan for it" tells me comprehension isn't the real problem.


Yeah. You can highlight, but it doesn't change the fact that you don't know how much an individual shareholder has invested in a business, as a percentage of their total wealth. Remember Enron? Employees got screwed because they invested heavily in the company they worked for. You're aware of Berkshire Hathaway, where Buffett has a large portion of his total wealth in that company? In both cases, shareholders are exposed to the higher risk related to that one company's leadership. Shareholders, collectively, control that leadership.
 
2017-09-09 04:05:30 PM  

Riph: I think his argument was that shareholders can sell their stock at any time, and so (assuming they can get out in time) they're actually at very little risk. They don't have to move to a new city or train for a new task.

Meanwhile, for the employees, getting out means finding a new job, and possibly uprooting their family and children to a new area.

From this perspective, the shareholder has "less to lose" than the employee.


I get that, but an investor who loses in their investment does take a hit. It's not just the rich people, and timing the sales to sell before bad things happen sounds easier than it practically is. Many people have 401(k) plans or IRAs. These are working people. Some have too much in a single company. Not all are aware of their risks.

When you're an employee, you're always at risk of stupid leadership. Even when the company performs well, your boss might be terrible, and you could still find yourself without a job. And, I personally believe, that a company which is profitable and makes intentional decisions to trim (even making mistakes sometimes) will be around longer. That's good for the (remaining) employees over the long term.
 
2017-09-09 06:44:34 PM  
I think the issue is not who has the biggest risk or who owns the company, per se. There is a bigger question here. Is the current business goal, increasing shareholder value, and the current techniques of doing that, ultimately destructive to the business (and all the stakeholders) in the long term?

You see many business do certain things, such as share buybacks, reduction of labor, reduction of costs, iffy financing to increase the share price and so forth. Do these types of business maneuvers lead to a less healthy, less profitable, and less valuable business in the long term? Is there a focus on the short-term shareholders interests that ultimately supersede the interest of the rest of stakeholders? And is that bad for the economy overall?

I think these are the questions people should (and are) asking about our current business environment. I think they are very valid questions.
 
2017-09-10 03:25:32 AM  

roostercube: RoLleRKoaSTeR: Shareholders are the blood-suckers of any business.

They are the legal owners. The shareholders select those who control a company's direction. If a company is being run in a way that causes long-term damage, it has an impact on the shareholders (in the form of stock price).

If you want to work for a company where you and the shareholders are aligned with priorities and goals, then start or purchase your own business. You can then be the a$$h0le bloodsucker who only cares about things like returns and growth and efficiency.


That's nice. Hopefully everyone can ascend to the bloodsucker class where financial stability in the home is a 3rd or even 4th worry, if one at all.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report