,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The key words are ... "investors are likely to punish it if it invests too much in the future" ... the investors will want capital returned (dividends, share buybacks from the past e.g. Walmart) whilst investing in future capital growth (e.g. Amazon) ... poor old Walmart ->
It's a pretty torrid time for staff when an executive team ends up driving a company down a path where the only option is to sweat existing assets and acquire equivalent assets for revenue replacement ...
... yes, you can use such a sweat and acquire play to buy you time but that does mean having an executive capable of finding a future path rather than just chowing down on stock options. I doubt Walmart has anywhere close to the strategic play it needs ...
... still, you can make a handsome living without it for a decade or two (plenty of time for senior execs to retire somewhere comfortable) by sweating and acquiring before you end up like Sears or whatever.
Of course, you could always lobby Gov to protect you i.e. break up Amazon. That sort of ignores how Amazon has become an engine for innovation in the wider society ... China won't return the favour with Alibaba. Hmmm, we should call this the "Let's hand the future to China" act.
X : How can EU create large tech giants like the US?
Me : Copy what the US and China did. Massive amounts of state funding (e.g. US radar valley -> silicon valley) mixed with some good gameplay (e.g. China use of economic zones, Gov acting as a super VC).
Me : Copy what the US and China did. Massive amounts of state funding (e.g. US radar valley -> silicon valley) mixed with some good gameplay (e.g. China use of economic zones, Gov acting as a super VC).
... however, your problem is that any such intention will become subverted by the EC (through lobbying) into funding the transformation of "past" giants i.e. keeping the existing power structures going. So, you won't end up creating many actual tech giants.
