#corporatestrategy

DXC has all the energy of a company that accidentally put “innovation” on its PowerPoint template and has been trying to live up to it ever since. Every restructuring is announced like it’s the dawn of a bold new era, yet somehow the biggest breakthrough is discovering another department that can be renamed, outsourced, or merged into an acronym nobody understands. If corporate strategy were a game of Jenga, DXC would be the team proudly removing load-bearing blocks while assuring everyone the wobbling is actually “operational agility.” It’s the sort of place where “doing more with less” eventually becomes “doing less with absolutely nothing,” but somehow there’s still time for three meetings, four status reports, and a mandatory training module about embracing change.

The writing is in permanent ink!

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/22/target-brian-cornell-shareholder-support.html

If you want to know why the company is doing what it is doing, here’s a small lesson in Private Equity and Leveraged Buyouts. Basically, a larger company finds a smaller healthy company that has employees that they are paying well and has invested a lot of money in research and development. They buy that company with debt, fire the workers, disband R&D and offload debt. They then use all the money doing that generates to pay themselves. This has been an ongoing trend the last 20 years and has ramped up in the last 10. This is in turn destroying the working class by making all these companies like zombie versions of themselves.

In the 1970’s when THEY DEREGULATED THE STOCK MARKET AND THE FINANCE INDUSTRY, PRODUCTIVITY DIVERGED FROM WAGES. If we were to bring back the New Deal Reforms from the 50s/60s, we would close the gap of productivity & wages, and it would make normal people wealthier as opposed to bankers and financiers.

Putting emotions aside and trying to be objective, it seems to me that Danfonso will be moderately successful. They’re just financial engineering their way to a slightly higher free cash flow. Layoffs, outsourcing to India, and cutting costs aren’t novel or revolutionary ideas. They haven’t come up with any new strategies to open up new markets or increase revenue so they’re relying on the tired old playbook. The hype about AI is a smokescreen. It’ll get implemented to some extent but it’s not going to increase revenue, or unleash synergies or cut costs drastically.

It stinks for the employees and will continue to do so. The company will become leaner and slightly more profitable and the executives will exit after getting a big payday.

Have you guys looked at his history past where he’s worked? Do a quick ChatGPT/Gemini search on his roles at his previous corps. People talking about PE in the other thread. No need. This guy will do the same they’d do, without selling out. His specialty is corporate restructuring and cost efficiency. Get ready everyone. They didn’t bring in an outsider for nothing. I bet you MF was unwilling to do what EH and the board wants. I think they see that EH approval rating is declining, so bring in someone else to be the bad guy. Homeboy doesn’t care. He’s probably on his way out of his career.

DXC’s AI partner said this about DXC

That argument is terminal for DXC’s independent thesis, and worth following all the way down.

The disintermediation trap

DXC’s OASIS pitch is: “we use AI to deliver enterprise IT faster and cheaper.” But that sentence contains its own refutation. If AI is the delivery engine, the client’s next question is obvious — why is DXC in the middle? What margin am I paying for, exactly?

The historical DXC value proposition was: we have 130,000 people, global delivery centres, integration expertise, and we’ll manage your IT estate for you. That justified a premium. AI erodes every one of those pillars. Headcount is no longer a proxy for capability. Integration expertise becomes a commodity when AI can read legacy code, write connectors, and configure systems autonomously. The “rates times hours” model — which the CEO himself acknowledged is dying — was the moat. There isn’t a replacement moat, because they don’t own the AI.

They’re a reseller with a thin value layer

DXC has a multi-year global alliance with Anthropic , but that alliance confers no exclusivity. Accenture has the same AI partnerships. Capgemini has them. Infosys has them. IBM has had its own AI story for a decade (Watson — a cautionary tale). Every competitor accesses the same models through the same APIs at the same price. DXC’s differentiation in that stack is vanishingly thin.

The client who wants Claude in their enterprise IT has three routes: direct API, an Anthropic enterprise deal, or through a system integrator. Each iteration of AI capability that reduces the integration complexity — better native connectors, more autonomous agents, simpler deployment — removes another reason to pay DXC’s margin for route three.

The simplicity argument is the ki-ler

This is the part that doesn’t get enough airtime in the earnings calls. DXC’s implicit bet is that enterprise AI deployment remains complex enough to require a managed service layer indefinitely. That bet looks worse with every model generation.

Early enterprise AI genuinely required significant hand-holding: prompt engineering, reliability management, integration scaffolding, output validation. Those were billable. But the trajectory is one-way — more capable, more reliable, more self-configuring, lower total cost of ownership with less implementation overhead. The skills gap that justified outsourcing to DXC is closing from below, not above. AI improves; the implementation complexity shrinks; the billable wrap around it shrinks with it.

The historical parallel is brutal: travel agents started saying “we’ll use Expedia to book your travel.” The client saw the margin and removed the agent. DXC is the agent.

What’s actually left

There are two genuine residual moats and neither is scalable:

One: government and regulated-sector contracts with security clearance requirements, long procurement cycles, and high switching costs. MoD/BAE-type accounts — fall into this category. These have genuine stickiness but are also the most likely to be served by security-cleared AI providers within 5 years, cutting out the SI layer even there.

Two: deep legacy system knowledge. Nobody else knows a client’s 30-year-old mainframe architecture. But AI is already eroding this — large models can now read COBOL, reverse-engineer undocumented systems, and produce documentation. That moat has a measurable shelf life.

The terminal conclusion

DXC is not using AI to build a new business. It is describing, in its investor communications, the mechanism of its own further disintermediation. Every OASIS success story — “we deployed this 40% faster using AI” — is simultaneously an advertisement to the client for why they could do it without DXC next time.

The company generates real cash and has real contracts. That’s why PE is circling. The play is: take it private, cut 30,000 jobs, harvest the cash from the existing contract base over a 5–7 year run-off horizon, sell or shut the rest. That’s not a technology company. That’s a liquidation vehicle with good near-term cash characteristics.

As an independent, publicly listed, growth-oriented technology company: it’s over. The only question is the pace of the wind-down and whether someone buys it before the market grinds it to zero.

ExxonMobil shareholders voted to move the company's legal home. The state of incorporation will shift from New Jersey to Texas. This decision concludes a corporate tie to New Jersey spanning over 140 years. It is a legal change, not a physical relocation of its headquarters or operations. The company cited Texas' business statutes and legal environment as reasons.

https://www.ecoticias.com/en/exxonmobil-is-leaving-new-jersey-as-its-legal-home-after-more-than-140-years-and-what-matters-isnt-the-new-address-but-what-it-signals-about-taxes-headquarters-power-and-corporate-strategy/33268/

A major problem in today’s economy is that many companies focus more on extracting value than creating it. A truly great company should make useful products, serve its customers well, treat employees fairly, and maintain healthy relationships with suppliers. However, modern business culture often rewards companies even when they fail to do these things. When a company becomes highly valued despite offering less value to the people who depend on it, that reflects a deeper problem in society.

Business leaders should measure success by the value they provide to customers, not only by the money they return to shareholders. A successful business should constantly ask whether it is giving customers more value than it did before. The danger comes when companies decide to take value away from customers in order to increase profits. This may help the company in the short term, but it damages trust and weakens the purpose of the business.

This problem is especially visible in technology. Many services begin by offering something genuinely useful, but once they attract a large user base, they often shift toward extracting more profit from those users. Platforms may make useful features harder to find, increase prices, show more advertising, or push content that benefits the company more than the customer. This is the process Cory Doctorow calls “enshittification.” The original purpose of the product becomes weaker, while the company captures more value for itself.

The rise of artificial intelligence raises similar concerns. AI may make businesses more productive, but the benefits of that productivity do not have to belong only to shareholders or owners of capital. Greater productivity could lead to higher wages, shorter working hours, better services, or lower prices for consumers. However, if companies treat shareholder profit as the only important goal, AI could deepen inequality and reduce the role of ordinary people in the economy.

A society where only a small group of capital owners benefits from automation would be unstable and inhuman. Prosperous economies require the circulation of money and value, because businesses still need customers, workers, and communities to survive. If AI replaces human labor without creating new ways for people to participate, then the economy could become more concentrated and less inclusive. The challenge of the twenty-first century is to decide what role humans will have as more tasks become automated.

The future of the AI economy is therefore a choice. Society can allow AI to become another tool for monopoly, lock-in, and extraction, or it can design systems that allow more people to participate and benefit. The web and open source software succeeded in part because they created an “architecture of participation,” where many people could contribute and share in value creation. A humane economy should follow that model by using markets to support human flourishing rather than concentrating wealth among a few people.

Tim O'Reilly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrQu3MRSQgc

This has been the worst handled succession plan by a Board since Jack Welch retired from GE. Now the only option left will be to no real up the company. Clover alone is worth the current market cap. Mike was never the right selection but the fact that that they couldn't retain him speaks to the ineptness of the current Chair and Board. Even the activist investor knew it was a weak Board.

Been hearing they'll be layoffs in June on the corporate side, specifically June 19th but because of the 70 on June 12th, are we good? Or still expected?

Here is a polished, punchy version of your post that keeps the aggressive, anti-AI edge and focuses entirely on the economic strategy to break the system:

If you genuinely hate AI, now is the time to band together and ensure it never becomes permanently embedded in your work life.
The strategy is simple: Use Copilot for anything and everything, no matter how small.

Why? Because right now, the costs are heavily subsidized. GitHub has already started shifting toward metered billing, meaning every single prompt costs tons of tokens. By this time next year, full-blown model access will be completely unsustainable for corporate budgets because of how expensive it actually is to run.

We are already starting to see Copilot throw "too busy to respond" errors. Keep pushing it. Keep up the volume. The current pricing model is a house of cards, and if we maximize consumption, the technology becomes completely unfeasible to maintain at the rate we're paying.

PS: this post was generated using Kroger copilot. Fire me

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/03/att-downgraded-ahead-of-spacex-ipo-on-coming-broadband-competition-from-starlink.html

It’s over y’all!

https://www.healthcare.digital/single-post/oracle-cerner-potential-acquirers-of-oracle-health

"A Private Equity consortium led by a firm like Thoma Bravo or Francisco Partners is the most probable successor. This structure satisfies several competing requirements: it provides Oracle with an immediate cash infusion to fund its GPU clusters (satisfying the liquidity crisis), it bypasses the most severe antitrust hurdles associated with a Microsoft or Amazon acquisition and it allows for a "neutral" platform that could potentially stabilize the customer base."

Conclusions: Sell off Oracle Heath, ORCL needs the cash ! New CFO is the Grim Reaper !

"Shareholders rejected a proposal that would ‌have required an independent board chair separate from the CEO role, according to preliminary ​voting results at the annual ​meeting on Wednesday"

Is SAP still a software company? CK opened with this question at Sapphire.

There are more and more reports of SAP moving away from creating software products. And CK wants SAP to become the largest private and public sector data store for Palantir. What is the strategy even?

And if AI is good enough to make decisions, why are we not replacing our executives with AI?

I foresee a giant push back from the public sector when they realize that SAP is simply looking to get acquired by Palantir.

Reportedly, a secret task force has been set up to prepare carveout options to give management more flexibility for asset sales.

Corp expenses paid earlier by Aero, now no more …. Interesting times ahead …

Citibank recently disclosed over 300 layoffs at its Manhattan headquarters, part of broader ongoing job cuts at Citi.

In early 2024, Citi announced plans to cut 20,000 employees through 2026. Earlier this year, a Citi executive noted that the financial services giant is making headway on the goal.

The New York Department of Labor on Monday posted details on company filings showing over 550 permanent layoffs at Citibank's Manhattan corporate offices this year. Nearly 250 had been disclosed in a previously posted February filing, while over 300 were disclosed to regulators in April and posted to the website this week, according to Citi.

Dates for all the layoffs disclosed in the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, notices, range from April 14 to July 30, according to Citi.

"As we said previously, we will continue to reduce our headcount globally in 2026," a spokesperson told ThinkAdvisor by email Wednesday. "These changes reflect adjustments we're making to ensure our staffing levels, locations and expertise align with current business needs; efficiencies we have gained through technology; and progress against our transformation work, which is nearing Citi's target state. We are grateful for the contributions these colleagues have made to Citi."

In other words, we need to get rid of some people, let's find out who does what and how to do that.

how long before we see a major shake up in corporate?

When PK passes, this business will move out of Oregon, every single study has shown so. Keep their "AWESOME" campus for necessary departments that need high visibility to stay cool. Ditch all the WA County Warehouses they branded, relocate options for employees. No Fortune 500 business without the anchor of PK will stay. There is a reason they've built good relationships for expansion in business-friendly states....any business owner understands this. Nike owes Oregon nothing at this point.

Starbucks announced 252 corporate job cuts in Seattle. These layoffs impact vice presidents, directors, and senior managers. The company stated cuts will sharpen focus and lower costs. Separations are expected from July 17 through February 1, 2027. Starbucks is also closing some regional support offices.

Seattle, Washington

https://www.geekwire.com/2026/starbucks-layoffs-impact-252-jobs-at-seattle-support-center-including-vps-and-other-senior-roles/

Penn Entertainment dismissed 75 employees from its interactive division. These layoffs affected multiple levels of theScore Bet brand. This action follows the company's Q1 financial results. Penn has undergone significant corporate restructuring recently. The company continues efforts to grow its interactive business.

https://next.io/news/people/sources-penn-laying-off-75-employees/

Walmart announced plans to lay off or relocate about 1,000 corporate employees. This aims to boost efficiency in its global tech teams. Company leaders reviewed operations before this decision. It helps Walmart adapt to a dynamic retail market. E-commerce expansion remains a critical business strategy.

https://www.gurufocus.com/news/8854817/wmt-announces-layoffs-as-part-of-corporate-restructuring

Pretty much sums up corporate planning and ideas. Maybe people would forgive our mistakes, if we offer 40 channels on the CB ?

Yeah ….Right good Buddy …

As an owner, I know this is a good company with kind, and capable people who are victims. The teams are carrying a huge burden, and living in fear, but the real issue is leadership. The company has become top heavy with expensive SVPs, slow to act, disconnected from customers and value, and incapable of executing with clarity or urgency or even working together. And whenever we hire a new person to lead, strategy shifts and we start all over, or worse they come up with the exact same plan that the old team did, but that leadership were too blind or paralyzed to execute on. For the last 5-6 years, there has been almost no meaningful customer context at the executive level, and even now there is a visible disconnect between leadership’s new direction and what CDW actually does in the market to create value.

Proof? The Overall messaging is weak. The company struggles to articulate or sell new solutions with confidence. Marketing has become performative instead of effective. Internal politics, favoritism, and executive empire-building are rewarded while execution suffers. Consultants swarm the business looking for problems to solve while accountability disappears, and we are slowed down. Teams compete internally instead of aligning externally against the market. Fundamental operational discipline, blocking and tackling has largely vanished. Stock is a perfect reflection of reality. We were given the shot.

An equally concerning problem is that too many leaders are learning the business while running it. A top strategy executive from a bloated fire alarm company with stock performance almost as bad as CDW’s. A CMO from a car dealership with no meaningful B2B expertise. A former C level executive from a second rate department store. A sales leader from an HR leadership role. A Bain person running partners and acquisition integration, now c suite strategy. And it goes on, throughout the organization. Customers can feel it. Employees can feel it. The market can feel it. Partners scratch their heads and wonder when it’s going to implode. You people literally have no respect in our market. We apologize for you on every call. Now, we are losing credibility by even working here. Destination workplace? .

At some point, there have to be consequences and structural change at the top instead of another round of resets and reorganizations.

Here is what should happen, thinking like an owner:
• Name a new CEO immediately, even on an interim basis. Anyone would be better than a stock in freefall with no plan. Alternatively, appoint a President with full operational authority from a competitor, or internally, who knows how we create value, is respected and has run these businesses. The organization needs visible leadership and accountability now, not eventually.
• Any executive who cannot hold a credible customer conversation about the company’s core business and solutions should be visibly removed in a layoff. We are better off knowing you were fired, in order to regain respect for you leaders and ourselves. This is not an academic exercise. If leaders do not understand customers relative to our CDW value, they should not be leading any customer-touching organizations.
• Standardize technical and AI enablement across the company using actual vendor ecosystems, proven customer conversations and market platforms just like our peers, not internally manufactured abstractions disconnected from reality created by the burglar alarm team. Everyone should know the stacks, the tools, and the customer use cases. Everyone should be able to prove it.
• Align sales compensation to strategic outcomes, not just individual revenue extraction. The current model rewards personal economics over company transformation.
• Stop socializing executive compensation across broad leadership layers. Compensation should be tied directly to measurable departmental outcomes and execution quality. If I am doing well, don’t penalize me for a weak link i cannot control. Or I will leave, like many other effective leaders have.
• Expand equity participation broadly across employees instead of concentrating upside only at the top. The people doing the work should share in the value creation. They will be loyal and work harder, and be able to actually hold each other accountable as owners. And we will do better as a whole.
• Reduce consultant dependence dramatically, or to zero. If the business cannot operate without armies of external advisors, leadership has already failed.
• Re-establish operational fundamentals: accountability, execution speed, customer intimacy, and cross-functional alignment. Reduce red tape at all costs. AI isn’t enough. Mentality has to shift.

Finally, leadership credibility and employee loyalty requires you make shared sacrifice right now, and it should also be very public. If performance, growth, execution, and customer confidence are all materially off-track, CEO and EVP compensation should reflect that reality. That’s CEO, CFO, COO, CHRO, CCO, CSSO. Accountability cannot only exist for the people lower in the organization. No pay until we are fixed. If you don't like it, please leave or don't expect any respect. Step up and lead.

Generally, a CEO with sustained poor performance is -on average- let go after ~3 bad years, if not less. That’s been studied pretty extensively across medium-to-large NYSE-listed companies, and the stats are easy enough to find. Yet Goff Murka is still here.

The decision about a CEO’s employment and performance reviews is handled by a committee of the Board. And Geoff himself is also on the Board. That’s one of the reasons CEOs often sit on boards in the first place: to avoid being completely at the mercy of the Board and to maintain some degree of stability and influence.

Funnily enough, three MDT board members also came out of GE. Funny how that works. At the very least, there’s an element of mutual back-scratching and shared incentives.

Being on a Board is a great gig: incredibly lucrative and relatively low-risk compared to operational executive roles. Great money for comparatively little legwork, with the worst-case consequence usually just being the loss of the seat. Geoff has a pretty nice setup with the GE network: everyone scratches each other’s backs and keeps the machine running.

This is basically a textbook corporate-governance criticism: board interlocks, executive networks, and incentive alignment reducing accountability for underperforming CEOs. We can stop speculating on the mystery of why GM has his job. It's this simple.

There’s simply far more incentive for everyone involved to sit tight and protect the status quo and their own interests than there is to force a change.

And that's where Elliott has come in. That's why they've gotten seats on the Board. What they do with the seats remains to be seen: join in on the grift, or try to save MDT as a company.

There is no mystery. It's rent-seeking in plain sight and will not change until the GE faction leaves or is removed from the Board.

Hire a bunch of Mckinsey consultants to ruin the bank.
Then hire said consultant to become CEO to "revive" the bank.
Corporate America is such a peculiar place.
You can't make this stuff up if you tried.....

Video with Gunjan:
https://www.wsj.com/video/us-bancorp-ceo-on-reviving-a-banking-icon/88A15F0D-41C8-4511-A4F5-9954AE1833AA

Not saying she is, but if she is found to be partaking in Insider Trading, report at once to the SEC!

https://www.stocktitan.net/sec-filings/HUM/form-4-humana-inc-insider-trading-activity-bf89f440dd06.html

In bewilders me how Humana gets away with the extreme various ways they try to manipulate investors instead of simply focusing on the mission of providing better (and more cost effective) strategies and services to its members.

I believe, in an attempt to raise investor expectations as to the stock price and earnings per share, they manipulate the stock price by buying back their own stock, have other corporations to temporarily buy their stock, and probably (possibly) pay off financial new’s journalists and financial analyst pundits to say they believe Humana’s future stock will raise to such and such.

I just hope the investors and potential investors are wise and discerning enough to not take news articles and temporary stock price spikes at face value. But instead do some digging and exhaustive research analysis of their own.

It is my belief that Humana, and Medicare Advantage, are treading water, buying time, with the knowledge that the good business days are numbered and the end is only a couple to a few years out (maybe five years, at most).

So it starts, now well publicized on the news Sycamore is closing stores under the guise of security or safety, and while that's a concern, their goals are to get out of leases to reduce their debt obligations (somewhat good), and pad their pockets by selling off any real estate that is owned. However, it is NOT with improving the business in mind. It is purely a way to pay themselves. Look at their history on their other large holdings, Staples they are continuing to reduce stores under the premise they are low performing stores, but in many cases it's just to cook the books. Essendant, they sold off the majority of their real estate for millions as a cost reduction for low performing, closed the majority of their business, but never invested back into the company. Talbots, Hot Topic, Belk, Pure Fishing they are closing stores/warehouses/offices and leaving just a shell of businesses they will never invest back into to improve. Sycamore is evil, and just plays with people's lives to line their own pockets over and over again.

I am afraid that laying off people here and there won't cut it.

Sh-t started going down on last years of MP
And 3 or 4 years of JD's sh-t
And 18 months of EH feeble efforts.
That means that Nike has been on downward slide for 7 to 9 years.

And pandemic's boost made d-mb JD a distorted view of reality, leading or not leading to cliff that we are experiencing.

EH's small scale effort will not change anything. He can layoff until he is the last one left. We might as have same or better result praying and knocking on the woods!!!

What’s the over/under on Kimmeridge getting all their demands? Seem to have a good track record with influencing other institutional investors

Is there any other way to interpret his somewhat ambiguous message from this morning?

"Reviewing strategic alternatives for EviCore"

Mass furloughs, told you on march 21st, 1 month ago, and would have been sooner, BNSF corporate monitoring and trying to state lies and distract from what they are doing, more furloughs most likely coming on Friday or Monday.

Word is that Anthropic Claude has successfully hacked Oracle DB, Internet Explorer and Outlook codes with ease. Dinosaur Bones are vulnerable.

Corporate Messaging to start by end of the week.

Oil major will cut investment over next five years from $30bn to $20bn

Maxine Kelly and Martha Muir in London

PublishedDec 9 2025

UpdatedDec 9 2025, 13:21

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://help.ft.com/faq/gifting-and-sharing-an-article/what-is-a-gift-article/.
https://www.ft.com/content/dc0f4207-7eb3-482d-8f28-e2b15ed07e9f?syn-25a6b1a6=1

ExxonMobil said it would slash planned spending on low-carbon projects by a third, as oil majors pare back clean energy initiatives and pivot back to fossil fuels.

The Texas-based company, the largest US oil producer, also said in a strategic update on Tuesday that it planned to lift earnings and cash flow by $5bn by 2030, with no increases in capital spending.

Exxon said spending on low-carbon initiatives would be cut to $20bn over the next five years, down from about $30bn previously. The company also recently paused plans for a $7bn hydrogen plant in Baytown, Texas, citing low customer demand.

Some of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies are pulling back from low-carbon projects and returning their focus to fossil fuels, amid expectations that oil demand will remain more resilient and that the green transition will take longer than anticipated.

President Donald Trump has made the promise of abundant, cheap oil and gas a key pillar of his second term and pledged to “export American energy all over the world”.

UK oil major BP in February reversed its push into clean energy to refocus on fossil fuels, with chief executive Murray Auchincloss saying the company went “too far, too fast”. It also shelved plans for its hydrogen and carbon capture scheme in north-east England.

Shell also scrapped a 2021 commitment to let oil output fall by 1 per cent to 2 per cent a year until 2030 and wrote down the value of its $1bn wind business. However, other companies such as TotalEnergies have continued to invest in their renewables arms.

The interior department will on Wednesday hold a lease sale for 80mn acres in the US Gulf, as mandated by Trump’s signature tax and spending bill, which analysts at TD Cowen expect to attract interest from Shell, BP and Chevron.

Exxon has four upcoming sites in Guyana due to start production by 2030, as well as final investment decisions on natural gas projects in Papua New Guinea and Mozambique.

Exxon’s chief executive Darren Woods told the Financial Times last month that assumptions the company made when setting its previous goals for spending on low-carbon projects had not been met, blaming disappointing customer demand and government policies.

Exxon on Tuesday said it expected $25bn in earnings growth and $35bn in cash flow growth by 2030 compared with 2024 on the same constant-price and margin basis, a $5bn improvement on its previous plan.

This reflected the company’s “stronger contributions from advantaged assets, a more profitable business mix and lower operating costs”, Exxon said.

The company also announced its chief financial officer, Kathy Mikells, will retire from February 2026 and be replaced by Neil Hansen, Exxon’s president of global business solutions.

https://www.ft.com/content/dc0f4207-7eb3-482d-8f28-e2b15ed07e9f?syn-25a6b1a6=1

• Chevron Signs In Contra Costa Blame California Politicians For High Gas Prices
  April 21, 2026 - 8:00 AM

Drivers filling up at Chevron stations across the region are being met with a bold and unmistakable message: “Sacramento policies did this. Now you pay more.”

The large signs, recently installed at multiple locations, feature an eye-catching image of a car wrapped in fuel hoses – a visual meant to symbolize the burden of rising gas prices. Beneath the headline, smaller text claims that California politicians are prioritizing foreign oil over local jobs and lower costs, placing the blame for high fuel prices squarely on state leadership.

The signage campaign appears designed to spark conversation – and controversy – among motorists already feeling the pinch at the pump. With California consistently posting the highest gas prices in the nation, the message taps into a growing frustration among drivers.

Adding to the push, each sign includes a QR code directing viewers to additional information. Chevron branding is visible, indicating the campaign is backed by the oil giant, though it stops short of directly advocating for specific legislation.

The rollout comes amid ongoing discussions in Sacramento over energy policy,
environmental regulations, and the state’s transition away from fossil fuels. Critics of current policies argue that regulations and refinery constraints contribute to higher prices, while supporters maintain those measures are necessary for long-term environmental and public health goals.

For now, the signs are doing exactly what they’re intended to do – getting people’s attention. Whether they shift opinions or policy is another question entirely, but at the pump, they’re hard to ignore

https://www.claycord.com/2026/04/21/chevron-signs-in-contra-costa-blame-california-politicians-for-high-gas-prices/

That is the exact message being sent with the appointment of HON to CEO of Lululemon. It’s disgusting that this website continues to censor every post like we are in greater china (with CS!) ha

Jokes aside, this is a serious matter - what is truly wrong with the world when the message is sent that you can destroy one of the biggest brands in the world and then get rewarded by becoming the ceo of a competitor. Absolutely egregious.

I’m sure this post will be deleted as everything is ultra censored on here but hopefully the message will come thru.

Half of the team size? This is endless.