#corporatestrategy

Moving HQ to TX, tax incentives

Just heard this morning; strong possibility the North Haven campus will relocate and close down. CT costs continue to be too high for MDT corporate. No timeline

• Wendy's plans to close about 300 stores nationwide beginning in late 2025
• The closures represent a mid single-digit percentage of the chain's 6,000 U.S. locations
• Interim CEO Ken Cook announced the plan during a November 7 investor call
• The decision follows the earlier closure of 140 Wendy's locations in the previous year
• Closures will target underperforming restaurants that hurt franchisee profitability
• Some locations may be improved or transferred to new operators instead of closing
• The exact list of stores affected has not yet been released
• Closures are set to begin in the fourth quarter of the year
• Wendy's reported a 4.7 percent drop in same-store sales and a 2.6 percent global sales decline in Q3
• The company aims to strengthen brand performance and financial health through these actions

Dan said that most of his transformative change would be unveiled in his next 22 days as CEO. Week #1 revealed him hiring his PayPal buddy. What do you think will be revealed this week? Are you as excited as Dan to be part of the transformative experience?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/03/exxon-funded-thinktanks-to-spread-climate-denial-in-latin-america-documents-reveal

Thoughts on this shocking move? If saving money is the long game, then make the move now! Sell the assets. Cancel the contracts. Exit these high tax states. Don’t offer relocation. Eliminate 50% of corporate staff at HQ. If you don’t face a customer or directly interact with those that do, then time to let go. Get rid of the Pelaton marketing crew and turn out the revenue.

This is not a rumor. Just throwing this out there.

As I mentioned Value CMO(VP) is gone as of yesterday. All moved to DK or KL. Very odd.

SP500 up 20 percent YOY. SOLV down 6 percent YOY. Looks like Nellies plan to "unleash" value from SOLV by spinning off filtration and chainsawing off 1000s of jobs is a smashing success (not!)

I guess adding layers of outside hires at VP levels, mainly cronies, doesn't grow the bottom line. Nor does firing the worker bees just to meet Peltz expectations.

Earth to Peltz! Layoff off Bryan, sell your shares, and return to your Florida yacht for retirement. The beaten down masses will take it from here.

I heard they will cut Corp strategy and marketing teams loose next week.

Just saying. It's just my gut feel given the direction and how lost the execs are. Zero strategy, poor direction, poor execution. The executives are the ones who should be let go, not the worker.

I remember hearing Vimal mention something about streamlining corporate functions. How does that work? Any idea?

Who do you think the board will sell Verizon to after they finish looting it for all they can squeeze out of it?

why would you change CEO's just like that without giving wall street a heads up and of all months OCT.Which is notorious bad for stocks.Changing CEO's as a surprise tell investors that there is something wrong in this company.Glad i sold at 44...

My journey has allowed me to meet many influential leaders within Canon Inc. I've been mentored by top 5 inside and extremely grateful. Working below radar, and happy to report I've placed some on check. Good luck…. Inc is coming! #forthepeople

And even that is poorly executed.

Why did CP announce layoffs the better part of a year before it was scheduled to happen?
Answer: To create a culture of fear to squeeze harder work and backstabbing from its employees. An employee in deep fear is a desperate employee, especially in times of industry decline, and many will do anything to keep their job, to include going the extra mile to make co-workers look bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MohJLPgutKQ

His plan is revealed...

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4501768-3m-evaluating-selling-billions-of-assets-in-industrials-business---report

What is PS legacy. Here are a few

PLC
ELT
SBU
DEI
Deep Sector
Cloud
CUSIP
Hiring Success
Stock/Shareholder performance

Ford has sunk millions (and sometimes billions) into initiatives like Model e / FNV4, Ford Next, Canopy, and FordLabs, and what’s becoming increasingly clear is a repeated pattern: massive spending, vague execution, questionable hires or partnerships, and little to no lasting impact.

How do these projects keep getting approved? Who’s actually making the strategic calls? Who signs off on these black-box initiatives, the hiring, the vendors, the direction? The execution feels disconnected from reality. Where’s the accountability for these profound strategic missteps? What oversight exists? I don't understand: is it the board, the CEO, product leads, entire leadership chains, external partners, etc.? Is there an internal innovation council or P&L division that says money is for X and Y but not Z? Is there gatekeeping? Is it greed? Kickbacks? Special vendor relationships that lock us?

Who handles HR and talent acquisition? Did we just bring senior roles with high pay and unclear mandates in the name of innovation? Are our analysts in an ivory tower, not understanding the fundamentals and easily fooled? How come we need so much money to build and do things, and why are we cheap in places that matter? Is it a circular talent problem? Where does the actual money end up being spent? Who is hoarding it? Is it money laundering? Do special committees lack deep domain knowledge? I can't wrap my head around this.

Do executives rotate out before results materialize, or are they promoted elsewhere or hired externally? Does the Media & PR shape the story far more than the product teams? Is the company under existential pressure to look like they're innovating? Why does Ford's structure allow it? Is it due to consultants with strategy decks without deep product execution knowledge? How does HR acquire talent and also place them accordingly? Do we have executive recruiters with vague job specs that drag and drop people like a menial task? Is it because of the whole "who we know" bit which bypasses procurement for strategic partners to add to the reliance on market signaling?

Do we have a siloed org structure that breeds "mini-empires"? Do we have experts that may be downplaying other experts that may threaten an empire? Is talent held back, or perceived as going rogue for initiative and being vocal? Do things repeat because we have an inability to absorb failure lessons due to quietly folding concerns under the rug instead of facing humility and accountability? Did we really bask in what a startup mindset really means? Milchmädchenrechnung?

I really want to hear the rationale behind decisions in such a historic company competing in the now. Are we structurally incapable of absorbing new insight without breaking internal equilibrium? Is it from gov bailouts and subsidies that enable mistakes to continue, compelled through lobbying packets written by "independent" parties? Are people with real execution power and holistic domain knowledge not looped into the work?

Do we suffer with watered down layers of middle management or political handlers? Is it relationship over merit that requires tribal alignment when presenting accurate feedback or data to prevent it from being rejected if it comes from "outside the circle"? Do we monitor sabotage behavior, and do we enable it or step in and put our foot down? Is it ego over mission, where elevation itself upsets social balance and as an org we are unable to cut through biases? Are these divisions, projects, and products "moonshots," as in high risk but necessary for survival, yet poorly executed?

I'm not asking for the benefit of Ford, but to deeply understand and learn from what is going on in this company, I know trolls will come or bash execs and blanket it all, but I'm checking to see angles I may be missing here. Interested in any sort insight for my own education because I don't know what I don't know. Managing the unknown in my case-study. Thanks.

Can someone explain what the heck the corporate strategy is here? There have been so many layoffs that most teams around me were barely functional to begin with. Then came surprise voluntary severance, so now all of the most knowledgeable people are leaving voluntarily and probably won’t be backfilled. Teams are literally non functional, no one knows wtf to do, and instead of spending money on what we need (competent people) leadership is wasting money on sh-t like in person SKO and a completely pointless, expensive, disruptive IT migration. If you told me leadership was trying to go for another bankruptcy I’d believe you.
Every day I just smile and nod and try to survive because we don’t have enough resources to actually do anything … meanwhile supposedly AI will come save the day!

Verizon just hiked its dividend again — 69 cents a share. On paper, that looks like strength. Shareholders get a little more cash, and the company gets to brag about “rewarding investors.”

But let’s be real. This isn’t strength. It’s a cover-up.

Verizon is carrying one of the biggest debt loads in corporate America. Billions locked into spectrum, billions owed in interest, billions still needed just to keep the network running. Growth? Flat. Competition? Relentless.

So why raise the dividend? Simple: it’s cheaper to keep investors quiet with cash than to deal with the bigger problem.

That’s not strategy. That’s theater. It’s a short-term distraction dressed up as long-term confidence. Debt doesn’t disappear because you slap a bigger payout on top. Real innovation doesn’t come from squeezing another cent into dividends.

This move doesn’t scream strength. It whispers fear. Fear that if the checks ever stop, the whole illusion collapses.

Dividends don’t hide debt — they just rent time.

For some reason, the ELT has never concentrated on achieving true excellence in the fundamentals of the traditional oil and gas business. By that, I mean the essentials: negotiating contracts with governments, identifying and fixing the root causes of exploration failures, and maximizing resource recovery with efficiency.

Instead, the focus has drifted toward chasing the latest “shiny object.” At one point, we branded ourselves as a technology company that just happened to operate in oil and gas. Then came waves of emphasis on digital, leading performance, competitive performance, AI, and now data centers. It often feels as if leadership is embarrassed by the industry itself and compelled to dress it up with fashionable labels.

Yet for all this rebranding, I have not seen a single truly transformative solution that changes how we run the business. If anything, we’ve simply repackaged what we already do into newly invented categories. Fundamentally, nothing has changed.

So many times he tells us this, on what basis ?

Talks a lot about being a software business, what software ?

T-Mobile and other wireless carriers tumble on SpaceX’s purchase of spectrum licenses from EchoStarT-MobileTMUS $237.74 (0.23%) is the worst-performing S&P 500 constituent in early trading, off 5.2% as of 8:27 a.m. ET.
The reason why? SpaceX purchased a pair of spectrum licenses from EchoStarSATS $81.50 (0.03%) for roughly $17 billion, and as such, SpaceX might no longer need to rely as heavily on T-Mobile going forward.

In August 2022, T-Mobile and SpaceX announced a partnership in which the carrier would help SpaceX’s Starlink provide mobile connectivity from space. The first such satellites launched in January 2024, and T-Mobile ran an ad during the 2025 Super Bowl touting a beta trial of Starlink-powered satellite texting.

Can someone in the know explain what our AI strategy is?
When our people in AI without technical degrees are in charge of this, how can we compete? LLM? Transformers?
Any thoughts?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4819715-open-text-corporation-otex-presents-at-citis-2025-global-technology-media-and

So if you look at our business units, effectively, when you're doing something like training bots, you're talking to the CIO of General Motors or Coca-Cola or whatever. At the same time, it's probably not a good idea to also be selling software to mom and dad at Best Buy, right?

Japanese advertising agency Dentsu Group Inc. is considering selling its overseas operations, the Financial Times reported Thursday.

If the company sells all of its overseas assets, it could raise several billion dollars, but the move would mark its withdrawal from international business.
https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2025082800990/

Make a real move against a member of your MC who has singlehandedly placed his income and expanding real estate holdings over keeping the business afloat.

FIG is run horribly!

Gunjan over Stern? Stern seems like the natural replacement.

Will be amazing if AC’e career is destroying a 100 year old company

Before anyone cries racism, no that's not it. Some very talented people from overseas in this company.

The problem is that Fiserv are abusing the H1-B system to supress wages across the board and build itself an extremely compliant workforce. Their visa is dependent on them keeping their job. Fiserv knows they can underpay and take advantage of people who won't (can't) speak up about it. It's bad for both Americans and H1-B holders.

I know this widespread in tech, but I've been to a few of these companies and I've never seen a company abuse the system as much as Fiserv do.

Just putting it out there but the Cenovus board of directors should contemplate a trade of MEG for Lloyd thermal/Lloyd cold production assets. Cenovus would obviously have to pay a lot more to close this deal but it may be the only way to get rid of a manager that believes people with no Thermal experience can run the control rooms at thermal plants and also a LTCHO superintendent who just shortly found out the thermal plants run 24 hrs a day.......
Might be tough with the great acquisitions of Gear and Rife energy on second thought.
Never mind, buy Meg and just shut LTCHO down, that's probably the best.

IDM 1.0 Product groups benefited from having access to lead nodes (ahead of what other companies could access), to the point that the fabs were run as a loss-leader, with max emphasis on output and yield over cost.

This led Finance to grind their teeth but no one cares about that.

It seems clear that external customers want Floundry to be a separate company from Products, because of the concern over IP sharing and wafer start conflicts.

But that leaves Product groups with low margins when they rely on lead nodes from TSMC. This is because they no longer have pricing power and that will only worsen over time as x86 is supplanted by ARM.

So Product groups NOW need Floundry to be a more cost effective supplier TSMC (and close to leading node). This was the point of IDM 2.0.

MJ tried to mumble something about this in a more positive light, but the reality seems clear enough.

What this likely means is deep cuts in Floundry spending, as that group gets real about the capacity needed for the pace of customer onboarding which is possible.

The pushout of Ohio and halting of other projects shows the effort is underway to rationalize capacity to demand.

Pat was pushing to do a full buildout, which only made sense if he was able to bring high volume customers onboard.
A smarter approach would have been to do no greenfield projects.
Just add a few mods and wait for customer growth to justify Ohio and Germany.
This is what appears to be the current plan (much to Pats deep chagrin)

Next is to slow down the ramp, and stop building speculative capacity.
The company has being driven into the ground by reckless expansion and it must stop.

So at the existing facilities, that means fewer tools, which means less headcount. Attrition may be sufficient.

It seems possible that a few HVM fabs could be spun off into an independent company, to satisfy external customer concerns.
Considering how few customers there are, that could just be at one site, like Ireland or something.

For Product groups, it is way past time to stop projects and groups that have no roadmap to profitability.
Because that x86 market share, it ain't coming back.

If Product groups need the combined margins then they will have to retain some fabs in the same company, and likely TD as well, in order for it to be funded.

So the big surprise of 2025 may be that the company is not particularly broken up, but that the fabs are broken up, in order to sustainably serve the needs of internal and external customers.

In the latest twist for Honeywell, the company may feel like it’s stuck in a scene straight out of E.T.—but this time, it’s not the alien dialing home. Reports suggest ex-Honeywell employees and shareholders might have taken a proactive approach, lobbying Elliott Management to engage and "phone home" for a stronger focus on shareholder value.

If true, this is a bold move: leveraging activist investors not as adversaries, but as partners in unlocking untapped potential after exiting the company. It’s a strategy that could redefine how companies work with, rather than against, activist investors.

The question now is: will this collaboration launch Honeywell into a higher orbit or spark turbulence in the boardroom? One thing's certain—shareholders are watching closely to see how this story unfolds.

#Honeywell #ElliottManagement #ActivistInvesting #CorporateStrategy