Thread regarding DXC Technology layoffs

Raul said: Core Track keeps DXC’s wings intact through the storm while Fast Track straps a rocket to his a-s before the inevitable crash landing.

I just read the transcript. Thanks for sharing. All I can say is what gibberish. He talked about less than half of the company when he describes it. He Thinks he has the brightest teams, small teams, and he’s not planning on M&A because he already has the small full stack teams he needs. Do more with less. Lots of AI soup talk. Again, what gibberish. It does not instill confidence that DXC executive leadership is on track.

Have any of you actually read the transcript of this meeting?

It's psychobabble...

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4877275-dxc-technology-company-dxc-presents-at-morgan-stanley-technology-media-and-telecom-conference

@gf the most common vulture capital strategy is to take all of the cash, take out more debt, take that cash as well, bankrupt it and try to offload the company to someone for a dollar. Obviously employees just get shafted.

I'm pretty sure that's coming if Rools big ai gamble doesn't trigger actual growth (moonshot time)

The real AI answer is

DXC is making $650 million every year by not paying its employees their pay.

The Company tries to make out it should not give annual rises to employees unlike the rest of the world. Even though inflation rises every year.

Its a company with bent Execs who lie and rip off employees and tell employees to leave if they want a pay increment.

Ok, I spent too much time on the AI bots last night running different scenarios based on published results and presentations like the Morgan Stanley one to see what the indications are, and the overwhelming conclusion is that DXC is either in ‘Harvester’ mode or ‘Growth’ mode.
Here are the results on which you can draw your own conclusions and obviously, if I can do this so can all the well paid execs at DXC and they’ll get the same results:

“If a company is:

✔ returning lots of cash
✔ doing significant buybacks
✔ holding a large cash pile
✔ not increasing R&D dramatically

…it is probably behaving like a harvester, even if the narrative talks about growth.

If instead it is:

✔ acquiring aggressively
✔ investing heavily
✔ hiring rapidly
✔ sacrificing margins for expansion

…it is behaving like a growth company.”

And guess what businesses are attractive to harvester companies?

“The most natural buyer for a harvester like DXC Technology Company would be private equity.

Why PE likes harvesters

Private equity firms look for:
• Strong free cash flow
• Stable enterprise customers
• Cost optimisation opportunities
• Ability to increase leverage safely

What they typically do
• Take the company private
• Reduce costs further
• Sell non-core units
• Optimise contracts and margins
• Extract cash flow

After 4–7 years they exit via:
• resale to another PE firm
• IPO
• strategic sale

This is probably the single most common outcome for mature IT services firms.”

Like I said draw your own conclusions.

Where is ice when you need them in America?

Wow that was a lot of non-sensical gibberish the only things I could glean from it was
1 - They will continue to buyback shares (to boost executive rewards)
2 - They will reluctantly have to set aside some money to many some of us redundant (woohoo!)

Everything else was nonsense

The OP mentions SaaS revenue. The problem with DXC is that it's own internal systems measure employee value by billable hours. They cannot connect the value of revenue from non-hourly measurements, and business, to employee value. Therefore, they continue to WFR people supporting money making business. I worked there when M1 fired 20 people supporting a business pulling in over $20M annually, with a pipeline of $10M more. There was no direct connection to the licensing revenue and the people who supported that product in the internal system. On DXC paper it looked like they are paying people for nothing - no billable hours, only internal investment. In the last earnings meeting they mentioned switching to value based pricing. The problem they will have is they have no clue, or systems, which support that model in a manner that protects the investment to support providing those services. Both market value based revenue and licensed base revenue are not directly connected to workers. I also saw them do this when under M1 they acquired a small IT company with high revenue, and proceeded to drive it into the ground using only employee billability numbers as a value metric. The company was selling high value product licensing along with small amounts of direct consulting. It was a money maker that needed some additional investment. The acquired workers left quickly, because DXC stopped the product investment and tried to get them 100% billable on single clients. I argued over and over to DXC executive leadership that they need to change their business measures which would allow them to recognize employees contributing to this sort of model. It fell on deaf ears and over the course of a couple of years, DXC cut small teams which contributed to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. The executives can make these claims, but unless they change the internal systems, they have no ability to implement them. The internal measures will tell them to continue to WFR people to lower expense, with an expectation that profit and growth increase. Just bonkers.

Another useless meeting

"Give people a chance"... why the he-l doesn't management step up and do their actual job?

If you just listen to him speak compared to others….. he is sooooo out of his league. It’s comical.