Thread regarding DXC Technology layoffs

17 replies (most recent on top)

best Management every. Do you expect more?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2mg+1km8rbza3

@sd this stock was valued at $100 as CSC. it’s been low $10-$13 for years, the war has nothing to do with the price just poor management promoting downward spiral in employee morale. You must be an exec subordinate, marketing, or HR.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @w7+1km8rbza3

@w3 Also note this stock had reached $100 a share.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @w4+1km8rbza3

The loss of customers, the targeting of 55-year-olds with 30 years experience- off boarding them (excuse me - laying off personnel, they use the other term for cosmetic purposes) of experienced employees (prior to this, they further target these employees by changing their job title to unique classification group them, and remove them), the lack of compensation and recognition for the experienced employees and causing the disharmony among the working force as in the new name Don’teXpectCompensation. The customers are hearing this and they are very concerned about quality support.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @w3+1km8rbza3

For me - this is the first company that I’ve worked for that I can honestly say has lost more customers than gained in my career. That coupled with layers of stacked management and no real accountability would have to be why the stock price continues to slide. There are no real leaders in the company. I’ve been applying constantly for external roles for months and the reputation of DXC precedes it, my own personal worth has been dropping as well.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @t8+1km8rbza3

Our stocks will bounce back like a roaring lion - there is little bit of distraction in the world that is affecting the valuation - once the war ends - the stocks will roar again

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sd+1km8rbza3

New all time low on trade closing today let’s goooooo!!!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @r6+1km8rbza3

@b0 not strictly true. Share buy backs weren't illegal before 1982, they were just unregulated and difficult to achieve without risking accusations/prosecutions for market manipulation. In 1982 they introduced the legislation to give corporations clear guidelines on what was/wasn't acceptable when it came to buy backs. Nonetheless - if a company continues buy backs but doesn't seem to be growing then the market sees that as a bad sign...

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hh+1km8rbza3

Don’t forget they spun off or sold about half the company since DXC was formed in 2017. Perspecta, Gainwell, and other stuff. That and they drove some of the companies they did acquire into the ground, as well as overall continued revenue decline. They shed revenue, haven’t been able to grow, of course it’s reflected in the stock.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @g0+1km8rbza3

We're just returning to our natural valuation level. Remember, it's inhumane to feed animals at the park.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ee+1km8rbza3

DXC largely supports legacy systems for clients who have been slow, highly cautious, or simply unable to afford modernisation. However, when those clients do move on, we’re rarely in a position to win the follow-on work beyond assisting with migration to another provider. There is limited demand for change within these environments, and DXC appears to treat the workforce as caretakers—roles that can be paid less over time. People leave periodically, yet nothing breaks and little changes, which only reinforces that view.

The reality is that organisations no longer build and operate systems in the same way. Increasingly, they buy managed services from suppliers who own and support the platforms. That shift leaves only a limited role for integration, provisioning, and “glue” work—areas where DXC has not kept pace. The long-term decline in the share price reflects this.

At the same time, the company shows little evidence of strategic ambition. A sustained lack of pay progression has already disengaged the workforce, encouraging a “minimum required” mindset. Under those conditions, reversing declining revenues seems impossible.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d3+1km8rbza3

Ask his holiness penne pasta - master crook who is expert in cooking the books and managing the useless analysts.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @c8+1km8rbza3

Without all the billions wasted on share buybacks, DXC would likely look even worse on a per-share basis, probably <$6.

Buybacks don’t save shareholders, they just made the per-share decline look less severe than the underlying business decline and help hit short-term EPS targets and so help execs hit their bonus.

Before 1982 share buy backs were illegal in the US.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b0+1km8rbza3

Its because the main man is paid $20million + a year.

Even VPs get paid $6million a year.

Nobody can understand why the share price has crashed. Wall Street have git it wrong, we should believe the greedy Execs.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ay+1km8rbza3

Because all of the value has dissappeared. Investors made their cash during the Lawrie asset stripping and f all is left.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @am+1km8rbza3

Year after year of zero or negative growth.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @af+1km8rbza3

I’ve got a garbage dump that’s currently on fire. Absolute premium asset. Want to buy some shares?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a3+1km8rbza3

Post a reply

: