-- Chief Operating Officer Gracia Martore, responding just 24 days ago to a Wall Street analyst's question during the third-quarter earnings conference call. (Corporate's transcript of call.)
Earlier: Martore's cautious reply on what's next
Monday, November 08, 2010
Are 'significant' severance costs planned for Q4?
-- Chief Operating Officer Gracia Martore, responding just 24 days ago to a Wall Street analyst's question during the third-quarter earnings conference call. (Corporate's transcript of call.)
Earlier: Martore's cautious reply on what's next
10 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A corporate executive caught in a lie? What a shock! Next you'll tell me they do the same thing in Washington.
ReplyDeleteI guess it all comes down to what Martore sees as significant.
ReplyDeleteI don't think much hits the "significance level" for Martore unless her own pocket is being picked.
Y'all just numbers out there. And no significant numbers either.
Heck, she makes more in a year than most of those numbers make in a lifetime. Now that's significant!
Not at this present time.
ReplyDeleteBut if you ask me during tomorrow's present time, well, gee, that's another story altogether.
Ha, 4:16, my thoughts exactly! Tons of wiggle room in what she said. And she damn well knew it.
ReplyDeleteThere are hardly any severance costs at all, thanks to this new procedure requiring former employees to get unemployment insurance before a GCI severance check. In spite of the numbers, they certainly are not "significant" as the questioner asked.
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting to see what the next step corporate will take to squeeze further those let go.
Wonder how the Dalai Lama Center for Ethics and Transformative Value at MIT would view the word "significant" as used in here! Does that group, I wonder, support wiggle room when it comes to one's ability to remain employed in a company that pay its bigshots big bonuses?
ReplyDeleteRoundtable that one, Gracia!
4:50 -- Two hundred layoffs is a significant number. Gannett may well have let one percent of its current workforce go by the time this round is over. Even with transitional pay, the company's cost would be seen as significant by most rational people. If severance costs aren't significant, one can argue that the cuts were not significant. And if they aren't significant, why are they being done? Cuts of no significance don't benefit a company. Is she doing it just because she wants to cement Gannett's reputation as an Evil Empire.
ReplyDeleteBottom line. Stock analysts should just stop listening to what she's saying. The truth is Gannett has no significant transformation plan. The business plan right now is to continue to cut expenses in order to maintain a double digit profit margin.
So, the company will be significantly smaller in five years than it is now. And it will likely still struggle to grow. In other words it's not a buy.
I don't even know why stock analysts would bother with her.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJust curious Jim, you remove 10:04 but it is ok for 7:24 to call someone a lying sack of shit? Interesting line you draw!
ReplyDelete