Which , of course ,was quite incorrect. As we should all know by now , return on equity is not a good measure of profit. His questions were not a way of actually finding anything out. Do you think that profit is being hidden? I cant see any signs of that in the balance sheets. Was McKim being dumb , or just being a tool? I suppose he could be both. Now the big 2 have a case to answer as far as land banking and treatment of suppliers goes, but who remembers any of that while the circus clowns are in town.
A question for all. What should the profit be , and how should it be measured ? And in arriving at the answer , what allowance should there be in those numbers for a retailer being better than another? ie better technology , better customer service, better range, better treatment of staff?
