Yes Buddy, indeed those comments were from me rather than...

Yes Buddy, indeed those comments were from me rather than Bitzer. Sorry you got tarred and feathered by association Bitzer.

I take fully responsibility for said comments and stand by them. If my original explanation didn't sufficiently explain why "Success" in itself isn't a legitimate "purpose" then it would seem that some elabouration is required.

Firstly when was the last time you got out of bed and thought to yourself "I want to be successful today"? This answer in itself may be telling. How many have ever started a business for the sole purpose of being "successful"? Ever tried registering a company using a business activity of "success"? Exactly what industry is "success" in? Try putting that in your company tax filing to the ATO ! I think you will quickly find that success isn't a "purpose" at all, its a way of describing to what degree a business (and thus the company operating said business) has achieved its objectives.

Success is a measurement and a very subjective one at that because there are often many different objectives and not all stakeholders necessarily weight these objectives equally. While it may seem easy to define success in financial terms this is not definative nor consistant and if you look at real world examples its easy to see why.

When asked which financial metric one would use to define "success" some might say earnings growth. But what if earnings looked great but they were engineered earnings such as those of many B&B entities whereby earning growth came from revaluing assets to unsustainable levels based on borrowings at record low interest rates ? Are these companies really successful ? Are they still successful next week when those earnings suddenly disappear and become a massive loss ?

How about defining "success" as being a high share price as per JCs list of "FACTs". What if the share price was say $6 based on nothing more than speculation then fell to a low of say $1.40 based on nothing but panic. Was the company more successful when its share price was unsustainably high and less successful when a number of shareholders panicked ? If so I have a portfolio of companies whose shares price go up and down every single day. Is ths success of these companies really changing 500 times a day with every trade that results in an increase or decrease in the share price ?

Clients and management of a company surely have much longer term and more sustainable objectives in mind. Clients for example expect stable supply of goods and/or services. Management and staff want to know that their jobs aren't being put at risk through a roll of the dice. Many investors want dividends and slow but sustained growth, and to be shielded from volatility where possible.

Ask all of these people what they expect from a given company and I bet you will get many different answers but not a single one would say "to be successful".

Anybody who gets out of bed and thinks "I want to be successful" is probably a dreamer. Nothing wrong with dreamers but they aren't usually the sort of people who are commonly though of as "successful". Again, more irony. Most people who are thought to be "successful" are focussed on specific objectives and how to achieve them. I challenge you to go up to a billionaire and say "I want to be successful. What do I need to do?". They will either laugh at you or if in a polite mood might enquire "Successful at what" ? companies are like people, their purpose and objectives must be more focused than some vaugue desire to be successful.

I know many "successful" people. Some are very wealthy and founded their own companies. Not all of these people consider themselves "successful" because they are still a long way from achieving their objectives. Some may own assets that many of us could only dream of but to them such things are nice but not nearly as important as beating their competitors, seeing their product gain market share or other metrics that they set their sights on which motivate them.


It has never been my intent to tell people how to define success merely to refute the simplistic and measingless statement that "the purpose of a company is to be successful". For this sin I get the response from you Buddy that "if a Company's function is not to be successful, than the only other function would be that it is there to be unsuccessful and reap it's shareholders off along the way". Assuming you actually meant "rip" rather than "reap", I find it odd that you take this stance.

I stated that JCs sentance is meaningless yet you take this to mean that I'm constructing an agument for the opposite which would be just as meaningless. I even went so far as to describe why term "success" is too subjective to have any meaning in the absense of appropriate context but you ignored this and decided to challenge me to describe the "definition and measurement of success" myself. Well Buddy, of coarse I can't mate and thats the point. Nobody can because JCs original statement which he states to be an absolute "FACT" is one that can neither be proven or disproved because its a pointless statement without context.

I've provided plenty of alternative purposes for which companies exist but you don't argue those, you simply argue that if they aren't supposed to be sucessful then they must be supposed to be unsuccessful. If its not black then surely the only other option is white right ? There can't be another way of looking at things that makes more sense can there ? The world is flat and always will be right ?

Buddy, you are more than welcome to agree with JCs comments as you have stated. Just because I have shown them to be vaugue and meaningless doesn't make my point of view definative. Presumably if I rewrite my post and add the word "FACT" at the end of each sentance it would be beyond question though right ?

PS, now that we are in a trading halt our share price can't change. Therefore irrespective of what great thing management may have done we can't be more successful until trading recommences can we. After all great things don't actually happen until the average punter believes that they have happened, or do they ?