I believe a ceo can run a conglomerate ,the prime example being wesfarmers,lets include apple,ten cents,alibaba etc etc. But west farmers etc has a few managers that are accountable for the performance of each division ie mining,bunnings,coles,whatever. Penn seems to think he can run telstra fixed,telstra mobile,telstra purple NAS,telstra energy lets add with no acquisition ability imo only. Telstra needs less managers ie one manager for each division,and that manager/ceo must take full responsibility for the performance/profit of that division just like wesfarmers,if the division doesn't perform then a new manager/ceo is employed..ie bunnings UK.. Example if anyone can explain to me why telstra energy has ,last count,4 managers but the division still sits inside telstra.?How many managers does telstra have altogether.? oops i'm starting, ok just add this,its becoming very clear Australia would do much better without the states/ premiers ie massive cost savings and less bureaucracy. Sound famaliar,same telstra,less 'managers',and more accountability,less costs,less bureacracy but it starts with a ceo capable of establishing a competitive conglomerate and imo only thats not penn.
TLS Price at posting:
$2.78 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)