Some corporations experiencing losses from their core business,
will attempt to cover up these losses with more activities in
non-related business - such as selling off some assets to improve
their cash positions and reflect 'PROFITABILITY'.
The successor can only continue with the show, and the last man at
the helm left with no more assets to dispose off, will have to
think smart and pray that the cash that have been realised with all
the past Assets Sales would have been put to better use - so as to
achieve REAL PROFITABILITY.
Wat will most people think after reading this paragraph ?
Literally speaking, u r trying to sugest tat the more assets they
sell, the more the company show profitability. The successor with
no assets to sell will be the one with the big probem at hand and
may either sink or swim.
However from the website u have given me, window dressing is
So they will sometimes sell lackluster investments they have held
for a while and buy recent stellar performers - just so their
holdings on the day of record look good.
The PROFIT made by the company remains the same. It is still how
much they earned and increase their total assets within this period
of time. Window dressing is they sell lackluster shares and buy in
stellar performer. During tis time, the profit margin remains the
same. Why they do it is just to give people a wrong impression tat
they have made a good judgement and buy in shares tat had rise
tremendously. However the numbers in the profit margin is still
nevertheless true. The loss margin will still remains as
losses.
So with tat in mind, do u still think tat it is easy to reflect
profitability ? If a minister is performing in a certain
department, do u think tat it is easy to pull the wools over ones
eyes ?
Other than these few examples u had given, the rest of the CEOs in
the world r at least a graduate. From the previous reply from sk,
he mentioned about a person working from a cleaner to CEO of
Macdonald. How many cleaners r there in Macdonald ? How many of
them make it into being a CEO ? For every CEO with humble
beginning, there is at least a million other people with the same
humble beginning but cannot excel as much. Isn't tat
considerd as a miracle ?
Do you have a problem of understanding here, or is your
intention not correctly conveyed across in print ?
Are you having a 'miracle' problem by asking about the fact that
'there is at least a million other people with the same humble
beginning but cannot excel as much. Isn't tat considerd as a
miracle ?'
I see it as being quite normal that 'at least a million other
people with the same HUMBLE beginning but CANNOT excel as much -
THIS IS NOT A MIRACLE.
Do you consider this a miracle ?
Do you need me to list more examples of non-graduates who make it
to become C.E.O's of successful companies ?
I would think that it is a 'MIRACLE' for non-graduates to become
successful C.E.O's of successful companies.
I think u r the one tat have the wrong understanding here, or is
your intention not correctly conveyed across in print ?
The paragraph u have quoted from me had said the point tat there r
millions of cleaner in Macdonald but only 1 made it into CEO. Tat
CEO had created the miracle. Then now u trying to
act cute and said u r the one tat mentioned tis point while I just
blabbered nonsense.
In the first posting,
Why is Macdonald story so entertaining is because it is about
creating miracles. And miracles r called miracles because it is
near impossible for it to happen.
So I asked, how many such people can u find in this world
compared wth the many others tat did not ? Qualification of the
people is still important. Employing and observing performance of
scholars is still relevant in today's world. If u don't, it will
take a miracle for u to be as successful as tat macdonald CEO. I do
not deny the existence of a few, I am questioning about the
likelihood of it occurring to u and me. So wat is your point then
?
Ecellent academic results from 'hard work' that
shows 'commitment and undying perseverance' does not necessarily
help a Scholar to be a successful person in any other fields.
Their success in academia may confirm a certain degree of
intelligence or capacity to learn, store and retrieve information,
but not necessarily make every excellent Academic understand every
complicated theories.
BTW u had made a spelling error on the word excellent... should
I write a para about it ? Hmm...
If u agree people tat r good in their studies have the following
traits, then will u agree people tat failed utterly in studies,
generally speaking will shows they have a poorer
abilities of the above ?
Neither does it take a person with excellent academic results to
appreciate, understand, and cope with competition, and responding
to excel over competition.
If u know a scholar well, u will know tat they compare their
performance with other people regularly. Studying is actually a
competition among the students. Who is performing better ? a person
getting a B while the average grade of the exam is F of a person
with B while the average grade of the exam is A* ? U sure in
studies there is not competition at all ?
The efforts of a 'Scholar' is no different from
that of a 'non-scholar'.
The difference is only in the Size of Financial Value in the
achievements or the failures that can be attributed to the Scholar,
or to the non-scholar.
The Scholar can make multi-million dollar blunders - as in
decisions to invest in a Hard Disk Drive business when it is a
sunset industry - and the money is not necessarily his or HER
own.
But then the ability between a scholar and a
non scholar is different. Or at least more the ability of a scholar
is more easily detectable. If someone has to make multi million
decisions, who will u choose to make it ? Scholars or non scholars
?
By your standard, late starters like Albert Einstein would not
have a chance in Life.
Bill Gates would have been shown the door, and Steve Jobs would not
even get to bite his Apple.
Little wonder that Sim Wong Hoo, a Polytechnic qualified
technician, could not get any support from DBS Bank or EDB, and had
to start his business in the USA.
Goi Seng Hoi was also a technician, servicing machines before he
was offered the opportunity of a Life time to buy over the business
that bought the machines he had designed, built, and
maintained.
Academic results is only a small window to a person's
ability.
It is the ATTITUDE and APTITUDE of a person - towards ALL THINGS -
that makes a person successful in meeting all the CHALLENGES FACED
IN LIFE.
Sure it is. But if u r a company recruiting new people, how do u
know who has the ATTITUDE and APTITUDE required ? Though studies
may not be an effective guage, there is no other guage we can rely
on. Telling me all these stories above is pointless. My question is
if A and B, both with no working experiences are seeking a job, how
will u chose who is more capable ? From wat I know, most people
will choose qualification. Wat will u choose ?
Will you consider Bush and Blair remarkable in their studies
?
How about Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin ?
Suharto ? Megawati ? Mrs Aquino ? Thaksin ?
They are not small time politicians, but political leaders of their
respective countries. Were they remarkable in their studies ?
From wat I knew, Blair is a lawyer. Bush is a Master of Business
Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. Thanksin has a
doctorate in his hand too.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html # Bush
http://www.britannia.com/bios/blair.html # Blair
http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/t/thaksin-shinawatra.html
#Thaksin
Of course there were politician tat were poorly educated. They rise
from their ranks because they r great soldiers. Saddam Hussein,
Suharto and Mao Te Tong r examples. R they good politicians ?
This 'Old Policy' of limiting the number of people into the
Singapore University had been stubbornly followed by the Government
for too long, and has affected too many Singaporeans to spend life
savings to send their children to be educated in overseas
Universities.
The 'Old Policy' was POLITICALLY and ECONOMICALLY MOTIVATED to
achieve the undeclared agenda of the Government, but made quite
obvious in their public actions - such as the implementation of the
Suitability Certificate, the limited quota for certain courses, the
manipulation of cut-off points for certain popular courses to
redirect interests into areas that meet manpower demand from the
Economy.
What is the purpose with 'Knowledge' but to improve one's ability
to handle the challenges in Life ? Life will encompass all areas
including economics that cover commerce, and industry.
We are back into one full circle, having returned to the economic
malaise that we faced during independence - CREATING JOBS FOR
SINGAPOREANS.
Yet, this time around, the Government seems to be awakened that
with a LARGER NUMBER of MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE, Singapore stand
a better chance to RUN the LONGER TERM RACE.
We now have more Universities, but Polytechnic Students upon
graduation, remain blocked in further studies in local universities
- even when ESTABLISHED Overseas Universities accept the
qualification of our Polytechnic GRADUATES.
Holding the old policy for too long
is it true ? Even if it is,
is it easy to pull out of an existing policy at the precise moment
?
Note we too have to improve on the quality of our 2 Us in order
they be recognized as reputable University. How do people guage
whether is a university good or not ? One criteria, is the number
of students being selected from the total number of people applying
for it. Tis is important as it gauges the standard of the students
in the university. The 2 Singapore University always has a bad
score for tis item because there r TOO LITTLE people here. The 2
Universities can churn out thousands of students a year, which
probably make up 10-20% of all population born tat year. The ratio
is already 20%, which is too high. It is the school policy to
selectively pick people so tat they can become world class
university. If u fail to get a place, it just means u arent good
enough for tis university. The university do chooses graduate from
polytechnics too. However u must be good enough to be selected. In
my knowledge, when poly graduates r going into NTU engineering,
they r already sinking heavily as they cant cope with their
studies there.
Reputable university ? I want to know if they can get into FAMOUS
university since the reputation of the university in Singapore
arent tat bad either. Can poly students get into Harvard or Tokyo
or Beijing or Oxford university ? Why dont u tell me the names of
the reputable university tat accept people from our poly ?
[/quote]
