In Stocks for the long run: GE since 2001, I wrote about how GE stock lost nearly half its value over the 16 years that Jeff Immelt looted from shareholders (i.e., “served” as CEO).
“Uber Chooses Expedia’s Chief as C.E.O., Ending Contentious Search” (nytimes) says that the highly compensated Uber board actually considered Mr. Immelt as the appropriate replacement for their now-hated founder.
Readers: how is this possible? Is the thinking “Well, he cost GE shareholders about $100 billion in lost growth so there is just no chance statistically that he can waste another $100 billion”?
Immelt was the dullest guest I ever saw on Mr. “Mad Money” Jim Cramer’s show, and seemed to be at a loss to explain his company’s tepid performance. In looking at Immelt’s personal life, his best investment in terms of appreciation according to Wikipedia was a Mid-town luxury condo he purchased after the 2008 downturn in Manhattan real estate. I would worry about his taking the helm at Uber.
I know you will enjoy Immelt’s lengthy Harvard Business Review essay, just published: “How I Remade GE” https://hbr.org/2017/09/inside-ges-transformation
I worked at GE in the 2000s. If history is a guide, CEO Immelt might split Uber into a dozen smaller corporations, borrow a ton of money to make acquisitions, and hire a boatload of management consultants. This would create huge opportunities for Uber’s existing directors, bankers, lawyers, etc. so it’s easy to see why they like the idea.
Expected them to hire a black woman, just to throw a bone, but they didn’t. They hired a bog standard H1B.
Jeff Immelt dodged a bullet, if you ask me. This Uber business model, as it works right now, loses money, and there’s no clear path to profitability.
Now maybe they’ll pull a fast one and buy a profitable business, a la AOL, but as it stands, it’s not a profitable company.
How was it possible? Perhaps Carly Fiorina, Jack Welch and Scott McGregor didn’t answer the phone or weren’t available.