Job offers

[theBabyDavid]

I quit my last two jobs to accept positions that were step ups in role and pay. Neither time did I attempt to go back to the current supervisor and renegotiate; however, both times I felt a bit bad due to the timing. One was shortly after we signed a big new project and were bringing on new staff. And the most recent happened barely a month after my supervisor came back from maternity leave.

I typed out my notice, spoke respectfully and volunteered as much about the new roles as I wanted to. Both of them took it fantastically. One actually knew my future boss from a previous role and gave me advice and the maternity leave situation took me to dinner as a congrats and checks in from time to time despite me leaving that industry entirely.

TL/DR, leaving respectfully and professionally is always appreciated and usually means a good response

Wags,

Is this an update from when you last came through Seattle? Shoot me a PM. Let's catch up.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Benny,

You are somewhat correct. GE has a problem with unsecured liabilities. You misstated the issue - GE knows what its liabilities are. It has yet to define a strategy for dealing with them. But the real issue at GE is withy strategy.

Under Immelt (who was a master politician) GE's strategy for addressing the unbuckling of Cap (which drove earnings) was Mergers, Acquisitions, and Divestitures (MAD). The problem with that is, without a clear unambiguous linkage with customer equity, it merely muddies the water without actually giving the Street an articulated vision for the future.

Immelt's last years were characterized by stupid M&A (Alstom, Baker Hughes, etc...) and divestiture of core businesses (Healthcare, in particular.) MAD is a mechanism for executing a strategy; under Immelt, then Flannery, MAD proxied as the strategy.

I work very closely with GE Power and Renewable Energy. We are developing and launching remarkable technology that is making the generation and transmission of power cleaner, cheaper, and more accesible.

I laugh when I read how journalists predict the demise of Power. In fact, GE's strength is the pipeline of technology which will reshape the energy landscape. We play a small role in that but we are involved in several high profile projects on four continents - two should be announced shortly after the New Year.       

The issue with GE isn't within GE Power or Renewable Energy. The problem is activist hedge fund managers who can't possibly comprehend the underlying technology combined with CEOs afraid to make a decision - that's you Jeff Immelt and John Flannery.

GE needs to define a clear strategy for the Street. In the meantime, the engineers doing the heavy lifting in the labs are doing great work.

I'm aware GE Power has a development program in place to greatly increase the efficiency of wind turbines.

[theBabyDavid]

I'm aware GE Power has a development program in place to greatly increase the efficiency of wind turbines.

They are but so too is Gamesa, Siemens, Vestas, et al... Blade efficiency is why GE acquired LM which I believe was actually an inspired move.

The compelling technologies are in inverters, interconnects, storage and innovative application engineering. Generating power more efficiently is important. It is more difficult and more impactful to address transmission and storage.

[theBabyDavid]

If that were the case then every legacy corporation in America would be getting "slammed".  PRB's (Post Retirement Benefits) and pensions are always important, but PRB's are not protected by ERISA, therefore, they can be off loaded at any time.

This will probably be  the next move by corporate America.  We have had the virtual elimination of defined benefit plans, low wages that result in workers unable to contribute adequately to 401(k) plans, and the creations of various health care schemes. 

At GE in particular, the issue is the insurance sector, the get rich quick lunacy of Mr. Welch, the former fair haired boy of the street.

U.S. Steel was way ahead of G.E. in deindustrializing America.  When they went into "finance", leasing, and became USX it was over for American manufacturing.

One by one workers benefits have been taken and like the frog in the boiling water, the workers, media, and unions said nothing and went along with the plan.

Now we have the retired lives vs. the active folks, a civil war among the workers who, for the most part, have no idea about PRB's. 

I'll let it go at that, no need to get ideological.

Vogue

The issue isn't employee benefits; it has to do with policy liabilities. GEFA went on a spree buying up insurance policies around the world. Great move which generates huge amounts of cash until the demographics shift.

I was a lead on the Toho Seimei acquisition in '98 but our strategy in that was very different. The Japanese FSA had liberalized direct foreign investment into the domestic financial services market. We bought Toho, Japan's 4th largest insurer, not as a cash machine but for distribution for our suite of financial products.

We knew that we wouldn't hold on to the core insurance business and sold it at a premium to AIG within 5 years - a key element in our strategy. Meanwhile, we continued with our credit card, consumer finance, and unit trust businesses which were genuine cash cows without the payout risk associated with capitation=based models.