No explanation needed
I hope we don’t have to bail them out again.
What’s the reason? You don’t like Ms Barra?
I think the argument is that private sector control is bad for shareholders. Or maybe WYG just thinks female CEOs aren’t any good?
Ironically, it’s the “no explanation needed” part that has people saying “Whaaa?” more than the possibility that there is a short argument.
For a mega-cap stock that is up 10% in the last month and has had a number of prominent hedge funds go forward with their long thesis, I think an explanation IS needed for your short position. Otherwise, I want the last 60 seconds of my life back.
I’ve been inside the GM finance department located at 5th and 59th. There are a lot of young BSD heavy hitters inside (all the old people were cut circa bailout) who have their CFAs, Top 2 MBAs, and were GS/MS/KKR Alum. That finance department is well equipped.
It was dry humour my friends, at the expensive the identically chromosoned gender. Please click back and check out my new post that actually should be discussed. I appologize for wasting everyone’s time and will refund you all handsomly with AF gear as soon as i get it in the mail.
This would have been fun if there were actually women posting on this site to fight back.
No need 
I’m curious, how do the more experienced investors feel about the UAW. There seems to be a passionate debate on either side, both pro and con but how does it really affect the investment, or does it?
^ Negative. Regulation and legal constraints are never an advantage and always hinder investments.
The UAW is legal price fixing for employees which jacks the SGA on the GM P&L.
Empiracle evidence supports female leaders creating more shareholder value than male leaders. Don’t ask me how/why. It could easily be spurious correlation. I’m just saying…(cue Bchad’s ironclad explaination).
^ This is false.
How many really successful long-tenured female CEOs or major companies can you name?
The Avon woman was pretty good I thought but I guess not since she got forced out. Meg Whitman is a disaster and nearly destroyed EBAY. Carla Fiorini is one of the worst CEOs of the modern era at a blue chip company. The Pepsi woman is good. The Kraft woman was pretty good I think until she had a stroke. Safra Catz is a beast at ORCL (not CEO but she practically runs that company).
You can count the number on one hand or definitely two hands.
Whether it’s a man or a woman in the CEO chair has no impact on my decision to invest or not, but you can hardly say there is evidence that female leaders do better at creating shareholder value.
Like I said, don’t ask me how/why. Some investing presentation (put on by females) I saw a half decade ago stated this and cited a study I can’t recall. Meh.
Well that certainly sounds compelling.
I read a study the other day, maybe on AF, that said that some high % of people (like 70%) prefer to have a male boss (including female survey participants).
Bromion, the reason you can count the number of really successful long-tenured female CEOs on one hand is because there are only that many female CEOs in existence.
I second the last statement in your post though… part of me is inclined to say it’s a bit of a non issue.
OP was trying to be funny, and failed. Let this thread die.
If anyone actually has good short ideas…feel free to post.
Which is my point. If they really were better CEOs, then a results-driven culture like Corporate America would know that and promote them in much greater numbers to the CEO role. Obviously that has not happened.
I totally agree. I have made numerous investment posts and somehow this thread gained the most traction. I post another one about current events and not a single response.