I am not invested, but there have been companies in the past and will continue to be in the future where success is so closely linked to management that it will be difficult without this leader.
In the case of current companies, I clearly see $NVDA and $TSLA.
As a negative example, I see $CMG, where things have also been going downhill since the CEO left for Starbucks.
In the case of current companies, I clearly see $NVDA and $TSLA.
As a negative example, I see $CMG, where things have also been going downhill since the CEO left for Starbucks.
•
22
•
@Multibagger I completely agree, sometimes probably from a point of view that can't really be explained. At $CMG I also got myself into scrapes, didn't really think about CEO changes, etc. How do you do that? Do you inform yourself right at the beginning or do you evaluate your investment in good time if doubts or similar arise in this regard, as is the case with me now?
••
It's a mixture of different things. I was and am not invested in $TSLA. But for me, the cokehead at the top is the best airlock salesman there is in business at the moment. And when he built up $TSLA, he already had visions that have brought the company forward enormously. So as a shareholder of $TSLA, I would sell everything when he leaves.
With $CMG, which I wasn't invested in either, I think it was also quite logical. To achieve such successful growth in the food industry, you have to have top management at the helm.
The only thing I wouldn't be so sure about is $NVDA. They would probably also be successful with a different CEO. After all, he doesn't develop the chips himself. But he is a super market maker.
With $CMG, which I wasn't invested in either, I think it was also quite logical. To achieve such successful growth in the food industry, you have to have top management at the helm.
The only thing I wouldn't be so sure about is $NVDA. They would probably also be successful with a different CEO. After all, he doesn't develop the chips himself. But he is a super market maker.
••