Originally posted by valuepicks
Isn't it in hindsight that Indage is adjudged as poor management? What if their acquisitions worked? i.e., assuming there are no other problems...
For argument sake, Tatas also acquired Corus and JLR but they have been raising money like hell to fund them, as many banks backed out. It is because of Tatas name that they are able to mop up crores through NCDs or other modes.
Would like to understand if there were any other instances where they were adjudged as poor management?
btw, I have no stake in Indage. So, my argument should be construed as defensive... 
Originally posted by praveen
]
Indage is good example of what a poor management can do to shareholders despite owning/running a what is supposed to be a very good business. |
|
At least as far as I am concerned any management who spends more time in promoting their stocks rather than their businesses, talks a lot and delivers too little is poor management.
See the historical track record over the last 6-7 years - the ROE is poor, they have constantly issued equity and diluted their stake.
I like management who focuses on their core business, spend their entire energy on increasing margins, cutting costs, broadening product portfolio without diluting equity.
There is no comparison with Tatas; In their case they have built years of credibility and confidence before they embarked on their global adventures/aspirations.
Let’s look at less prominent names like the Havell's management. They are still an excellent management even though they have stumbled badly on their EU acquisition because of the their trackrecord and the credibility built over the years.