Pam,
Well, that's the whole point! Complete lack of leadership and vision for the company that brought them to where they are today and it all happened under his tenure! Fiscal irresponsibility and excessive risk taking with shareholder money! Here's what happened to SPSN under his watch ever since the company went public and you are saying he quit the company when the company needed him most?
I partially agree. The problem is the granularity of risk taking. You either build a 300mm fab or don't. Spansion did the minimum increment of 300mm fab. Without that fab, Spansion would not be in bankruptcy today.
But with it, if the bottom didn't fall from under the entire market at the worst possible time for Spansion, but, Spansion would have been the one (maybe the only one) standing.
He should have been fired a long time ago!
I am ok with firing, but not ok with resignation. That to me means deserting ones post in the middle of the worst storm.
Yes, others also didn't forecast the demand collapse but they didn't go bankrupt the way SPSN did! Spansion spent the money they couldn't afford to, on a market that wasn't gonna grow!
Spansion was more leveraged than others, and that is the reason for bankruptcy. Sometimes the leverage works, other times it does not. The worst possible scenario is for market to collapse when you are at your lowest cash level, which is what happened. Additionally, the credit markets collapsed at the same time and some of the cash the company thought it had (the UBS note) turned out not to be a marketable security. So it turned out to be a perfect storm for Spansion.
Joe |
