the only increase in stock price was a 7% jump the day they fired her. in fact the minute they fired her the stock jumped 10%. it closed up 7%. but basically, she lost $60 billion of shareholder wealth. she won t acknowledge that. employment? there s 30,000 jobs less. she had jobs from company a, jobs from company b, putting them together doesn t create more jobs. if you have massive layoffs on top of that. and the only jobs she created were offshore. she was not creating any american jobs. and patents. she had all these decrepit old patents that came from compaq and digital equipment that were decayed and dusty and never used. anything she bought has been shuttered or divested. this is a complete fraud. and this is amazing that people don t care about the facts. and by the way, do you have to be a business success to be a great ceo? no. commander in chief. she tells us to evaluate her on the basis of only this job. since she s had no other job. if she was so great and vindicated by ti
new york times yesterday. let me ask you this. let s sort of focus on this tenure. right? she s got a company. she inherits it in 1999, which is we all know the bubble s expanding. the dotcom bubble bursts. a lot of money in equities flows out of the tech sector. all that s irrelevant already is what nobody, except some of the financial press but not a single political reporter understanding, first of all, she bought this company after the well after the dotcom crash hit. that was late 99, 2000. she bought this company in the spring of 2002, when we were coming out of the to the com crash. and by the you re referring to the compaq acquisition. the compaq acquisition. which was buying the carcass of dying old companies. it was a big mistake. so buying compaq. she did double the revenue. and that s about as relevant as saying you quintupled the number of pencils in the drawer. the value by adding a plus b together, it was worth half a later. if you had a dollar value bef
ratner as he had a piece in the new york times yesterday. let me ask you this. let s sort of focus on this tenure. right? she s got a company. she inherits it in 1999, which is we all know the bubble s expanding. the dotcom bubble bursts. a lot of money in equities flows out of the tech sector. all that s irrelevant already is what nobody, except some of the financial press but not a single political reporter understanding, first of all, she bought this company after the well after the dotcom crash hit. that was late 99, 2000. she bought this company in the spring of 2002, when we were coming out of the to the com crash. and by the you re referring to the compaq acquisition. the compaq acquisition. which was buying the carcass of dying old companies. it was a big mistake. so buying compaq. she did double the revenue. and that s about as relevant as saying you quinn it up lled the number of pencils in the drawer. the value by adding a plus b together, it was worth half
was a 7% jump the day they fired her. in fact the minute they fired her the stock jumped 10%. it closed up 7%. but basically, she lost $60 billion of shareholder wealth. she won t acknowledge that. employment? there s 30,000 jobs less. she had jobs from company a, jobs from company b, putting them together doesn t create more jobs. if you have massive layoffs on top of that. and the only jobs she created were offshore. she was not creating any american jobs. and patents. she had all these decrepit old patents that came from compaq and digital equipment that were decayed and dusty and never used. anything she bought has been shuttered or divested. this is a complete fraud. and this is amazing that people don t care about the facts. and by the way, do you have to be a business success to be a great ceo? no. commander in chief. she tells us to evaluate her on the basis of only this job. since she s had no other job. if she was so great and vindicated by time, how come nobody s given her a
she bought company, it was worth 50 cents by the time they fired her. the only increase in stock price was a 7% jump the day they fired her. in fact, the minute they fired her the stock jumped 10%. it closed up 7%. but basically, she lost $60 billion of shareholder wealth. she won t acknowledge that. employment? there s 30,000 jobs less. she had jobs from company a, jobs from company b, putting them together doesn t create more jobs. if you have massive layoffs on top of that. and the only jobs she created were offshore. she was not creating any american jobs. and patents. she had all these decrepit old patents that came from compaq and digital equipment that were decayed and dusty and never used. anything she bought has been shuttered or divested. this is a complete fraud. and this is amazing that people don t care about the facts. and by the way, do you have to be a business success to be a great ceo? no. commander in chief. she tells us to evaluate her on the basis of only this job.