for many companies, the question on prioritization between short term vs. long term in the day-to-day activities is always on?

of course the textbook answer is the company has to balance between the two to win the market (and, indeed, i think there are some smart companies that can do). unfortunately, in real life it's very rare companies can do it. at least, in my short experience, to answer the question is always a painful thing.

the short term things such as cashflow, quarterly profit & growth (exceed or under analysts expectation) most of the time are the real driver of any business. this does not mean the companies have not been trying to develop a great product or try to serve the customers better; it just means when there is a conflict, the cashflow and the quarterly book wins.

the long term such as brand image building, research & development, strategic move for the next 5 years may be a must in ideal situation....but again, how long a company can stay firm on it (especially these long term are pretty hard to be measured in ROE or net profit)? especially if the short term outlook does not show any good sign? 

¶ 10:33 PM |

i thought the US would not ready yet for a serious candidate from non-white race. not this year, maybe next 10 years.

when Barack Obama announced his candidancy, i thought at that time he would be viewed as a fresh choice, but maybe not a serious contender for Senator Clinton (as it might Ralph Nader's appeal for a certain segment two elections ago).

but i've seen in the latest development (especially from the Super Tuesday result), i was wrong; of course this is not the first time..:)*

wrong, but glad i am



*i was wrong on china's progress five years ago in a class discussion on global economy. i thought it would take at least 10 years since joining the WTO to china become a powerful player in the global economy 

¶ 6:20 AM |