25 refrigerators.

That’s how much the additional electricity consumption per household would be if the average US home adopted electric vehicles (EVs).

Congressman Thomas Massie—an electrical engineer—revealed this information while discussing with Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, President Biden’s plan to have 50% of cars sold in the US be electric by 2030.

The current and future grid in most places will not be able to support each home running 25 refrigerators—not even close. Just look at California, where the grid is already buckling under the existing load.

Massie claims, correctly, in my view, that the notion of widespread adoption of electric vehicles anytime soon is a dangerous fantasy based on political science, not sound engineering.

Nonetheless, governments, the media, academia, large corporations, and celebrities tout an imminent “transition” to EVs as if it’s preordained from above.

It’s not.

They’re trying to manufacture your consent for a scam of almost unimaginable proportions.

Below are three reasons why something sinister is going on with the big push for EVs.

But first, a necessary clarification.

You no doubt have heard of the term “fossil fuels” before.

When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s. Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars.

They also think “fossil fuels” will destroy the planet within a decade and run out soon—despite the fact that, after water, oil is the second most abundant liquid on this planet.

None of these ridiculous notions are true, but many people believe them. Using propaganda terms like “fossil fuels” plays a large role.

Orwell was correct when he said that corrupting the language can corrupt people’s thoughts.

I suggest expunging “fossil fuels” from your vocabulary in favor of hydrocarbons—a much better and more precise word.

A hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and gas. These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power for industries, transportation, and homes.

Now, on to the three reasons EVs are a giant scam at best and possibly something much worse.

Reason #1: EVs Are Not Green

The central premise for EVs is they help to save the planet from carbon because they use electricity instead of gas.

It’s astounding so few think to ask, what generates the electricity that powers EVs?

Hydrocarbons generate over 60% of the electricity in the US. That means there’s an excellent chance that oil, coal, or gas is behind the electricity charging an EV.

It’s important to emphasize carbon is an essential element for life on this planet. It’s what humans exhale and what plants need to survive.

After decades of propaganda, Malthusian hysterics have created a twisted perception in many people’s minds that carbon is a dangerous substance that must be reduced to save the planet.

Let’s entertain this bogus premise momentarily and assume carbon is bad.

Even by this logic, EVs do not really reduce carbon emissions; they just rearrange them.

Further, extracting and processing the exotic materials needed to make EVs requires tremendous power in remote locations, which only hydrocarbons can provide.

Additionally, EVs require an enormous amount of rare elements and metals—like lithium and cobalt—that companies mine in conditions that couldn’t remotely be considered friendly to the environment.

Analysts estimate that each EV requires around one kilogram of rare earth elements. Extracting and processing these rare elements produces a massive amount of toxic waste. That’s why it mainly occurs in China, which doesn’t care much about environmental concerns.

In short, the notion that EVs are green is laughable.

It’s simply the thin patina of propaganda that governments need as a pretext to justify the astronomical taxpayer subsidies for EVs.

Reason #2: EVs Can’t Compete Without Government Support

For many years, governments have heavily subsidized EVs through rebates, sales tax exemptions, loans, grants, tax credits, and other means.

According to the Wall Street Journal, US taxpayers will subsidize EVs by at least $393 billion in the coming years—more than the GDP of Hong Kong.

To put that in perspective, if you earned $1 a second 24/7/365—about $31 million per year—it would take you over 12,677 YEARS to make $393 billion.

And that’s not even considering the immense subsidies and government support that have occurred in the past.

Furthermore, governments impose burdensome regulations and taxes on gasoline vehicles to make EVs seem relatively more attractive.

Even with this enormous government support, EVs can barely compete with gasoline vehicles.

According to J.D. Power, a consumer research firm, the average EV still costs at least 21% more than the average gasoline vehicle.

Without government support, it’s not hard to see how the market for EVs would evaporate as they would become unaffordable for the vast majority of people.

In other words, the EV market is a giant mirage artificially propped up by extensive government intervention.

It begs the question, why are governments going all out to push an obviously uneconomic scam?

While they are undoubtedly corrupt thieves and simply stupid, something more nefarious could also be at play.

Reason #3: EVs Are About Controlling You

EVs are spying machines.

They collect an unimaginable amount of data on you, which governments can access easily.

Analysts estimate that cars generate about 25 gigabytes of data every hour.

Seeing how governments could integrate EVs into a larger high-tech control grid doesn’t take much imagination. The potential for busybodies—or worse—to abuse such a system is obvious.

Consider this.

The last thing any government wants is an incident like what happened with the Canadian truckers rebelling against vaccine mandates.

Had the Canadian truckers’ vehicles been EVs, the government would have been able to stamp out the resistance much easier.

Here’s the bottom line.

The people really in charge do not want the average person to have genuine freedom of movement or access to independent power sources.

They want to know everything, keep you dependent, and have the ability to control everything, just like how a farmer would with his cattle. They think of you in similar terms.

That’s why gasoline vehicles have to go and why they are trying to herd us into EVs.

Conclusion

To summarize, EVs are not green, cannot compete with gas cars without enormous government support, and are probably a crucial piece of the emerging high-tech control grid.

The solution is simple: eliminate all government subsidies and support and let EVs compete on their own merits in a totally free market.

But that’s unlikely to happen.

Instead, it’s only prudent to expect them to push EVs harder and harder.

If EVs were simply government-subsidized status symbols for wealthy liberals who want to virtue signal how they think they’re saving the planet, that would be bad enough.

But chances are, the big push for EVs represents something much worse.

Along with 15-minute cities, carbon credits, CBDCs, digital IDs, phasing out hydrocarbons and meat, vaccine passports, an ESG social credit system, and the war on farmers, EVs are likely an integral part of the Great Reset—the dystopian future the global elite has envisioned for mankind.

In reality, the so-called Great Reset is a high-tech form of feudalism.

Sadly, most of humanity has no idea what is coming.

Worse, many have become unwitting foot soldiers for this agenda because they have been gaslighted into believing they are saving the planet or acting for the greater good.

This trend is already in motion… and the coming weeks will be pivotal.

The hotel’s owner, Vinay Patel, has noticed this interaction waning.

“People are now literally not wanting to go to the front desk,” he says. “They’ll check in online on the phone similar to the airlines and go straight to [the] room.”

Technology has long been transforming hotels, and the pandemic accelerated that change.

It’s Tuesday, and for this hotel, that used to mean a crush of business travelers. Instead, Patel has been welcoming a new type of guest: here not just for business or leisure, but a combination of both. “Bleisure” is a hot new term in hospitality, the product of remote-work culture.

All this is part of a big post-pandemic reset for the American hotel: It’s shaken up travel habits, erased jobs and put the industry on a circuitous path to recovery.

Getting by with fewer workers

Today almost 200,000 fewer people work in hotels and other lodging than before the pandemic, federal data shows. That’s a 9% drop. Lower employment often implies an industry in trouble — but hotels may actually never need as many workers as they once did.

When travel cratered in 2020, hotels were wiped out and over a million workers lost jobs. Housekeepers, front desk agents, maintenance staff went into construction, food, retail. Those who stayed trained to do new tasks. Hotels that offered extra services, like lunches, scaled them back.

Over time, guests learned to skip daily room cleanings for COVID precautions. Breakfasts got more self-served and automated, with waffles and pancakes tumbling out of machines. And in the long run, operating with fewer workers saves companies money.

“You know, like it or not … the pandemic has kind of taught us a lot,” says Patel, who owns 11 hotels around Virginia. “We’ve become a lot more efficient.”

Less business, more “bleisure”

Vacationers surged back to hotels with “revenge travel,” but foreign tourists and corporate travelers are still not back in force.

“That’s the biggest impact,” says Miraj Patel, the chair of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, whose members own the majority of U.S. hotels, and Vinay Patel’s nephew. “The full recovery is still not there.”

The “bleisure” travelers make up for some of the losses, says Vinay Patel. They come for meetings, and stay longer to visit the Virginia wineries. And at the Hampton, six miles from the airport, that’s upended the ebb and flow.

Before the pandemic, “you do not mess with Tuesday-Wednesday,” Patel recalls. “Business travelers come down on Tuesday-Wednesday.”

And these days? “It’s spread out a lot more,” he says.

Questions about the industry’s future

Major hotel chains, like Hilton and Marriott, have seen their stock price resurge to record highs this year. That’s partly because luxury hotels have fared much better than the rest.

People stayed more often at upscale brands and less in economy lodging in early 2024 versus 2023, says Jan Freitag, who tracks hospitality analytics at the real estate data firm CoStar.

Overall hotel occupancy neared 64% in March compared to 68% in 2019, CoStar found. That suggests near-recovery from pandemic collapse, though the lag does obscure millions of rooms that got built, opened and not filled.

“We have more rooms available now, and we are selling fewer rooms than we did,” says Freitag.

Price-wise, the average cost has jumped to $155 per room from $129 in 2019, Freitag says. That’s a 20% increase. At the same time, overall U.S. inflation added up to almost 23% over those years. So hotel owners list plenty of higher costs, too: taxes, wages, insurance, coffee, cups, linens, detergent.

Add in high interest rates, plus banks being stingier with loans, and a new concern hovers overs the industry’s future: Fewer people have been buying and building new hotels.

That includes Vinay Patel in Virginia, who keeps delaying construction on a lot where he originally planned to break ground when the pandemic began.

“I just can’t make the numbers work right now,” he says. “I have to wait another year to two years.”

“I’ve seen my share of boiled frogs,” says Sterling Cooper’s CEO, comparing companies in crisis with the metaphorical frog that doesn’t notice the water it’s in is warming up until it’s too late.

As the chief restructuring officer for turnaround situations over nearly four decades, he has witnessed firsthand how managers back right into a crisis without recognizing that their situation is worsening. “They’re not bad managers, but they’re often working under a set of paradigms that no longer apply and letting the power of inertia carry them along.” And if they don’t realize they’re facing a crisis, they won’t know that they need to undertake a turnaround, either.

He’s also heard the regrets: sometimes managers underestimated how critical their situation was—or they were looking at the wrong data. Others took advantage of easy access to cheap capital to stay the course in spite of poor performance, believing they could push through it. Still others got so caught up in the pressure for short-term returns that they neglected to ensure their company’s long-term health—or even willfully sacrificed it.

Rare among them is the executive who stepped back to review his or her own plans objectively, asking “Is this what I thought would happen when I first started going down this road?” That’s a problem,  because acknowledging that your plan isn’t working is a necessary first step.

Here, are some suggestions of ten-ways ailing companies can get started on the turnaround work they need.

1. Throw away your perceptions of a company in distress

It’s next to impossible to come up with one working definition of a company in distress—and dangerous to think that you have one for your own company. Depending on the situation, there are probably many different signs of potential distress. The problem is seldom made up of just one or two of these things, however. Rather, it is the result of a greater number of them interacting together and with other external factors.

There are numerous signs of distress—and a distressed company is typically dealing with multiple signs.

Criticize your own plan

The biggest thing you can do to avoid distress is periodically review your business plans. When you’re creating them, whether at the beginning of the year or the start of a three-year cycle, build in some trigger points. A simple explicit reminder can be enough: “If we don’t have this type of performance by this date or we haven’t gotten the following 12 things done by this date, we’ll step back and decide if we’re going down the right path, given what’s happened since our last review.”

Such trigger points should be oriented both to operational and market performance as well as to basic financial metrics and cash flow. Look at where you are as a company using basic financial and cash milestones, and then look at where you are with respect to your industry and competitors. If you’re not moving with the rest of the industry (or not outpacing it, if the industry is struggling), then your plan may be obsolete. And don’t forget to look back at your performance over past cycles to identify any trends. If you keep missing performance targets, ask why.

3. Expect more from your board

The beauty of a board is that it has enough distance from the company to see the forest for the trees. Managers often treat their board as a necessary evil to placate so they can get on with their business, but that undermines the board’s role as an early-warning system when a company is heading for distress.

It’s also the board’s responsibility to look the CEO, the CFO, and the chief operating officer (COO) in the eye and say, “OK, we like your plan. Now let’s talk about what it would take to cut costs not just by 3 percent but by 20. Let’s talk about all the things that can go wrong—the risks to the business.” Sometimes significant events happen that no one could have foreseen, of course.

But. in a typical distress situation, a company has usually just had 18 to 24 months of poor performance, and the board hasn’t been aware or hasn’t asked the right questions. Independent board members—truly independent ones—can have a big impact here.

The senior team at one company maintains a list of risks to the business, employees, and the plan. They review those risks with the board on a quarterly basis to ensure that they’re staying top of mind. It’s an excellent way to have conversations that you wouldn’t normally otherwise have in a business operation.

4. Focus on cash

A successful turnaround really comes down to one thing, which is a focus on cash and cash returns. That means bringing a business back to its basic element of success. Is it generating cash or burning it? And, even more specifically, which investments in the business are generating or burning cash?

I like to think about this in the same way one would if running a local hardware store. By that, I mean asking fundamental questions, such as whether there is enough cash in the register to pay the utility bill, for example, or to pay for the pallet of house paint that will arrive next week, or how much more cash I can make by investing in a new delivery truck. When you bring a business back to those basic elements, the actions you need to take to get back on track become pretty clear.

In many of the cases I have seen, the management team and board are focused on complex metrics related to earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) and return on investment that exclude major uses of cash. For example, variations on EBIT commonly exclude depreciation and amortization but also exclude things like rents or fuel. These are all fine metrics, but nasty surprises await when no one is focused on cash.

Keeping track of cash isn’t just about watching your bank balance. To avoid surprises, companies also need a good forecast that keeps a midterm and longer view. For example, failing to pay attention to the cash component of capital investments routinely gets companies in trouble.

Projecting net present values can look the same whether the return begins gradually at year two or jumps up dramatically at year five. But if you’re not focusing on the cash that goes out the door while you’re waiting for that year-five infusion, you can suddenly find yourself with very little cash left to run the business, sending you into a spiral you may not recover from.

5. Create a great change story

Companies in distress don’t focus enough on creating a change story that everyone understands—and that creates some sense of urgency.

Here’s an example. I recently did a turnaround as chief restructuring officer of a mining company. It was profitable, returned a decent margin, and was cash positive. But the commodity price was dropping, and the board was worried about generating enough free cash flow to drive the capital needs of the business. The change story we created said, “Yes, we are profitable. But the whole point of profitability is to generate enough cash to expand, grow, and maintain operations. If we can’t do that, then we’re headed for a long, slow decline where equipment breaks down and lower production becomes the new reality.”

If you can tell that story in a paragraph or less, in a way that means something to the average guy on the front line, then people will get on board. In this case, employees wanted to have their children and their grandchildren work for this company in the same remote mining location, and the change story spurred them to action. The key was a simple message, not fancy metrics.

6. Treat every turnaround like a crisis

Without a crisis mind-set, you get a stable company’s response to change: risk is to be avoided, and incrementalism takes over. Your workers are asked to do a little more (or the same) with less. More aggressive ideas will be analyzed ad nauseam, and the implementation will be slow and methodical.

In contrast, a crisis demands significant action, now, which is what a distressed company needs. Managers need to use words like crisis and urgency from the first moment they recognize the need for a turnaround. A company that’s in true crisis will be willing to try some things that it normally wouldn’t consider, and it’s those bold actions that change the trajectory of the company. Crisis drives people to action and opens managers up to consider a full range of options. Consider cash bonuses for positive results based on a successful plan executed.

7. Build traction for change with quick wins

The tendency of most managers is to put all of their focus and resources into three or four big bets to turn a company around. That can be a high-risk approach. Even if big bets are sometimes necessary, they take a lot of time and effort—and they don’t always pay off.

For example, say you decide to change suppliers of raw materials so you can source from a low-cost country, expecting 30 percent lower direct costs. If you realize six months later that the material specifications don’t meet your needs, you’ll have spent time you don’t have, perhaps interrupted your whole production schedule, and probably burned a bunch of cash on something that didn’t pay off.

In addition to going after big bets, managers should focus on getting a series of quick wins to gain traction within the organization. Such quick wins can be cost focused, cutting off demand for some external service they don’t need. Or it could be policy focused, such as introducing a more stringent policy on travel expense.

Not only do such moves improve the bottom line, they also generate support among employees. In any given company, you’re likely to find that a fifth of employees across the organization are almost always supportive. They work hard. And they will change what they’re doing if you just ask them.

These are the people you’ll want to spend most of your time with, and they’re the ones you’ll promote—but you’ll probably spend too much time with the bottom fifth of employees. These are the underachieving ones who actively resist change, look for ways to avoid it, or are simply high maintenance.

What often gets ignored is the remaining 60 percent of the organization. These are the fence-sitters, and they are tuned into action, not just talk. They see the changes going on, and if you proactively work with them, then 80 percent of the organization will be behind you. But if you don’t give them a reason to stand up and be positive about the company, they’ll go negative.

That’s the importance of quick wins. When you quickly take real action, and when those actions affect the management team as well, you send a powerful message.

8. Throw out your old incentive plans

Management incentives are often the most overlooked tool in a turnaround. In stable companies, short-term incentive plans can be a complex assortment of goals related to safety, financial and operational performance, and personal development. Many are so complex that when you ask managers what they need to do to earn their bonus, many just shrug their shoulders and say, “Someone will tell me at the end of the year.”

In a turnaround, take a lesson from the private-equity industry and throw out your old plans. Instead, offer managers incentives tied specifically to what you want them to do. Do you need $10 million of improvement from pricing? Then make it a big part of your sales staff’s incentive plan. Need $150 million from procurement? Give your chief purchasing officer a meet-or-beat target. Be willing to forgo bonus payments for those that don’t achieve 100 percent of their target—and to pay out handsomely for those whose results are beyond expectations.

9. Replace a top-team member—or two

Experience tells me that most successful turnarounds involve changing out one or two top-team members. This isn’t about “bad” managers. In my 40 years of doing this, I’ve only seen a small handful of managers I thought were truly incompetent. But, it’s a practical reality that there are managers who must own the decline.

And more often than not, they are incapable of the shift in mind-set needed to make fundamental changes to the operating philosophy they’ve believed in for years. Whether they realize it or not, they block that change because they’re bent on defending what they believe to be true. Although it’s difficult, removing those people sends another signal to your stakeholders that there will be changes and you’re not afraid to make tough moves.

10. Find and retain talented people

Beyond the leadership team, there are two types of people I look for immediately. First are those that have the institutional knowledge. They may not be your top performers, but they know all the ins and outs of the company—and are vital to understanding the impact of potential changes on the business. Many times they are the disgruntled ones, unhappy with the company’s performance. But you need people who are willing to point out the uncomfortable truths.

A turnaround is also a real opportunity to find the next level of talent in an organization. I’ve been through multiple crises where the people who added the most value and impact weren’t the ones sitting around the table at the beginning. I have often found great leaders two and three levels down who are just waiting for an opportunity—and the fact that they can be part of something bigger than themselves, saving a company, is often enough to attract and retain them.

For both groups, it’s important to realize that retention isn’t always about money and bonuses. It’s also about figuring out the individual’s needs. Good turnaround managers actively look for those people and find a way to get them involved.

Consider hiring the turnaround consultants at WWW.STERLINGCOOPER.INFO

HP BILLION DOLLAR BUNGLES

Part 1 – Billion dollar bungles

In February, The Sunday Times interviewed the CEO of Hewlett Packard Enterprises, Antonio Neri. The story highlights that HPE, once a Silicon Valley pioneer, is now a fallen giant, completely eclipsed by the likes of Google, Amazon and Meta.

Hewlett Packard was one of the very first Palo Alto companies. Indeed, the garage in which Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard began working together in the late 1930s is dubbed “the birthplace of Silicon Valley”. The two electrical engineering graduates from Stanford University initially produced sound equipment for Walt Disney Studios.

Fast forward to the end of the 1990s, Hewlett Packard was a global company, known primarily for its personal computers and printers. It employed over 80,000 people, generating $48bn in net revenues, and had a market capitalization in excess of $17 billion.

Yet in the first decade of the 21st century, things began to go badly wrong for HP. It went through four CEOs from 2005 – 2011. Its reputation and its share price took a battering to the extent that it has never recovered its standing.

In his interview, Mr Neri acknowledges that the company lost its direction and failed to capitalize on trends like cloud, IoT and infrastructure. Mr Neri’s first big move was to acquire a company called Juniper Networks, described by The Sunday Times as “audacious”. HPE’s stock has fallen 15 per cent in the weeks since the deal was announced. “It’s a defining moment for the company and for me as a leader,” says Mr Neri, HPE’s biggest deal since the Compaq merger of 2002.

The Juniper deal brings more than faint echoes of the ghosts of HP acquisitions past. A bullish leader keen to make a big strategic play coupled with investor skepticism has been a repeat story for the company.

HP’s track record in acquisitions over the last two decades makes for painful reading. From the early 2000s, the company’s history is pock-marked with bungled acquisitions. The purchases of Compaq, Electronic Data Systems, Palm and Autonomy completely failed, caused internal turmoil and provoked shareholder outrage.

It is worth revisiting these stories to show where HP went so badly wrong and to underline that Mr Neri would be wise not to gloss over the case history of his company’s failed M&A.

Let’s start with the Compaq deal in 2001.

At the time, Hewlett Packard under the leadership of Carly Fiorina, who had been in post since 1999. HP had entered a period of struggles, with stock in decline and failed attempts to grow its services business. In September 2001, it agreed to buy Compaq for US$24.2 billion. The aim was to create a giant capable of competing with IBM, Dell and Gateway.

The investment community did not react well, plainly unconvinced by Fiorina’s vision. In the two days after the announcement, HP’s share price dropped 21.5%. Analysts could not see the logic in a high-margin printer business purchasing a company that was barely eking out a profit in personal computers. The $24.2 billion price tag was thought to be far too high in any case.

Opposition spread to HP’s shareholders. Remarkably, the sons of the two founders personally fought against the deal. Walter Hewlett saw that personal computers were low-margin and posed a risk to HP. David W. Packard, meanwhile, voiced concern about the number of expected lay-offs – totalling 9,000. He thought such a move ran totally counter to HP’s long-established values and would have appalled his father and Bill Hewlett.

In the event, shareholders did agree to the deal, but only by a wafer-thin margin of 2.8%. Claims of vote-buying involving Deutsche Bank flew around immediately after the vote, which further sullied the Compaq purchase. The SEC later fined Deutsche Bank $750,000 for “failing to disclose a material conflict of interest in its voting of client proxies” during the deal.

The view in the aftermath was that HP did indeed pay far too much for Compaq. This article in the Inquirer from 2003 analyses the financial performance after the deal, summarising that the virtues of the deal that HP peddled had not, at that point, materialised in a meaningful way.

By 2005, a full three years after the deal, the promised profits and shareholder returns were still not there. HP’s stock was still lagging far behind IBM and Dell and so Carly Fiorina was ousted in February of that year. She herself admitted that “buying Compaq hasn’t paid off for HP’s investors. And there’s no easy way out.”

The acquisition of Palm in 2010 was another catastrophe.

HP’s then CEO, Mark Hurd, was hugely enthusiastic about the deal to buy Palm for $1.2 billion. At the time, Palm was already struggling to compete with emerging smartphone giants like Apple, which had released the iPhone in 2007.

HP’s press release about the deal stated it would make the company a player in a fast-growing segment “with Palm’s innovative webOS platform and family of smartphones”. Hurd saw it as a way to diversify from the printer business. However, CFO Cathie Lesjak didn’t share his view and HP never committed the amount of investment into Palm required to make its new products a success.

To make matters worse, in August 2010, mere months after the deal, Mark Hurd suddenly resigned amid misconduct allegations. Hurd was the primary advocate and driver for a thorough integration of Palm, in particular webOS, into the HP business. With him gone, the odds of the integration being carried out successfully were drastically cut.

The HP TouchPad – a tablet device that Hurd had wanted created with Palm’s technology – was released in 2011. It was a consumer flop of epic proportions. A review on The Verge said, “the stability and smoothness of the user experience is not up to par with the iPad… coupled with the minuscule number of quality apps available at launch make this a bit of a hard sell right now.”

It took only six weeks after the launch of the TouchPad for Hurd’s successor, Leo Apotheker, to kill it. The company discontinued the device and ripped up all plans for  similar consumer hardware products.

In 2011, HP wrote down US$1.67bn following its decision to wind down the device business – $0.4bn more than it paid for Palm. As AllThingsDigital put it “that was $1.2 billion well spent…”

The story of the Electronic Data Systems (EDS) acquisition was primarily one of poor integration and bad management.

In May 2008, HP bought EDS for $13.9bn. The aim was to bolster HP’s IT services business.

HP’s major misstep was to lay off so many talented people who had worked at EDS. There was a culture clash, too. As one executive present during the integration told Computer Weekly years after the deal, “EDS had its problems… but their attitude was to deliver exceptional customer service. HP was of the attitude that ‘if we are big enough, we set the standard’.”

In the same piece, EDS’ former financial services division head said HP fixated on short-term revenues rather than building long-term customer relationships. The loss of EDS staff compounded this issue, as they held strong customer relationships built up over time. Another analyst told the FT that what happened to EDS was a “travesty”.

The conclusion of the EDS story was not a pretty one. In August 2012, HP announced it was taking an $8bn write-down of its services business, dominated by the former EDS. One analyst said: “the charge for EDS shows what a mess that acquisition was.”

EDS was a case of poor integration, but the acquisition of Autonomy was on another level. It highlights the violent lurches between hardware, software and services in HP’s strategy during the first few years of the 2000s. It underlines the weak position HP was in and the boardroom dramas that had become commonplace. And it proved to be the most controversial of all of HP’s ill-fated purchases, resulting in more than a decade of litigation.

In today’s dynamic and competitive business environment, companies often face challenges that can significantly impact their performance and sustainability. These challenges arise from various factors such as market shifts, financial difficulties, operational inefficiencies, or strategic misalignment. When a business finds itself in such a situation, one valuable resource that can make a substantial difference is engaging external business consultants. These consultants bring specialized expertise and a fresh perspective, playing a crucial role in facilitating the turnaround process for businesses.

Understanding the Need for Business Turnaround

Before delving into the role of business consultants, it’s essential to understand the signs that indicate a need for a business turnaround. Some common indicators include declining revenue and profitability, market share erosion, customer dissatisfaction, operational bottlenecks, excessive costs, or a lack of strategic direction. Recognizing these warning signs early is key to initiating timely corrective measures.

Leveraging External Expertise: The Business Consultant’s Role

1. Objective Assessment:External consultants bring objectivity to the table. They can conduct a comprehensive assessment of the business’s current state, including its financial health, operational efficiency, market position, and competitive landscape. This objective analysis forms the basis for developing a turnaround strategy tailored to the company’s specific challenges and goals.

2. Specialized Skills:Consultants offer specialized skills and knowledge that may not be readily available within the company. Whether it’s financial restructuring, operational optimization, market repositioning, or change management, consultants bring expertise honed through diverse experiences across industries and sectors.

3. Fresh Perspective:One of the most significant advantages of external consultants is their ability to provide a fresh perspective. They can identify blind spots, challenge existing assumptions, and introduce innovative ideas that internal teams may overlook due to entrenched thinking or organizational biases.

4. Speed and Efficiency:Consultants operate with a sense of urgency, leveraging their experience to implement turnaround initiatives swiftly and efficiently. This agility is crucial in addressing immediate challenges and mitigating risks, minimizing the impact of prolonged business disruptions.

5. Change Management:Successful turnaround efforts often require significant organizational change. Management Consultants excel in such organizational change, helping companies navigate transitions, align stakeholders, communicate effectively, and build resilience to sustain improvements over the long term.

When to Engage Consulting Services

The decision to engage business consulting services for a turnaround should be strategic and based on several factors:

• Complexity of Challenges:If the challenges facing the business are complex and multifaceted, external consultants can provide the expertise and resources needed to tackle them comprehensively.

• Resource Constraints:When internal resources are stretched thin or lack the required expertise, consultants can fill the gap and augment the company’s capabilities during the turnaround process.

• Urgency:Time is often of the essence in turnaround situations, especially when financial stability is at stake. Business Consultants can expedite the diagnosis, planning, and execution phases, driving rapid results.

Conclusion

In the ever-evolving landscape of business, challenges are inevitable, but how companies respond to these challenges often determines their fate. Recognizing the signs of distress and taking decisive action is paramount for survival and success. External consultants play a pivotal role in corporate turnaround efforts, offering objective assessments, specialized skills, fresh perspectives, and efficient execution capabilities.

By engaging business consultants strategically, organizations can leverage external expertise to navigate complex challenges, overcome resource constraints, and drive rapid, data-driven results. Moreover, consultants facilitate organizational change management, ensuring that improvements are sustainable and aligned with long-term strategic objectives.

Sterling Cooper, Inc.

Sterling Cooper, Inc. is a premier business acquisition advisory and management consultant firm in the USA, boasting decades of experience. Catering to a wide spectrum from budding startups to well-established enterprises, Sterling Cooper’s bespoke strategies nurture innovation, streamline operations, and cultivate market dominance. Their adept team employs a rigorous selection methodology, coupled with financial proficiency and industry acumen, to seamlessly assimilate acquired entities into a synergistic and vibrant portfolio. For business inquiries, fill our short feedback form or call us at our Toll-Free Number 1-866-285-6572.

The mega-wealthy, for the most part, got mega-wealthier over the past year in Palm Beach, a town that can count at least 58 billionaires among its property owners, according to an exclusive Palm Beach Daily News analysis of the list of the world’s wealthiest people.

The majority of the Palm Beach billionaires — 40 in all — watched their estimated net worth increase over the past year, while 15 saw their wealth shrink. And another three saw their fortunes remain flat. (See the complete list of Palm Beach billionaires below.)

Among the Palm Beach billionaires who saw their wealth drop over the past year is former President Donald Trump. The estimated net worth of the town’s most famous resident decreased from $2.5 billion in April 2023 to $2.3 billion on the new list.

In all, the Palm Beach billionaires’ wealth for 2024 totals $494.7 billion, the analysis by the Palm Beach Daily News shows.

Billionaires landed on the Palm Beach list if they own real estate in town, whether it’s a primary home, a vacation house or an investment property. There may be more billionaires who own real estate in Palm Beach, but if so, their identities have so far remained cloaked behind the entities they used to buy their properties.  Others may not have met the criteria Forbes.com uses to determine eligibility, which figures in the value of their stock portfolios and other assets, including private companies, real estate and art collections.

The list of Palm Beach billionaires is missing one famous name that appeared on it last year. “Margaritaville” singer and businessman Jimmy Buffett , a longtime Palm Beach homeowner, died at age 76 in September, five months after Forbes said his wealth hit the $1 billion mark for the first time.

New to the Forbes list this year is Palm Beach resident Avram Glazer, who is part of the family that owns the Tampa Buccaneers and is majority owner of the Manchester United soccer team in the United Kingdom. His net worth is $1.7 billion, according to Forbes.

On the latest list, Forbes named a record-setting 2,781 people across the globe whose wealth totaled at least $1 billion each, up from 2,640 last year.

Those on the Palm Beach list who saw their wealth rise over the past year are right in line with the vast majority of their global counterparts, the Forbes list shows. Of the billionaires on the global list, three-fourths experienced a year-over-year increase in wealth.

“What a year it’s been for the planet’s billionaires, whose fortunes continue to swell as global stock markets shrug off war, political unrest and lingering inflation,” says an article accompanying the new Forbes list.

Once again, Julia Koch and her family lead the Palm Beach list with an estimated net worth of $64.3 billion, up from $59 billion a year ago. Her late husband, David Koch of Koch Industries, had for years been identified as Palm Beach’s wealthiest billionaire until his death in 2019.

Private-equity mogul Stephen Schwarzman this year stepped into the No. 2 spot on the Palm Beach List. That rank was held last year by hedge-fund manager and securities titan Ken Griffin, who lives in Miami but owns the largest estate in Palm Beach.

Schwarzman’s year-over-year wealth rose from $27.8 billion last year to $38.8 billion this year, according to Forbes. Griffin’s fortune, meanwhile, grew from $35 billion a year ago to $36.4 billion, according to Forbes.

On the new global list, French fashion and cosmetics mogul Bernard Arnault and his family were ranked No. 1 with $233 billion, a position they first assumed in 2023. Tesla and Space X tycoon Elon Musk — and his $195 billion net worth — landed in the No. 2 slot among the world’s billionaires. That was slightly ahead of Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, who ranked No. 3 with a fortune of $194 billion.

Taking the fourth spot in the global ranking was Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg of Meta with $177 billion. And ranked No. 5 — with $147 billion — was Oracle Corp. software tycoon Larry Ellison, who owns an ocean-to-lake estate in Manalapan south of Palm Beach.

Among the celebrities on the global list is singer Taylor Swift, who for the first time has been ranked as a billionaire with an estimated net worth of $1.1 billion. Other celebrities on the overall list include NBA hall-of-famer Magic Johnson ($1.2 billion), filmmaker George Lucas ($5.5 billion), NBA legend Michael Jordan ($3.2 billion) and businesswoman and television personality Kim Kardashian ($1.7 billion).

Palm Beach’s wealthiest: Local billionaires on the 2024 Forbes’ ranking of the world’s richest

Here is the Palm Beach Daily News’ list of Palm Beach billionaires ranked by Forbes among the world’s richest people. All of the billionaires on this list are American unless otherwise noted. The list includes each billionaire’s rank on the global list, in descending order, and compares 2024 net-worth estimates to the ones Forbes published last year at this time. At the end of the list is a note about the methodology Forbes used to compile its rankings.

Julia Koch, 61 (widow of industrialist David Koch), and family, in 23rd place on the global list, with $64.3 billion, up from $59 billion in 2023.

Private equity titan Stephen Schwarzman, 77, in 34th place, with $38.8 billion, up from $27.8 billion.

Hedge-fund manager Kenneth C. Griffin, 55, in 42nd place, with $36.4 billion, up from $35 billion.

Discount broker pioneer Thomas Peterffy, 79, in 44th place, with $34 billion, up from $25.3 billion.

Australian mining mogul Gina Rinehart, 70, in 56th place, with $30.8 billion, up from $27 billion.

Investments/finance executive Abigail Johnson, 62, in 58th place, with $29 billion, up from $21.6 billion.

Mortgage loan magnate and NBA’s Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert, 62, tied in 73rd place, with $26.2 billion, up from $18 billion.

Hedge-fund manager and NFL’s Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper, 66, tied in 94th place, with $20.6 billion, up from $18.5 billion.

Cosmetics executive Leonard Lauder, 91, tied in 126th place, with $15.1 billion, down from $21 billion.

Financier Henry Kravis, 80, tied in 169th place, with $11.7 billion, up from $7.5 billion.

Businessman and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, 82, tied in 188th place, with $11.1 billion, up from $10.6 billion.

Real estate developer and Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross, 83, tied in 221st place, with $10.1 billion, down from $11.6 billion.

Discount brokerage pioneer Charles Schwab, 86, tied in 232nd place, with $9.8 billion, up from $9.2 billion.

Investments mogul Robert F. Smith, 61, tied in 266th place, with $9.2 billion, up from $8 billion.

Medical equipment heiress Ronda Stryker, 69, tied in 312th place, with $8.2 billion, up from $6.9 billion.

Hedge-fund manager Paul Tudor Jones II, 69, tied in 317th place, with $8.1 billion, up from $7.5 billion.

Real estate investor Jeff Greene, 69, tied in 354th place, with $7.5 billion, up from $7.2 billion.

Real estate mogul Neil Bluhm, 86, tied in 453rd place, with $6.3 billion, up from $6 billion.

Hedge-fund manager Chase Coleman III, 48, tied in 522nd place, with $5.7 billion, down from $8.5 billion.

Money manager Charles B. Johnson, 90, tied in 572nd place, with $5.3 billion, up from $5.1 billion.

Money manager Ron Baron, 80, tied in 597th place, with $5.1 billion, up from $5 billion.

Investments tycoon, inventor and optometrist Dr. Herbert Wertheim, 84, tied in 624th place, with $4.9 billion, up from $4.3 billion.

Cosmetics executive Ronald Lauder, 80, tied in 686th place, with $4.6 billion, unchanged since 2023.

Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie and family, 72, tied in 686th place, with $4.6 billion, up from $4.4 billion.

Marvel Entertainment owner Isaac Perlmutter, 82, tied in 712th place, with $4.4 billion, up from $4 billion.

Logistics entrepreneur Bradley Jacobs, 68, tied in 775th place, with $4.1 billion, up from $3.7 billion.

Media and automotive heiress Katharine “Kathy” Rayner, 79, tied in 785th place, with $4 billion, down from $5.5 billion.

Media and automotive heiress Margaretta Taylor, 81, tied in 785th place, with $4 billion, down from $5.5 billion.

Philadelphia Phillies co-owner and tobacco heir John Middleton, 69, tied in 871st place, with $3.7 billion, up from $3.4 billion.

Hedge-fund manager John Paulson, 68, tied in 920th place, with $3.5 billion, up from $3 billion.

Casino and resort mogul Steve Wynn, 82, tied in 949th place, with $3.4 billion, up from $3.2 billion.

Johnson & Johnson heir and New York Jets owner Robert Wood “Woody” Johnson IV, 76, tied in 991st place, with $3.3 billion, down from $3.4 billion.

Cosmetics executive Jane Lauder, 51, tied in 991st place, with $3.3 billion, down from $5 billion.

Real estate mogul Charles Cohen, 72, tied in 1,104th place, with $3 billion, down from $3.7 billion.

Hedge-fund manager Glenn Dubin, 66, tied in 1,143rd place, with $2.9 billion, up from $2.7 billion.

Investor C. Dean Metropolous, 77, tied in 1,143rd place, with $2.9 billion, up from $2.6 billion.

Real estate magnate Dwight C. Schar, 82, tied in 1,286th place, with $2.6 billion, up from $1.9 billion.

Canadian liquor magnate Charles Bronfman, 92, tied in 1,330th place, with $2.5 billion, unchanged from 2023.

Private-equity specialist Scott Shleifer, 46, tied in 1,330th place, with $2.5 billion, down from $3.5 billion.

Canadian sports-franchise owner Larry Tanenbaum, 78, tied in 1330th place, with $2.5 billion, up from $2 billion.

SlimFast founder S. Daniel Abraham, 99, tied in 1,380th place, with $2.4 billion, down from $2.5 billion.

Cosmetics executive William Lauder, 63, tied in 1,438th place, with $2.3 billion, down from $3.4 billion.

Real estate developer and former President Donald Trump, 77, tied in 1,438th place, with $2.3 billion, down from $2.5 billion.

Fashion designer Tom Ford, 62, tied in 1,496^th place, with $2.2 billion, unchanged from 2023.

Homebuilder Paul Saville, 68, tied in 1,496th place, with $2.2 billion, up from $1.7 billion.

Hedge-fund manager James G. Dinan, 86, tied in 1,545th place, with $2.1 billion, up from $1.9 billion

Fashion and retail entrepreneur Aerin Lauder, 53, tied in 1,545th place, with $2.1 billion, down from $3.1 billion.

Insurance magnate and New York Giants co-owner Jonathan Tisch, 70, tied in 1,545th place, with $2.1 billion, up from $1.7 billion.

Industrialist, investor and education entrepreneur William “Bill” Koch, 83, tied in 1,623^rd place, with $2 billion, up from $1.6 billion.

Food and beverage distributor Duke Reyes, 67, tied in 1,694th place, with $1.9 billion, up from $1.5 billion.

Money manager Mario Gabelli, 82, tied in 1,764th place, with $1.8 billion, up from $1.7 billion.

Industrial equipment heir Mitchell Jacobson, 73, tied in 1764th place, with $1.8 billion, up from $1.3 billion.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Manchester United co-owner Avram Glazer, 63, tied in 1851st place, with $1.7 billion (new to list in 2024)

Investor Nelson Peltz, 81, tied in 1,851st place, with $1.7 billion, up from $1.5 billion.

Canadian financier Gerald Schwartz, 82, tied in 2,046th place, with $1.5 billion, up from $1.2 billion.

Reebok founder Paul Fireman, 80, tied in 2287th place, with $1.3 billion, up from $1.1 billion.

Private-equity specialist J. Christopher Flowers, 66, tied in 2,410th place, with $1.2 billion, down from $1.4 billion.

Real estate asset manager Jane Goldman, 68, tied in 2,545th place, with $1.1 billion, down from $2.1 billion.

*If you would like to join the ranks of billionaires, contact www.sterlingcooper.info

The process of managing a business is riddled with various obstacles and hurdles, and at times, these challenges can become quite daunting. It is of utmost importance for businesses to possess the ability to identify the early indicators that suggest a significant requirement for business turnaround.

Neglecting these warning signs can result in severe repercussions, such as financial turmoil and even the eventual shutdown of the business. To avoid such outcomes, it is crucial to be aware of the early warning signs of underperformance and take corrective measures. By implementing practical and effective strategies for business turnaround, one can prevent from ever reaching a crisis point. STERLINGCOOPER.INFO provides turnaround services and its book has a section called: “Medicine for Troubled Companies”.

Six Early Signs that Indicate the Need for A Business Turnaround.

1. Downward-sliding profits: A strong business is indicated by financial expansion. If your earnings have declined instead of increasing for five or more quarters in a row, this is a clear indicator of issues. Even if the numbers are flat, it should still be a red flag.
2. Cash flow struggles:Having difficulty in meeting the financial obligations or depending on credit to meet your expenses indicates that the cash flow is not in good shape. If you find yourself accumulating debt to sustain your operations or cover deficits, it is a warning sign that the business might be facing difficulties. Even if you have a steady stream of business, constantly facing cash shortages, overdrafts, and bounced checks is a problem that needs business turnaround. While it is common to experience fluctuations in working capital, it should be manageable. If you don’t have an income or cash flow budget in place, it is a clear indication that the business is heading towards trouble.
3. Lack of Innovation: If the business is not keeping up with the ever-evolving market trends and failing to introduce new ideas, it could result in a lack of growth and a decline in competitiveness. When you notice that the rivals are making progress and expanding their market share while your business is struggling, it’s a clear indication that there is a need for business turnaroundand make necessary adjustments to stay relevant and competitive in the industry.
4. Poor Financial Management: Inadequate financial managementhabits, like neglecting to maintain precise records or overlooking expense monitoring, have the potential to result in financial difficulties. Disregarding crucial financial ratios such as the current ratio or debt-to-equity ratio may obscure fundamental financial issues.
5. Legal or Regulatory Issues:Neglecting to adhere to legal or regulatory obligations can result in financial penalties or even legal proceedings, both of which can place additional strain on the resources of your business. It is crucial to prioritize compliance in order to avoid these potential consequences and safeguard the stability and prosperity of your organization.
6. Resistance to Change: Beingresistant to change or refusing to adapt to new market conditions can pose a significant obstacle to the success and growth of any business. It is crucial for businesses to remain flexible and open to evolving trends in order to stay competitive and meet the ever-changing needs of customers. Failure to embrace change can result in missed opportunities, decreased efficiency, and ultimately, stagnation in the market. It is important for business owners to recognize the importance of adaptation and be willing to make necessary business turnarounds in order to thrive in today’s dynamic environment.

 Conclusion

Early detection of these signs through vigilance allows for proactive steps to avert a major crisis in your business.  Additionally, seeking guidance from a skilled business consultant or financial advisor can offer you invaluable perspectives and effective strategies for business turnaround. Always keep in mind that it’s never too late to implement constructive changes and guide your business towards a prosperous future.

Sterling Cooper, Inc is a business acquisition advisory and management consultant company in the USA having decades of experience in corporate turnaround strategies. From emerging startups to established enterprises, Sterling Cooper’s tailored approach fosters innovation, efficiency, and market leadership. Our seasoned team leverages a meticulous selection process, financial acumen, and industry expertise to seamlessly integrate acquired entities into a cohesive and dynamic portfolio. For business inquiry fill our short feedback form or call us at our Toll-Free Number 1-866-285-6572.