It looks to me like the CEO might have had bad timing rather than have done a bad job. That the next big drug is shows no benefits soon after he takes control is clearly not his fault. That that patent protection is running out of their most profitable drugs is surely not his fault. Both will tend towards low stock returns. The claim that the CEO is quitting for under-performing 97% of the S&P 500 is also stupid. If returns is a valid method for evaluating performance, then why not compare to an industry index of leading competitors?
I suggest reading The Drunkards Walk for more insight into randomness and mis-attribution.
No comments:
Post a Comment