Mary Barra's ongoing tenure as GM Chair & CEO perplexes me.
Certainly the stock performance (-3.87% over 5Y vs -2.12% for Ford, wouldn't be fair to bring Tesla into the conversation) doesn't help to justify her position.
Certainly the stock performance (-3.87% over 5Y vs -2.12% for Ford, wouldn't be fair to bring Tesla into the conversation) doesn't help to justify her position.
In fact, an investor in January 2014 would only have to lock up their money for 5 months in Treasuries to generate the return Barra has delivered to her investors in ten years [4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Barra
[2] https://dqydj.com/stock-return-calculator/
[3] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPY/chart?p=SPY#eyJpbnRlcnZh...
[4] https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/monthly-yield-curve-tab...
The S&P 500 isn't a fair comparison, but the Treasury one is. That's the risk-free rate.
The ten-year yield was closer to 6% when Barra took the helm. That's much worse!
The point of the comparison is that the return she delivered over her ten-year term was analogous to that which an investor demanded to lend to the U.S. government for a grand total of five months. It's driving home the terribleness of the return within the context of her hiring: she has failed to return anything close to GM's cost of capital.
> you are comparing with the benefit of hindsight which is not viable for any financial analysis
It's totally valid for evaluating a manager!