Latest news with #management
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
How a Fresh Start Led Alejandro Sanz to a Stunning EP (and a Shakira Reunion)
Everything about Alejandro Sanz's latest EP ¿Y Ahora Que? was a deviation from the way he usually does things. For starters, the process was much more collaborative, with more producers and musicians than usual. 'What I liked to do was to lock myself in the studio, work for hours, and lose sunlight, practically living in there,' the Spanish artist says with a laugh. But in a lot of ways, this project marked brand new beginnings and new ways of doing things for Sanz: It's his first EP with his new label Sony Latin, his first songs since a major breakup, and his first music with new management. 'If you stop learning and trying different things in this profession, that's truly a kind of death, isn't it?' he says on a recent call with Rolling Stone. 'If you don't want to approach things in a new way, this becomes pretty tedious. So in actuality, this has been a process I've enjoyed a lot, and I'm happy with how it all turned out.' More from Rolling Stone Shakira and Alejandro Sanz Reunite - Again! - for Love Song 'Bésame' Watch Shakira's Intimate Performance of 'Antología' on 'Fallon' Shakira's MetLife Show Was All About Strength and Celebrating Your Inner She-Wolf Beyond the countless lessons buried in ¿Y Ahora Que?, the EP includes six songs, all which find Sanz exploring different sounds. The opening track, 'Palmeras en el Jardin,' takes Sanz back to his roots with a more acoustic sound. He pictured it as a first introduction to the listener where he outlines all the heartbreak and turmoil he's experiencing. 'I think fits well in the chronology and into a rhythm on the album that sets up how things are presented,' he explains. 'It's this process of healing in three phases: The first, on 'Palmeras en el Jardin,' you're listing out everything that's happening. On the second, 'Hoy No Me Siento Bien,' you recognize what you're feeling and you start to see the light. And on 'Besame,' you finally reach the other side to heal.' The songs that follow 'Palmeras en el Jardin' — 'Hoy No Me Siento Bien' with Grupo Frontera and 'Besame' with Shakira — include some of the biggest collaborations on the project. (Manuel Turizo also appears on 'Cómo Sería.') The Shakira feature marks a long-awaited reunion after the two artists worked on 'La Tortura' and 'Te Lo Agradezco, Pero No' in 2005 and 2006. They recently celebrated the anniversary of 'La Tortura,' which turned 20 this year; Shakira even brought him out during her concert in Charlotte, where she kicked off the U.S. leg of her Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran tour. 'It was incredible to get back on stage with her, to share, to have a laugh. She seemed really great — she looked happy,' he says. 'She was completely dedicated to her show, working hard as always.' He notes that the day they rehearsed in Charlotte, Shakira was up until 5 a.m. doing soundcheck. 'There's a reason she's number one — she works that hard,' he adds. 'We took advantage of that time to record some content for the new song and to hang out the way we've always done.' The idea for 'Besame' had been a long time coming. 'We'd spent a long time trying to find a song so we could work together again. We'd been wanting to do something, and this is the third collaboration we've made together. I was always joking with her, saying, 'Stop singing with the young handsome guys. Let's make a song.'' Eventually, they landed on the romance and down-tempo rhythm of 'Besame.' 'She's really into Afrobeats, and I wanted to add a bit of this flamenco sound. We found this style and I think it really captured what we both wanted to do. Finding a good compromise between two artists over a song isn't always easy, but we did it and w're both happy with it. It's a beautiful one to me.' Other moments on the EP shine just as bright. The Grupo Frontera collaboration makes use of Sanz's signature rasp and also carries the project's message: On the song, Sanz sings about how he's feeling low but knows everything will get better. 'I had spent a lot of time without putting myself first, paying attention to other priorities,' he says. 'Eventually, you have let that go.' The project title comes from something Sanz used to say to himself throughout his career: 'Y ahora que?' which means 'now what?' Now that the EP is done, he has a long list of what to do next: Eventually, he wants to tour and perform these songs for his fans. But his attitude has changed: 'I don't want to think ahead too much. If you focus too much on the long-term, you don't look at what's in front of you. It's important to work trough each stage and never skip steps.' Best of Rolling Stone The 50 Greatest Eminem Songs All 274 of Taylor Swift's Songs, Ranked The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (WST): A Bull Case Theory
We came across a bullish thesis on West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (WST) on Swiss Transparent Portfolio's Substack. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on WST. West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (WST)'s share was trading at $208.49 as of 22nd May. WST's trailing and forward P/E were 32.73 and 34.36respectively according to Yahoo Finance. A close-up of a technician working on a liquid injectable in a modern industrial lab. West Pharmaceutical Services stands out as a durable, underappreciated leader in the critical niche of injectable drug packaging. Despite recent headwinds from a post-Covid inventory glut and short-term earnings softness, the company's fundamentals remain strong. West holds a near-monopoly in a mission-critical industry with high switching costs, secular growth drivers like biologics and GLP-1 therapies, and a conservative, high-quality management team. Its financial turbulence appears transient, offering long-term investors an opportunity to accumulate shares at a fair price. While the current ~32x forward P/E may appear elevated, it's based on temporarily depressed earnings; normalized multiples suggest a more reasonable valuation. West's strategic investments during the downturn — including capacity expansion and share repurchases — reinforce its long-term potential. Risks such as customer concentration, technological disruption, execution missteps, regulatory issues, and macroeconomic volatility are real but manageable. The company's embedded role in drug delivery makes sudden disruptions unlikely, and its century-long record of quality execution offers confidence. Scenario analysis shows a compelling risk/reward balance: the bull case projects a ~15% CAGR, while even the bear case requires a confluence of major setbacks to yield sustained losses. West is not a flashy growth story but rather a compounder built on operational excellence, customer entrenchment, and resilient demand. For investors comfortable with a mid-30s P/E as a reflection of quality, West offers a rare blend of safety and growth. It's a Rolls-Royce business at a Bentley price — a quiet engine of compounding that, barring major failure, should keep running reliably for years to come. West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (WST) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 35 hedge fund portfolios held WST at the end of the fourth quarter which was 31 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of WST as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns, and doing so within a shorter timeframe. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than WST but that trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about the cheapest AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Deere & Company (DE): A Bull Case Theory
We came across a bullish thesis on Deere & Company (DE) on Best Anchor Stocks' Substack. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on DE. Deere & Company (DE)'s share was trading at $507.99 as of 28th May. DE's trailing and forward P/E were 24.54 and 27.62 respectively according to Yahoo Finance. Pixabay/Public Domain Deere & Company recently posted impressive quarterly results, beating both revenue and EPS expectations by double digits, with EPS surprises averaging 16% across nine of the last ten quarters. Despite being a cyclical business, Deere continues to outperform due to structurally higher profitability that the market may still be underestimating. The standout this quarter was an 18% operating margin—only 200 bps below levels seen when revenues were 19% higher—highlighting robust cost controls and favorable mix, even as the company remains near a cycle trough. Management maintained full-year margin guidance at 14.5%, despite strong results, citing cautious expectations around tariff impacts in H2. Deere is forecasting a return to sales growth in Q4 for the first time in nine quarters, hinting that the bottom of the ag cycle may already be behind us. Potential catalysts include a new Farm Bill and trade deals that could further support demand. Meanwhile, Deere continues aggressive buybacks—$2.4 billion over the past year—reducing share count by 4%, setting the company up for strong EPS growth driven by higher margins, revenue recovery, and fewer outstanding shares. On the call, management highlighted growing tariff headwinds, mostly affecting its construction division, but also emphasized long-term U.S. investment and a competitive edge via Deere's captive financing arm. Technologically, Deere is expanding its ag tech stack into construction and growing its SaaS footprint, with adoption and renewal rates supporting a long-term shift to recurring revenue. Despite trading near all-time highs, Deere's strong fundamentals, margin resilience, and tech leadership suggest continued upside, with Brazil as a growing tailwind. For a comprehensive analysis of another standout stock covered by the same author, we recommend reading our summary of their bullish thesis on Danaher Corporation (DNH). Deere & Company (DE) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 53 hedge fund portfolios held DE at the end of the first quarter which was 57 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of DE as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns, and doing so within a shorter timeframe. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than DE but that trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about the cheapest AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Times
a day ago
- General
- New York Times
Red Wings offseason fan survey: How do you feel about Detroit's direction?
As a much-anticipated offseason approaches for the Detroit Red Wings, we want to hear from you. Is Detroit on the right track as it looks to take the next step out of its rebuild? What's your confidence level in Red Wings management? How about your urgency level for the team to return to the postseason after nine years on the outside looking in? Advertisement Here's your chance to make your voice heard on those questions and more in The Athletic's 2025 Red Wings fan survey. Fill out the survey below, and we'll compile the results for an upcoming story. Explanations for your answers are optional, but encouraged, as we try to take the pulse of the fans at what feels like a key moment for the franchise. Let's get to it. Note: If you have any problems loading or filling out the survey below, you can access it directly by clicking here. Loading…
Forbes
a day ago
- Business
- Forbes
Elon Musk's DOGE: A Jack Welch Tactic That Could Break America
Musk's efficiency-fueled crusade mirrors Jack Welch's approach to managing GE—and that didn't go well. Elon Musk stepped into the Trump administration wielding a metaphorical chainsaw, promising to slash $2 trillion from federal spending through his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). After 130 days, DOGE claimed $160 billion in savings—far short of his $2 trillion goal. But the real story isn't about disappointing arithmetic. It's about how Musk took a page from Jack Welch's playbook—a management philosophy that initially dazzled Wall Street but ultimately destroyed one of America's most iconic companies. Jack Welch, GE's legendary CEO from 1981 to 2001, pioneered what became known as "rank-and-yank"—forcing managers to fire the bottom 10% of employees annually, regardless of the often-immeasurable ways they contributed to their teams and the organization. His approach was seductively simple: systematically eliminate the weakest performers, and the organization automatically becomes stronger. Musk has applied this same logic to the federal government, orchestrating layoffs affecting more than 280,000 federal workers and contractors in over 30 agencies—potentially the largest mass layoff in U.S. history. Both leaders shared an obsession with dramatic, visible cuts. Welch earned the nickname "Neutron Jack" for eliminating over 100,000 people while leaving buildings intact. Musk's Musk literally brandished a chainsaw at the Conservative Political Action Conference, declaring it his tool for cutting bureaucracy. That's where 'Chainsaw Elon' channelled 'Neutron Jack.' Both Musk and Welch were trained as technicians: Musk in physics, engineering and economics, Welch in engineering. Both applied their technical skills to complex challenges, treating them as simple mathematical problems: subtract the "inefficient" parts, and performance automatically improves. Initially, both approaches appeared brilliant. Under Welch, GE's revenues grew five-fold from $26.8 billion to $130 billion, earning him Fortune magazine's "Manager of the Century" title in 1999. Business school professors were teaching GE as the gold standard. Companies like Microsoft, IBM, and Goldman Sachs were adopting similar forced-ranking systems, believing they too could mirror similar results. Musk's early DOGE victories were similarly lauded. The promise of streamlined government resonated with efficiency-minded executives and frustrated taxpayers alike. But Welch's approach contained a fundamental error that Musk is now repeating at a national scale. They assumed that by optimizing the individual components of an organization, they would optimize the whole system—what academics call an "atomistic fallacy. They treated organizations like machines where one can simply remove "inefficient" parts without considering the complex web of relationships, institutional knowledge, and collaborative dynamics that actually drive performance. At Microsoft, the forced-ranking system created internal warfare. One engineer reflected: "One of the most valuable things I learned was to give the appearance of being courteous while withholding just enough information from colleagues to ensure they didn't get ahead of me on the rankings." It was during this time that Microsoft lost ground to Apple and Google as employees focused on competing with their internal colleagues, rather than innovating with colleagues to beat the external competition. Musk's cuts reveal similar systemic blindness. After Musk fired about 1,000 park rangers, educators, and maintenance staff, he undermined the National Parks Service's ability to admit visitors, manage their safety, and prepare for and put out wildfires. All of these raise risks, add costs, and diminish revenues. Ed Welch, the 27-year ranger at Independence National Historical Park and President of AFGE Local 2058, put it starkly 'we aren't cogs, we're human beings.' Elon Musk, like Jack Welch, failed to understand how complex organizations work and the engines to their success. Both leaders fell into a measurement trap—believing that complex human contributions can be captured through simple metrics. Welch's forced rankings couldn't measure mentorship, collaboration, or innovation—the very capabilities that drive long-term organizational success. As well, it's easy to make mistake with numbers. There's the fact that the numbers are highly disputed. DOGE's claimed $160 billion in savings, but the Partnership for Public Service estimate that the cuts will actually cost taxpayers $135 billion this fiscal year due to productivity losses, rehiring mistakes, and operational disruptions. Further, DOGE's "wall of receipts" reveals the measurement problem in stark detail: while claiming $115 billion in savings, only $35 billion could actually be itemized. This was partly attributable to simple errors, including a contract erroneously listed at $8 billion that was actually worth $8 million. This isn't just sloppy accounting—it shows how easily numbers can be manipulated, made up, or simply mistaken. The real test of Welch's philosophy came after his departure. Despite GE's apparent success under his leadership, the company that emerged was fragile and over-leveraged. His successor, Jeffrey Immelt, inherited what looked like a powerhouse but was actually a hollowed-out shell optimized for short-term financial performance. During Immelt's 16-year tenure, GE's stock fell over 30%, representing roughly $150 billion in lost shareholder value. By 2021, GE announced it would split up the conglomerate into three separate companies—essentially dismantling Welch's empire entirely. The pattern is unmistakable: Welch's efficiency-first approach created the illusion of organizational health while systematically destroying the institutional knowledge, collaborative networks, and adaptive capacity that enable long-term resilience. The real impact of his work will only be known in the future. Musk could experience the same catastrophic outcome as Welch's GE strategy—short-term "efficiency" that destroys long-term capability. Culling IRS auditors, dismissing cancer researchers at the VA, and gutting cybersecurity staff might look efficient on a spreadsheet, but it dismantles decades of accumulated expertise and institutional memory. Unlike a private company, government failure has consequences that extend far beyond shareholders. Researchers estimate that without U.S. global health programs, an additional 1 million children will be infected with HIV over the next five years, with 500,000 dying from AIDS and 2.8 million becoming orphaned. These are expressed as numbers that appeal to technicians, like Musk, but they mask the costs to people. Pain can't be expressed by spreadsheets and balance sheets. Each person's pain is just one spark that can smoulder into a wildfire that erodes the very foundations of society. Efficiency-based cuts for a government are so much more costly for a government than a corporation. Whereas Welch could sell his lighting plant to another firm, the government does not sell the service to another firm. The government simply shutters the activity. When the National Park Service and Veteran Affairs are gutted, they will be gone for good. Musk is familiar with deep cuts in organization. His DOGE chainsaw simply mirrored the the theatrics of the kitchen sink he carried after he bought Twitter. The similarities do not end there. He applied his efficiency-first philosophy to Twitter, firing more than 6,000 Twitter employees--constituting around 80% of its workforce. Several departments were critically understaffed and staff morale critically damaged. Fidelity, which helped finance Musk's Twitter acquisition, now values X at 72% of the $44 million Musk paid. U.S. advertising revenue continues to remain at about 50% of pre-Musk days. Even Musk recognizes the challenges ahead. In a leaked email to The Wall Street Journal, Musk told X staff that 'Our user growth is stagnant, revenue is unimpressive, and we're barely breaking even.' Musk officially stepped down from DOGE on May 28, 2025, as his 130-day limit as a special government employee expired. But the damage may already be done. He had optimized for short-term metrics while systematically dismantling the government's long-term capabilities. It might take years to see the effects of these cuts, but by then, it will be hard to know on whom to pin the blame. There is one important lesson from Musk and Welch's strategies: complex systems—whether corporations or governments—cannot be optimized like machines. They require understanding of relationships, context, and emergent properties that simple efficiency metrics miss entirely. Musk may not be around to suffer the long-term costs of his cuts, but Americans most certainly will be.
