T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
2534.1 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Fri Jun 11 1993 14:49 | 7 |
|
Then there's all those allowances.........
sell the hardware, get the certs, and allowance the consultancy
Heather
|
2534.2 | I don't think so | SMAUG::GARROD | From VMS -> NT, Unix a future page from history | Fri Jun 11 1993 18:13 | 8 |
| Re .1
We've had this discussion before I believe in DIGITAL_INVESTING. The
conclusion was that DISCOUNTS and ALLOWANCES came off of revenue ie
revenue is reported after discounts and allowances have been factored
in. Discounts and allowances are not treated as expenses.
Dave
|
2534.3 | 50% no 80% | 52347::WLODEK | Network pathologist. | Sat Jun 12 1993 13:17 | 22 |
|
I read the "breakfast notes" differently, it is a long list of Finance
function failures. And the big bottom line, they will have to do more
( monthly closings) with less people and hopefully less different
accounting systems. I suspect that "bean counters" saved the company is
just an observation that in a world where everybody lost any sense of
what things cost and what are the gains, the finance function was last
to lose the head. Not so surprising, they had to add up all the
expensive errors. So, they sort of did not have equal chance to screw
things up, although they did some sincere attempts, like sevaral assets
mismanagement systems.
And here comes the killer, the fat raises.
Lets say a finance guy comes one day and says , "Boss, if we write
off the books all these forgotten assets and powered down computers and
all the other stuff that we simply can't find anymore, we pay less
taxes and books will look great."
The Boss can do two things, praise the messenger of good news or sue
his assets missmanager. The breakfast memo seem to imply that Digital
will do both.
|
2534.4 | What about G & A ?????? | ELMAGO::JMORALES | | Mon Jun 14 1993 14:47 | 17 |
| I really like the idea that some of us are waking up
to the fact that we have already done our part in the Cost of Goods
Selling and R & D expending. Now it is up to our top management
to show their leadership regarding the still bloated G & A expenses.
In a recent breakfast meeting Palmer quoted what we all
have known for years, that Selling G & A expenses are over 30% of
our revenues. This has been true since 1983 when I joined DEC
(probably even before that). Now the real issue is if we are going
7,000 more employees down by the end of June, they should be G & A
related. Our top management has commited to Wall-Street and us
that Selling G & A has to go down to 15% to 20%. So far top
management is doing it by severely reducing our sales/service part
of this equations.
The tough question is: When are we going to start getting
TFSO to the G & A part ??????
|
2534.5 | Yes time to whack the G&Aers | SMAUG::GARROD | From VMS -> NT, Unix a future page from history | Mon Jun 14 1993 15:23 | 10 |
| Re .4
Don't confuse "Cost of Goods Sold" expense with "Selling" expense.
"Cost of goods sold" is basically manufacturing costs and is not part
of SG&A. "Selling" expense is. As you say "Selling" expense (sales and
sales support reps) has been whacked hard. I absolutely agree that it
is now the turn of the blood suckers in G&A. Personnel to the front of
the line please, followed closely by the law department.
Dave
|
2534.7 | Where's the Value Added ????????????? | ELMAGO::JMORALES | | Mon Jun 14 1993 20:10 | 12 |
| Re .5
>>>>> Personnel to the front of the line, please.
Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cost of Goods -> What I was trying to say is that
manufacturing, engineering, sales, service and the field have been
severely affected during the last three (3) years of lay-offs, now is
the turn for the BIG 'blood suckers', Where is the value added,
can someone answer ??????????????????????????????????
|
2534.8 | Lost the thread.... | CHEFS::OSBORNEC | | Tue Jun 15 1993 08:16 | 9 |
|
re .6 -- don't understand your point.
Are you querying why a CBU would want to be represented at the largest
international trade show in their segment? Is your point related to the
fact that our principal competitor has withdrawn from the Paris show,
leaving the access to potential multi-vendor clients wide open?
Colin
|
2534.10 | Re: Personnel | AYRPLN::ERVIN | Roots & Wings | Tue Jun 15 1993 17:28 | 15 |
| >>Can anyone supply the pay range for a Consultant (SRI 40-42, I
>>believe).
Ken, perhaps you should do your homework before you attempt to malign
the personnel organization or the people in it. It seems obvious from
your comment that you have little real knowledge of the organization.
There are 4 levels of personnel consultants ranging from SRI 36 to 41.
Very few of them are positioned at the high end of the SRIs.
As for your anecdote regarding the person who spent two years writing
an addenda to the Orange Book, it must be nice work (if you can get it)
to spend one's time monitoring the activities of others.
Laura
|
2534.11 | re. last | SOFBAS::SHERMAN | empowerment requires truth | Tue Jun 15 1993 19:31 | 20 |
| Laura -
Actually. I worked in Personnel for several years. I know whereof I speak.
Let's just say that I was assigned to "assist" with this project and as a
result worked with this individual for some months. Please believe me when
I say that I voiced my concern at the time about the time being spent on
this project, and on Personnel's inability to make a decision regarding
what it should look like when it was completed. Having voiced my concern,
I was told that I was "politically insensitive" and to keep quiet
(definitely not the forerunner of Employee Involvement).
Regards,
ken
|
2534.12 | | AYRPLN::ERVIN | Roots & Wings | Tue Jun 15 1993 20:51 | 6 |
| Ken,
Thanks for the clarification. However, your data about SRIs was/is
incorrect.
Laura
|
2534.13 | Perplexing comparison | COUNT0::WELSH | Yippee! I got the package!! | Tue Jun 29 1993 15:21 | 31 |
2534.14 | now eresume the previous programme..... | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Tue Jun 29 1993 15:32 | 7 |
|
The civil list has been cut, and many people who carry out royal
duties are now funded by the Queen, not the Civil list.
I also think the Queen does an excellent job for tourism.
Heather
|
2534.15 | Good a place as any for this item... | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | You are what you retrieve | Tue Jun 29 1993 16:42 | 31 |
2534.16 | just who is in charge | GRANMA::FDEADY | Can't Do A Thing To Stop Me | Tue Jun 29 1993 17:01 | 7 |
|
re. .15
I hope Win's Ethic's Office has an answer for this!
fred deady
|
2534.17 | :-), :-) | BOOKS::HAMILTON | All models are false; some are useful - Dr. G. Box | Tue Jun 29 1993 17:05 | 13 |
|
re: .15.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm sorry, but the thought of politicians
being investigated after being treated to a Grateful Dead concert
by computer company salespeople just absolutely cracks me up.
What would Jerry think if he knew?
Do you think they went in multi-colored limos?
Glenn
|
2534.18 | | SNELL::ROBERTS | Klinton: Don't tread on me! | Tue Jun 29 1993 18:39 | 6 |
|
>Fifteen state officials were involved, Spinelli said. More than 13,000 dlrs
>worth of entertainment expenses for state workers were paid between 1988 and
>1992 by Digital, with a lesser amount by Oracle.
so that's where the budget money for Canobie Lake went!
|
2534.19 | | LASSIE::TRAMP::GRADY | Short arms, and deep pockets... | Tue Jun 29 1993 23:19 | 0 |
2534.20 | Peanuts | MR1PST::AVNGRS::BOELKE | A 100,000,000 ?'s | Wed Jun 30 1993 16:49 | 3 |
| $13k over 4 years is nothing for a sales team to spend 'wining and dining'
the decision makers from a top account. IBM probably spent twice that but
we get the publicity cause we got the business...
|
2534.21 | Nothing? hardly | DECWET::LYON | This space for rent | Wed Jun 30 1993 18:33 | 16 |
| re .20:
>$13k over 4 years is nothing ...
No, it's $13k ... and it's also illegal in every government contact I've ever
known of.
>the decision makers from a top account. IBM probably spent twice that but
>we get the publicity cause we got the business...
This is unsubstantiated heresay but assuming it is even remotely true, they
should get raked over the coals with everyone else.
grrrrrr ...
Bob
|
2534.22 | where are the SG&A cuts being made? | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Wed Jul 07 1993 13:16 | 15 |
| SG&A stands for Sales, plus general and administrative, right? I used
to work for a different company with their sales force. I also spent
two years in the field for Digital. The other company salespeople spent
more than Digital's. They took customers out for more meals and to
better places. They gave out more trinkets. In just about every way
the salespeople at this other company spent more through their sales
people. But when the end of year results came out there was no big
problem with SG&A being too high.
The conclusion I've come to is that our problem with SG&A is *not* with
the sales force. But that appears to be where we're cutting first and
deepest. Is this observation correct? Why is this and why should it
make me hopeful?
Alfred
|
2534.23 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Wed Jul 07 1993 13:54 | 11 |
|
> The conclusion I've come to is that our problem with SG&A is *not* with
> the sales force. But that appears to be where we're cutting first and
> deepest. Is this observation correct? Why is this and why should it
> make me hopeful?
Sales were one of the last to start cuts, other G+A areas of the
company here started 3 years ago, and are still continuing.
Heather
|
2534.24 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Wed Jul 07 1993 14:02 | 8 |
| > Sales were one of the last to start cuts, other G+A areas of the
> company here started 3 years ago, and are still continuing.
Frankly, that does not appear to be the case in the US. Second, are
there real indications that our sales spending numbers are out of line
with the other computer companies?
Alfred
|
2534.25 | | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | You are what you retrieve | Wed Jul 07 1993 15:20 | 8 |
| There's never been a breakdown available to me of expenses attrbuted to
sales reps and expenses attributed to headquarters and overhead.
From my perspective, Digital sales reps' discretionary expenses seem to
be at the same level or less that those of other companies with a
direct sales force.
Pat Sweeney
|
2534.26 | | MSBCS::BROWN_L | | Wed Jul 07 1993 15:22 | 7 |
| re .last, example:
Compaq's SG&A: 11% of revenue
Digital's SG&A: 30%+ of revenue
Slightly different business models, but to most customer's eyes we
essentially sell the same solution. Digital just requires an army
to do it.
|
2534.27 | What is Digital, anyway? | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | You are what you retrieve | Wed Jul 07 1993 15:28 | 8 |
| Now that's really to the heart of the problem.
If Digital sees itself as a Intel-like manufacturer of chips, and a
Compaq-like manufacturer of computer systems, then it doesn't need a
large direct sales force.
If Digital sees itself as a EDS-like systems integrator, then it does
need a large direct sales force.
|
2534.28 | Apples and Oranges, separate them. | CFSCTC::PATIL | Avinash Patil dtn:244-7225 | Wed Jul 07 1993 18:46 | 5 |
|
Why don't we break the SG&A expense line into two, Selling and G&A?
Is it too hard to do? If so, What could be the reasons?
Avinash
|
2534.29 | | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | You are what you retrieve | Wed Jul 07 1993 18:56 | 4 |
| Wny isn't there more detail?
Digital's external financial disclosures, like most companies of its
size, are the mimimum required by law.
|
2534.30 | Yeah, but... | WHO301::BOWERS | Dave Bowers @WHO | Wed Jul 07 1993 19:16 | 4 |
| That's true Pat, but no one seems able or willing to break it out for
internal use, either.
\dave
|
2534.31 | Acquisitions driving up sg&A? | MUDHWK::LAWLER | Stress, Silicon and Software | Thu Jul 08 1993 12:04 | 18 |
|
I've been wondering about why the "SG&A" numbers never decrease
also, and have come up with a theory.
DEC has been on a buying spree for the last few years and has
bought several companies. I don't know anything about financial
stuff, but is it possible that the "G&A" expenses from all these
new acquisitions is what's making the "corporate" number seem
so high? (I.E. Do the added expenses from the acquired companies
offset personnell cuts in this area?) Also, when I look at the
balance sheet, I never see numbers representing things like
the purchase of Olivetti stock which was announced a while
back. Would that also be part of the G&A line item?
-al
|
2534.32 | mild DECrathole alert EDS sales | DNEAST::BEICHMAN_JOH | | Thu Jul 08 1993 12:34 | 19 |
| re: .27
>>If Digital sees itself as a EDS-like systems integrator, then it does
>>need a large direct sales force.
But not, I submit, the kind of sales force we have today. EDS has less
of a sales force than it does a consulting force that sells in that many
of those who sell do (or at least have done!) the kind of work EDS
sells. With *very* few exceptions, Digital sales people do not have the
experience or training to sell SI business and Digital does not have
the processes in place to get "opportunity managers" who may have the
experience into the loop soon enough into the sales cycle".
Some other differences of the model that are worth noting are that
EDS has an army of relatively low paid EDS employees to do the massive
amounts of finicky technical grunt work found in every systems
integration project that Digital "contracts out" to body shops. Those
body shops are making money that could be ours.
|
2534.33 | | 32738::BROCK | Son of a Beech | Thu Jul 08 1993 13:12 | 5 |
| re .30
Equity ownership of Olivetti is NOT an expense. It is a balance sheet
item.
SG&A includes many, many expenses that are only peripherally related to
the expense of actually securing an order.
|
2534.34 | Direct sales reps? why? | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | You are what you retrieve | Thu Jul 08 1993 13:16 | 7 |
| The issue of whether or not the direct sales force we got is the direct
sales force that we need is one of the top five issues confronting
Digital today.
It's far more important that understanding the formal accounting
entries for the acquistions of Philips ISD and Mannesmann-Kienzle
which are explained in footnote O of the 1992 Annual Report.
|