Thanks for enlightening me. Welch's tenure ended in 2001, by which time 40% of GE's revenues were from GE Capital, who were actively engaged in derivatives markets and had large exposures that would have gone bad even if they hadn't levered up from 2002 to 2006.
There are many other criticisms of Welch's tenure that come to the conclusion that GE did well DESPITE Jack Welch, not because of him.
Here is a tasty link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#Criticism
At any rate, I personally think that CEOs are figureheads of companies and the only things about a CEO that makes any difference is
a) how good a head of hair they have
b) how tall they are
c) which ivy league school they attended and if they shared a class with anyone now at Goldman Sachs
At least he was a Chemist, and not one of those idiot Physicists ;)
Well don't get me wrong, there's no reason to cover up what Welch was responsible for. He was obviously no saint (few are). And I don't doubt for a second that he played a role in the broad direction GE Capital took.
His reputation deserves to be hit for the things he actually did wrong. Immelt can take responsibility for his failures.
There are many other criticisms of Welch's tenure that come to the conclusion that GE did well DESPITE Jack Welch, not because of him. Here is a tasty link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#Criticism
At any rate, I personally think that CEOs are figureheads of companies and the only things about a CEO that makes any difference is a) how good a head of hair they have b) how tall they are c) which ivy league school they attended and if they shared a class with anyone now at Goldman Sachs
At least he was a Chemist, and not one of those idiot Physicists ;)