• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Bodnar is the choice

kemajic said:
SaskGriz said:
Also not having a PhD is meaningless; A PhD is recognition that you know no more about something no one else cares about than anyone else on Earth.
You're completely off the tracks here. Ever hear of research? Do you think it's undergraduates who are pushing back the barriers of science in chemistry, physics, math, biology, environmental science? Profs would get little research done but for PH.D. students doing the work. You're suggesting that advanced degree pursuit results in no more useful knowledge and capability, which is just crazy.

That said, the president of a university is not a researcher. He/she needs less focused, but far broader skills and experience. He/she needs to be a tough manager. Faculties are not easy to manage and they do need to be managed. State governments need to lobbied for fair funding. The product needs to be in demand, provide value and marketed. There are public relations to be concerned with to maintain a positive image for the institution. Finances are not secondary in the operation of a university. Academia today is no less a swamp than DC. Bodnar looks ideal to me for this role. We are lucky for his application.

Yeah sorry I worded that wrong. I meant that in terms of being an effective leader of a university being an expert in a highly specialised area is not a requirement. I also see that I put an extra no in my lame attempt at humour. I totally agree that we are lucky that he applied and accepted. As I stated it is a great get for the university. It is interesting, I thought it might be my last two points that got a response but you were right to call me out on that statement.
 
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
He has no experience as an academic/faculty member and plenty experience as an executive of a failing company. This should go well...
GE a “failing company?” Hmmm … let's see.

Company value: just under $400 billion
Revenue: $128 billion (5-yr average)
Generally runs in the top 10-15 most profitable U. S. companies.
Dividend yield: 4% (5-yr growth, 14.9%)
Considered one of the most recognizable/known brands in the world.

One the top suppliers of aircraft engines (military and civilian) in the world.
Its Power division is the largest developer and supplier of such in the world (talking about giant turbines for power generation and so on).

Looks pretty healthy to me. With that dividend, we might own some of its stock … if the P/E (abt 28) weren’t so high.
I'm assuming your vulgar-gesture video is the sum total of your (very mature) response.

I accidentally hit submit. See above.

Also, here.

https://www.thestreet.com/video/14318194/general-electric-s-ceo-is-worried-about-cash-flow-jim-cramer-warns.html

https://investorplace.com/2017/09/ge-stock-not-done-falling/

http://www.businessinsider.com/abb-group-general-electric-26-billion-deal-for-industrial-unit-2017-9?r=UK&IR=T
 
grizpsych said:
I accidentally hit submit. See above.
Also, here.

https://www.thestreet.com/video/14318194/general-electric-s-ceo-is-worried-about-cash-flow-jim-cramer-warns.html

https://investorplace.com/2017/09/ge-stock-not-done-falling/

http://www.businessinsider.com/abb-group-general-electric-26-billion-deal-for-industrial-unit-2017-9?r=UK&IR=T
Okay. Been there done that.

When I googled "GE financials," I saw several "the sky is falling" articles about its current problems. But I've followed the stock market for a long, long time, and I'm used to "pundits" who can't see beyond the next quarterly report. (Don't get me started.) But I go with overall and long-term numbers, and the GE balance sheet does not justify the doom and gloom, IMO.

Actually, of more interest for me was to look at where he was in GE which, of course, is a huge company. I find he worked at GE Transportation. That segment has shown steady earnings growth over the past several years and is considered one of the most innovative GE divisions (which is saying something for GE).

Can he adapt to running a university? Looks to me like he's smart enough to do well, but only time will tell. It will interesting to see how his background on the other side (student) at a military academy and then at Oxford will play out. I note that he did teach classes at the Academy, but don't see how many or for how long.
 
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
He has no experience as an academic/faculty member and plenty experience as an executive of a failing company. This should go well...
GE a “failing company?” Hmmm … let's see.

Company value: just under $400 billion
Revenue: $128 billion (5-yr average)
Generally runs in the top 10-15 most profitable U. S. companies.
Dividend yield: 4% (5-yr growth, 14.9%)
Considered one of the most recognizable/known brands in the world.

One the top suppliers of aircraft engines (military and civilian) in the world.
Its Power division is the largest developer and supplier of such in the world (talking about giant turbines for power generation and so on).

Looks pretty healthy to me. With that dividend, we might own some of its stock … if the P/E (abt 28) weren’t so high.
How about one or three year growth? Why did they recently ground their corporate jets? Why did their CEO resign early? Why are they selling off large parts of their business? And, why is this exec seeking a way out by coming here?

I hope it works of course. I just have doubts. It didn't work here at my university.

Immelt is 61 and was the head of GE for 16 years. He announced in June that he would be stepping down later in the year. His successor started taking over in various roles, and Immelt said recently that he would retire as board chair now, instead of the end of the year, to give his successor full control. Seems like a good and sensible thing to do, if the successor has already hit the ground running.

I see that you, a professor, appear to be skeptical of a strong leader who will come in, take control, learn the situation, make decisions and then execute on them. This fear of having a university run well is one of my gripes with some in academia. They are sometimes unrealistic and lost in the clouds. Not saying you are.
 
PlayerRep said:
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
He has no experience as an academic/faculty member and plenty experience as an executive of a failing company. This should go well...
GE a “failing company?” Hmmm … let's see.

Company value: just under $400 billion
Revenue: $128 billion (5-yr average)
Generally runs in the top 10-15 most profitable U. S. companies.
Dividend yield: 4% (5-yr growth, 14.9%)
Considered one of the most recognizable/known brands in the world.

One the top suppliers of aircraft engines (military and civilian) in the world.
Its Power division is the largest developer and supplier of such in the world (talking about giant turbines for power generation and so on).

Looks pretty healthy to me. With that dividend, we might own some of its stock … if the P/E (abt 28) weren’t so high.
How about one or three year growth? Why did they recently ground their corporate jets? Why did their CEO resign early? Why are they selling off large parts of their business? And, why is this exec seeking a way out by coming here?

I hope it works of course. I just have doubts. It didn't work here at my university.

Immelt is 61 and was the head of GE for 16 years. He announced in June that he would be stepping down later in the year. His successor started taking over in various roles, and Immelt said recently that he would retire as board chair now, instead of the end of the year, to give his successor full control. Seems like a good and sensible thing to do, if the successor has already hit the ground running.

I see that you, a professor, appear to be skeptical of a strong leader who will come in, take control, learn the situation, make decisions and then execute on them. This fear of having a university run well is one of my gripes with some in academia. They are sometimes unrealistic and lost in the clouds. Not saying you are.

Grizpsych is a professor? I'm not sure how that makes me feel.
 
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
GE a “failing company?” Hmmm … let's see.

Company value: just under $400 billion
Revenue: $128 billion (5-yr average)
Generally runs in the top 10-15 most profitable U. S. companies.
Dividend yield: 4% (5-yr growth, 14.9%)
Considered one of the most recognizable/known brands in the world.

One the top suppliers of aircraft engines (military and civilian) in the world.
Its Power division is the largest developer and supplier of such in the world (talking about giant turbines for power generation and so on).

Looks pretty healthy to me. With that dividend, we might own some of its stock … if the P/E (abt 28) weren’t so high.
I'm assuming your vulgar-gesture video is the sum total of your (very mature) response.

I accidentally hit submit. See above.

Also, here.

https://www.thestreet.com/video/14318194/general-electric-s-ceo-is-worried-about-cash-flow-jim-cramer-warns.html

https://investorplace.com/2017/09/ge-stock-not-done-falling/

http://www.businessinsider.com/abb-group-general-electric-26-billion-deal-for-industrial-unit-2017-9?r=UK&IR=T

Bodnar, who runs a successful unit of GE and has run another in the past, is the new UM president, not Jeff Immelt, the former CEO of GE. Do you think individual professors at UM, say the head of the physics dept, should be blamed for UM's current woes and what RE did and didn't do.. Like I said, some in academia sure have strange views. Hopefully, they can teach well in the little obscure areas.

And, I agree that the photo/gesture in you avatar does say something about the type of person you are.
 
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
I accidentally hit submit. See above.
Also, here.

https://www.thestreet.com/video/14318194/general-electric-s-ceo-is-worried-about-cash-flow-jim-cramer-warns.html

https://investorplace.com/2017/09/ge-stock-not-done-falling/

http://www.businessinsider.com/abb-group-general-electric-26-billion-deal-for-industrial-unit-2017-9?r=UK&IR=T
Okay. Been there done that.

When I googled "GE financials," I saw several "the sky is falling" articles about its current problems. But I've followed the stock market for a long, long time, and I'm used to "pundits" who can't see beyond the next quarterly report. (Don't get me started.) But I go with overall and long-term numbers, and the GE balance sheet does not justify the doom and gloom, IMO.

Actually, of more interest for me was to look at where he was in GE which, of course, is a huge company. I find he worked at GE Transportation. That segment has shown steady earnings growth over the past several years and is considered one of the most innovative GE divisions (which is saying something for GE).

Can he adapt to running a university? Looks to me like he's smart enough to do well, but only time will tell. It will interesting to see how his background on the other side (student) at a military academy and then at Oxford will play out. I note that he did teach classes at the Academy, but don't see how many or for how long.

No denying GE is in a severe slump (-22% this year). But, regarding this hire, I do hope it works. Though, I've now seen it fail at two universities.

On another topic, I too have met Ph.D's that are as dumb as a box of rocks which makes me question the rigors at some schools. But, did you know that a Master's program in the UK is only a year of study?
 
PlayerRep said:
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
He has no experience as an academic/faculty member and plenty experience as an executive of a failing company. This should go well...
GE a “failing company?” Hmmm … let's see.

Company value: just under $400 billion
Revenue: $128 billion (5-yr average)
Generally runs in the top 10-15 most profitable U. S. companies.
Dividend yield: 4% (5-yr growth, 14.9%)
Considered one of the most recognizable/known brands in the world.

One the top suppliers of aircraft engines (military and civilian) in the world.
Its Power division is the largest developer and supplier of such in the world (talking about giant turbines for power generation and so on).

Looks pretty healthy to me. With that dividend, we might own some of its stock … if the P/E (abt 28) weren’t so high.
How about one or three year growth? Why did they recently ground their corporate jets? Why did their CEO resign early? Why are they selling off large parts of their business? And, why is this exec seeking a way out by coming here?

I hope it works of course. I just have doubts. It didn't work here at my university.

Immelt is 61 and was the head of GE for 16 years. He announced in June that he would be stepping down later in the year. His successor started taking over in various roles, and Immelt said recently that he would retire as board chair now, instead of the end of the year, to give his successor full control. Seems like a good and sensible thing to do, if the successor has already hit the ground running.

I see that you, a professor, appear to be skeptical of a strong leader who will come in, take control, learn the situation, make decisions and then execute on them. This fear of having a university run well is one of my gripes with some in academia. They are sometimes unrealistic and lost in the clouds. Not saying you are.

You assume too much. I'm worried he won't be able to be a "strong leader who will come in, take control, learn the situation, make decisions and then execute on them".
 
grzz said:
PlayerRep said:
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
GE a “failing company?” Hmmm … let's see.

Company value: just under $400 billion
Revenue: $128 billion (5-yr average)
Generally runs in the top 10-15 most profitable U. S. companies.
Dividend yield: 4% (5-yr growth, 14.9%)
Considered one of the most recognizable/known brands in the world.

One the top suppliers of aircraft engines (military and civilian) in the world.
Its Power division is the largest developer and supplier of such in the world (talking about giant turbines for power generation and so on).

Looks pretty healthy to me. With that dividend, we might own some of its stock … if the P/E (abt 28) weren’t so high.
How about one or three year growth? Why did they recently ground their corporate jets? Why did their CEO resign early? Why are they selling off large parts of their business? And, why is this exec seeking a way out by coming here?

I hope it works of course. I just have doubts. It didn't work here at my university.

Immelt is 61 and was the head of GE for 16 years. He announced in June that he would be stepping down later in the year. His successor started taking over in various roles, and Immelt said recently that he would retire as board chair now, instead of the end of the year, to give his successor full control. Seems like a good and sensible thing to do, if the successor has already hit the ground running.

I see that you, a professor, appear to be skeptical of a strong leader who will come in, take control, learn the situation, make decisions and then execute on them. This fear of having a university run well is one of my gripes with some in academia. They are sometimes unrealistic and lost in the clouds. Not saying you are.

Grizpsych is a professor? I'm not sure how that makes me feel.
Why? You know nothing about me.
 
grizpsych said:
... On another topic, I too have met Ph.D's that are as dumb as a box of rocks which makes me question the rigors at some schools. But, did you know that a Master's program in the UK is only a year of study?
Yes, I was aware that a Master's program in the UK was a different animal. However, I assumed (perhaps improperly) that, since the earlier write-up said he had earned two masters, that he'd spent two years there. One year might have been enough, but two would surely give a pretty good notion of that academic environment. (For whatever that means.)

I have not met that many really, really dumb Ph.D.'s. What I have met are far too many Ph.D. grads who can't seem to get out of their narrow, narrow rut. Of course, there's safety and comfort in being the world's expert on some esoteric specialty. But when you're still incrementally tweaking that same topic ten years later, one begins to wonder. Sometimes such follow-on work is justified, but more often than not ... not. And I guarantee you that non-academic research programs hardly ever have positions where you can plow the same field back and forth. They want problem solvers, and problems come in all shapes and sizes.
This has all been interesting, but has strayed far from football, so ... signing off. :off:
 
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
He has no experience as an academic/faculty member and plenty experience as an executive of a failing company. This should go well...
GE a “failing company?” Hmmm … let's see.

Company value: just under $400 billion
Revenue: $128 billion (5-yr average)
Generally runs in the top 10-15 most profitable U. S. companies.
Dividend yield: 4% (5-yr growth, 14.9%)
Considered one of the most recognizable/known brands in the world.

One the top suppliers of aircraft engines (military and civilian) in the world.
Its Power division is the largest developer and supplier of such in the world (talking about giant turbines for power generation and so on).

Looks pretty healthy to me. With that dividend, we might own some of its stock … if the P/E (abt 28) weren’t so high.
How about one or three year growth? Why did they recently ground their corporate jets? Why did their CEO resign early? Why are they selling off large parts of their business? And, why is this exec seeking a way out by coming here?

I hope it works of course. I just have doubts. It didn't work here at my university.

You refer to YOUR university. Which is NOT UM. Let us who think of MONTANA as OUR University worry about MONTANA. We will let you worry about YOUR university.
 
maroonandsilver said:
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
He has no experience as an academic/faculty member and plenty experience as an executive of a failing company. This should go well...
GE a “failing company?” Hmmm … let's see.

Company value: just under $400 billion
Revenue: $128 billion (5-yr average)
Generally runs in the top 10-15 most profitable U. S. companies.
Dividend yield: 4% (5-yr growth, 14.9%)
Considered one of the most recognizable/known brands in the world.

One the top suppliers of aircraft engines (military and civilian) in the world.
Its Power division is the largest developer and supplier of such in the world (talking about giant turbines for power generation and so on).

Looks pretty healthy to me. With that dividend, we might own some of its stock … if the P/E (abt 28) weren’t so high.
How about one or three year growth? Why did they recently ground their corporate jets? Why did their CEO resign early? Why are they selling off large parts of their business? And, why is this exec seeking a way out by coming here?

I hope it works of course. I just have doubts. It didn't work here at my university.

You refer to YOUR university. Which is NOT UM. Let us who think of MONTANA as OUR University worry about MONTANA. We will let you worry about YOUR university.

That's right. I have seen businessmen fail as Presidents of two other Universities. I am also an alum of Montana and wish it the best. And, frankly, I should be able to give my opinion. You are not required to approve/agree with my opinion nor are you required to reply to my opinion. In my opinion, non academics find it hard to understand the work load of faculty. And, my experience is that they tend to overwork and underpay their faculty. When this has happened at places I've been in the past, the faculty quits. Creating a brain drain that leads to poorer instructors, decreasing academic reputation, and thus decreasing enrollment. Again, I wish the best for our university. And I'm presenting my concerns because of it.
 
HookedonGriz said:
Holy shit I didn't think The U would get it right. They hit it out of the park. Here's the background on him. He's leaving a 20+ million dollar job to raise a family in Missoula. Tells me everything about this guy.




Seth Bodnar appears to be an unorthodox candidate to serve as president of the University of Montana.

He's a senior executive at General Electric, not president or provost at another campus. And he doesn't have a doctoral degree.

But the Rhodes Scholar's resume shows examples of formidable leadership and academic strength, including the following:

Two master's degrees from the University of Oxford in England
First in class for overall performance at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point
Class valedictorian in academics at West Point
Evaluated as "brilliant" and "one of the most gifted and talented officers among all ranks in multi-national forces, Iraq" for his assignment under Generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno
Promoted one year early to rank of major, an advancement achieved by fewer than 10 percent of U.S. Army officers
Bodnar is one of four finalists for president at UM, and the job for him would represent a nosedive in potential earnings: In 2016, a report from the Associated Press and Equilar counted median compensation for S&P 500 CEOs at $10.8 million and recorded total compensation for the head of GE at $26.8 million.

The leaders of Montana's flagship earned $316,819 in base salary, according to a survey of 2015-2016 compensation by the Chronicle of Higher Education. Deferred compensation bumps up the total, but it's a sliver compared to pay in the private industry.

Bodnar, though, said he isn't in it for the money. And at least some community members are already excited about the prospect of an energetic and tested leader at the helm of UM, although some faculty members have also expressed concern about his credentials.

Bodnar's wife, Chelsea Elander, is a Rhodes Scholar and Missoula native, and Bodnar said he wants to bring his family here and lead UM, an institution he sees as the backbone of the community.

"Life for me isn't about how large your bank account is, but how large your impact in your service to others is," he said. "I'm first and foremost driven by a strong sense of service. And I firmly believe in the power of higher education to transform lives and community."

He added, "My parents were both educators, and they instilled a sense of service in me. And I went to West Point where the mission of that institution is to build leaders of character for a lifetime of service to the nation."

These days, the tenure of university presidents is around seven years, but Bodnar — whose references include Petraeus and GE Chair Jeffrey Immelt —said if he earns the privilege of leading UM, he's interested in staying for the next 20 years, or as long as he remains effective.

"This for me is not a step on an academic career ladder," said Bodnar. "It's a destination and a place that I want to work and a place where I want to raise my family. It's a big personal investment."

He is probably getting a reasonable bump in pay. GE pays well, but nowhere near the figures listed above for a senior executive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
I accidentally hit submit. See above.
Also, here.

https://www.thestreet.com/video/14318194/general-electric-s-ceo-is-worried-about-cash-flow-jim-cramer-warns.html

https://investorplace.com/2017/09/ge-stock-not-done-falling/

http://www.businessinsider.com/abb-group-general-electric-26-billion-deal-for-industrial-unit-2017-9?r=UK&IR=T
Okay. Been there done that.

When I googled "GE financials," I saw several "the sky is falling" articles about its current problems. But I've followed the stock market for a long, long time, and I'm used to "pundits" who can't see beyond the next quarterly report. (Don't get me started.) But I go with overall and long-term numbers, and the GE balance sheet does not justify the doom and gloom, IMO.

Actually, of more interest for me was to look at where he was in GE which, of course, is a huge company. I find he worked at GE Transportation. That segment has shown steady earnings growth over the past several years and is considered one of the most innovative GE divisions (which is saying something for GE).

Can he adapt to running a university? Looks to me like he's smart enough to do well, but only time will tell. It will interesting to see how his background on the other side (student) at a military academy and then at Oxford will play out. I note that he did teach classes at the Academy, but don't see how many or for how long.

No denying GE is in a severe slump (-22% this year). But, regarding this hire, I do hope it works. Though, I've now seen it fail at two universities.

On another topic, I too have met Ph.D's that are as dumb as a box of rocks which makes me question the rigors at some schools. But, did you know that a Master's program in the UK is only a year of study?
It is in the U.S. too. My dad has an MBA and it took him 2 years to go part time.
 
Griz til I die said:
grizpsych said:
IdaGriz01 said:
grizpsych said:
I accidentally hit submit. See above.
Also, here.

https://www.thestreet.com/video/14318194/general-electric-s-ceo-is-worried-about-cash-flow-jim-cramer-warns.html

https://investorplace.com/2017/09/ge-stock-not-done-falling/

http://www.businessinsider.com/abb-group-general-electric-26-billion-deal-for-industrial-unit-2017-9?r=UK&IR=T
Okay. Been there done that.

When I googled "GE financials," I saw several "the sky is falling" articles about its current problems. But I've followed the stock market for a long, long time, and I'm used to "pundits" who can't see beyond the next quarterly report. (Don't get me started.) But I go with overall and long-term numbers, and the GE balance sheet does not justify the doom and gloom, IMO.

Actually, of more interest for me was to look at where he was in GE which, of course, is a huge company. I find he worked at GE Transportation. That segment has shown steady earnings growth over the past several years and is considered one of the most innovative GE divisions (which is saying something for GE).

Can he adapt to running a university? Looks to me like he's smart enough to do well, but only time will tell. It will interesting to see how his background on the other side (student) at a military academy and then at Oxford will play out. I note that he did teach classes at the Academy, but don't see how many or for how long.

No denying GE is in a severe slump (-22% this year). But, regarding this hire, I do hope it works. Though, I've now seen it fail at two universities.

On another topic, I too have met Ph.D's that are as dumb as a box of rocks which makes me question the rigors at some schools. But, did you know that a Master's program in the UK is only a year of study?
It is in the U.S. too. My dad has an MBA and it took him 2 years to go part time.

Huh? It's typically two years in the states and one year in the UK. And, there isn't necessarily a problem with that either. But being a masters level graduate student gives you no insight into the operation of a University.
 
A Rhodes Scholarship is 2 years. Bodnar got 2 masters degrees at Oxford.

University of Oxford
Rhodes Scholarship, MSc, Two degrees -- Economic and Social History & Comparative Social Policy
2001 – 2003

I am surprised that people, especially ones associated with a university, don't know that a Rhodes Scholarship is generally 2 years. At least at my school, everyone knew that. I suppose that may have been because a number of people applied for them every year, and some got them. My football teammate, who was drafted by the NFL, took a Rhodes Scholarship instead and then went to law school. Smart guy.
 
grizpsych, what schools had business presidents who failed?

I can name a school where a former provost and professor became president and failed.
 
PlayerRep said:
A Rhodes Scholarship is 2 years. Bodnar got 2 masters degrees at Oxford.

University of Oxford
Rhodes Scholarship, MSc, Two degrees -- Economic and Social History & Comparative Social Policy
2001 – 2003

I am surprised that people, especially ones associated with a university, don't know that a Rhodes Scholarship is generally 2 years. At least at my school, everyone knew that. I suppose that may have been because a number of people applied for them every year, and some got them. My football team, who was drafted by the NFL, took a Rhodes Scholarship instead and then went to law school. Smart guy.

That team you played on gets more amazing with every puffed up chest post you make! Pump down the chest once in a while and proofread.
 
Back
Top