#strategy

ChatGPT Deep dive — Imperial Oil Ltd. (what it could’ve done if not constrained by majority stakeholder ExxonMobil)

Insights
• Peers (Shell, Suncor, Dow, Neste, Valero, global traders) show the pathway Imperial could have taken.
• Imperial stayed conservative — one renewable diesel plant, domestic oil-sands focus, incremental CCS.
• If independent of Exxon, Imperial could have played the role of “Canadian national energy champion” — scaling renewable fuels, CCS, and petrochemicals at home, while diversifying upstream and trading abroad.
Highest Value (Strategic + Financial impact)

1.  Renewable diesel & SAF (feedstock integrated) – Could have built a multi-site, national-scale low-carbon fuels business with secure domestic feedstock → multi-billion long-term market.
2.  Hydrogen hubs (blue + green) – Missed chance to anchor Alberta industrial hydrogen economy tied to oil sands steam and transport → major new revenue stream + government-backed.
3.  CCS clusters – Didn’t lead Alberta CCS storage and third-party service model → protects oil sands + creates carbon storage revenue business.
4.  Global upstream diversification – Stayed oil-sands heavy instead of securing Guyana/West Africa growth barrels → lost exposure to some of world’s lowest-cost new oil.

⸻

⚡ Medium Value (Margin & Resilience plays)

5.  Petrochemicals & recycling – Failed to repurpose refining assets into higher-margin petrochemicals and circular plastics → lost structural margin uplift.
6.  Trading & logistics – No regional trading desk to capture arbitrage in crude/products/LNG → missed billions in cyclical upside like Shell/BP.
7.  Infrastructure monetization – Sat on valuable pipelines/terminals instead of monetizing and redeploying capital → could have unlocked billions in cash for growth.

⸻

🛠️ Lower but Still Material Value (Efficiency & Future-proofing)

8.  EV & mobility infrastructure – Didn’t leverage Esso retail sites into multi-energy hubs (EV charging + hydrogen + renewable diesel) → lost future-proof customer relevance.
9.  Upgrading & solvent tech – Moved slowly on bitumen upgrading and solvent-assisted recovery → missed per-barrel margin lift and carbon intensity reductions.
10. Feedstock integration (bio-inputs) – Didn’t acquire/control Canadian feedstock chains (canola, waste oils) → vulnerable to input cost swings in renewable fuels.

Where are we with must win technologies???

AI strategy incoming. He just needs to talk about it a little while longer.

First AI CTO, next an even bigger and better role as Head of Neuromorphic Computing at Intel.

SK swings thru life with the ease of Tarzan.

https://newsroom.ibm.com/2025-10-01-ibm-and-amd-collaborate-with-zyphra-on-next-generation-ai-infrastructure

Fascinating read touching on Polaris, Advance 3M, and other poor decision making:

https://archive.ph/1w3Rs

“Effectively, 3M became ‘a case study of everything not to do over a very long period of time’…”

As much as the decline was evident in the past 10 years I never thought the once great Company would disappear altogether.

"Not on my watch" you know who you are.

Innovex completes sale of 6401 North Eldridge Pkwy facility in Houston, significantly reshaping operating footprint.

"We view this outcome as a powerful combination of financial strength and operational improvement, fully aligned with our strategy of maintaining a lean, flexible cost structure and a conservative balance sheet to capture opportunities across industry cycles.” Adam Anderson

If AT&T had:
Skipped DirecTV & Time Warner
Kept debt $250 B today
→ Same dividend dollars, but 2× per-share payout and higher equity value
This is the opportunity cost of “empire building.”

The acquisitions didn’t create incremental distributable cash; they masked stagnation until the balance sheet cracked.

So Amazon Prime increases by $50/yr.

You don't believe HSBC has anything real using quantum computing to do bonds trading do you?...

Must be HSBC from Hong Kong bought IBM shares as they're a financial institution to cash on the hype don't you think?

Hopefully this is the last hype Alvind pulls to cash his shares as he finally steps down, claiming success of course!

Never trust analysts nor IBM Research BS!

Dell is losing the PC market not because of the market, but because of leadership missteps. Poor brand unification, a half-hearted approach to channels and e-tail, and failure to compete with Lenovo on pricing are leaving customers and revenue on the table. Cutting costs can’t fix a lack of strategy. If Dell wants to stop the slide, it needs bold decisions, not just headcount reductions.

As of this week some major customer and partner events scheduled for October were cancelled in NAMER - not for low attendance - for something else. What’s going on?

Gary Cohn doing more "whisper number" interviews on Jim Cramer etc just prior to Q3 results showing IBM hitting consensus estimates BUT lucky to grow top line revenue more than 2%?

layoff done. investment coming in. back to the good old days. what do you think ?

Don't we already have a digital banking, D1? What's the purpose there? I imagine one or the other will be liquidated bc why have 2?

Play politics, leveraging US government to stamp on competitors, use Trump to pressure other company to donate, tell lies while its own chips are not made by itself but TSMC.

Just high talk and play politics can bump up stock 30%.

Light up your social burner social accounts with this information to destroy their plan.

A company going public is entirely under the SEC's control. An early leak triggers serious regulatory risks related to "g-n-jumping" and the quiet period, potentially leading to costly delays, increased legal liability, and even the derailment of the entire IPO.

The Oracle Database was once considered the company’s crown jewel, and working in the Database group was seen as the best place to be. That’s no longer the case. Oracle is now positioning itself as an AI company, and the Database is at risk of being sidelined. It has already lost market share and struggles to compete in certain markets against Snowflake and other more specialized competitors. Unfortunately, this trend seems likely to continue.

I’m personal friends with some of the longstanding analyst community and today we are hosting our analyst briefings in Mexico. Ajay absolutely embarrassed himself from what they told me and now they question our long term product strategy. This guy is ki-ling us! He even threw up a slide that pretty much said that we had zero talent to begin with and are only beginning our next generation development after hiring a few of his handpicked people. I was told he was blubbering over and over and not making any sense. Can he be removed already!!!

What is happening with ESG? The coffee talk does not sound promising and any one know what the road map is and how much revenue its making.

What are your thoughts on the latest ESG coffee talk? What’s our final path forward?

Gap today announced the appointment of Deb Redmond and Michele Parsons as well as the engagement of Reed Krakoff and John Demsey to guide the strategic expansion of Beauty and Accessories, building on the momentum generated over the past two years of transformation as Gap Inc. advances its vision of becoming a high-performing house of iconic American brands that shape culture and drive sustainable long-term value.

Beauty and Accessories will serve as two new high-potential business categories for the company, extending the reach of its brands and their ability to deepen connections with customers.

"Building on the renewed strength of our iconic brands, we are setting the stage for Gap Inc. to accelerate long-term value creation and connect with our customers in meaningful and culturally relevant ways. With the support of best-in-class industry leaders and their unparalleled expertise to guide and advise our Beauty and Accessories businesses, we're well poised to not only expand our product offerings but establish these categories as promising growth engines for our portfolio. I couldn't be more excited about the journey ahead and the exceptional talent who will help guide the way," said Gap Inc. President & CEO Richard Di-kson.

Buffalos are bold and strategic and would charge bravely with focus and determination into the approaching Elliott Management storm even though they probably won't survive it ! Be proactive like the Buffalo and face the challenge head on !

This is a death blow to the Intel GPU+AI efforts and should not be allowed by the regulators. It is clear that Intel needs the downstream, low-cost GPU market segment to have a portfolio of AI chips based on chiplets, where most defective ones end up in the consumer grade GPUs based on manufacturing yield. NVidias interest is now for Intel not to enter either the GPU market, nor the AI market - which Intel was preparing for with its GPU efforts in recent years.

The recent collaboration between Nvidia and Intel is a complex strategic maneuver with significant implications for Intel's ambitions in AI and GPUs. It can be seen as both a smart move to leverage its core strength (x86) and a potential risk to its own competing product lines.
Here's a breakdown of the key considerations:
A Sign of x86 Expansion and Reinforcement

• Playing to its Strengths: The partnership allows Intel to lean into its most dominant position: the x86 CPU and its vast ecosystem. By building custom x86 CPUs for Nvidia's data center platforms, Intel is solidifying its role as the "head node" for AI workloads. Even in a GPU-accelerated world, a CPU is still required to manage the system and run the operating system, and Intel's x86 processors are the default choice in most data centers.
• IDM 2.0 and Foundry Services: This deal is a major win for Intel's IDM 2.0 strategy, which aims to make Intel a leading foundry for other companies. Manufacturing custom x86 chips for Nvidia, a major customer and the market leader in AI, is a massive vote of confidence in Intel's manufacturing capabilities.
• Expanding Market Reach: The collaboration on consumer-level "x86 RTX SoCs" with integrated Nvidia GPU chiplets allows Intel to offer a more compelling product in the growing AI PC market. This could help Intel regain some of the market share lost to AMD in gaming and high-performance laptops. It's a way to integrate a world-class GPU into its x86 platform without having to design one from scratch for every product line.
  A Risk to Intel's AI Accelerator and GPU Ambitions
• Competitive Headwind for Gaudi: The collaboration poses a direct, existential risk to Intel's Gaudi AI accelerator line. If Nvidia is using custom Intel CPUs for its AI platforms, it suggests that Nvidia believes the optimal solution involves pairing its GPUs with a customized x86 CPU, not with a competing AI accelerator like Gaudi. While Intel's Gaudi has shown strong performance and price-to-performance metrics, it has a tiny market share compared to Nvidia's overwhelming dominance. This partnership could signal that Intel is prioritizing its foundry business and its core x86 platform over the uphill battle of competing directly with Nvidia's GPUs.
• Potential for Cannibalization: The "x86 RTX SoC" product for PCs could cannibalize demand for Intel's own discrete Arc GPUs. While Intel is still developing Arc, the deal gives them a compelling alternative to offer PC manufacturers and consumers who want a powerful, integrated solution with a market-leading GPU. This could reduce the incentive for Intel to continue investing heavily in its own consumer-level GPU designs.
• Shifting Focus: While Intel has consistently stated its commitment to both Gaudi and Arc, a deep partnership with the market leader in both of those areas could lead to a strategic shift. Intel may decide that its primary role in the AI ecosystem is to be the foundational CPU provider and a leading foundry, rather than a direct competitor to Nvidia in every market segment.
  In conclusion, the partnership is a double-edged sword. It's a pragmatic and low-risk move that leverages Intel's core strengths, reinforces its IDM 2.0 strategy, and gives it access to the most powerful AI ecosystem. However, it also creates a direct and formidable competitor to its own in-house AI and GPU products, potentially signaling a de-emphasis on those ventures in favor of a more strategic, and perhaps more profitable, partnership with the market leader.

The key differences between Nvidia's recent collaboration with Intel and the Itanium partnership between Intel and HP lie in the nature of the partnership, the strategic goals, and the market context.
Itanium (Intel & HP)

• Aimed at a New Architecture: The Itanium project was a joint effort to create a brand-new, 64-bit instruction set architecture (ISA) called IA-64. This was a direct attempt to challenge and replace the dominant x86 architecture, particularly in the high-end server and enterprise market. It was a massive, ground-up undertaking to redefine a computing standard.
• Focus on a Single Product Line: The partnership was centered on the Itanium processor family, with the goal of creating a "unified computing infrastructure." HP, which had been developing its own PA-RISC processors, partnered with Intel because the cost of proprietary chip development was becoming prohibitive.
• High-Risk, High-Reward: The project was a huge gamble for both companies. It required significant financial investment (billions of dollars) and a long development timeline. The success of Itanium depended on its widespread adoption, which would require software developers to port their applications to the new architecture.
• Ultimately a Failure: The Itanium project is widely considered a failure. It was plagued by delays, performance issues, and a lack of software support. In the meantime, the x86 architecture, particularly with the introduction of AMD's 64-bit extensions (x86-64), evolved to meet the needs of the server market. This led to Itanium becoming a niche product used almost exclusively by HP (and later, HPE) for its high-end servers.
  Nvidia & Intel
• A Partnership of Complements, Not Replacements: The Nvidia and Intel collaboration is not about creating a new, competing architecture. Instead, it's about integrating the strengths of their existing platforms. Intel's expertise is in CPUs and the x86 ecosystem, while Nvidia's is in AI and accelerated computing with its GPUs.
• Focus on Integration and Ecosystems: The partnership aims to create new products by combining their technologies. This includes Intel building custom x86 CPUs for Nvidia's AI infrastructure and Intel creating system-on-chips (SoCs) that integrate Nvidia's RTX GPUs for personal computers.
• Strategic and Commercial: The deal is a commercial partnership with clear business goals for both sides. For Intel, it secures a major customer for its foundry services and helps it compete more effectively in the AI market, where Nvidia has a dominant lead. For Nvidia, it gives them access to Intel's CPU and x86 ecosystem, and a potentially more secure and diversified supply chain.
• Lower Risk, High Potential: This collaboration is less of a "bet the company" move than Itanium was. It leverages existing, successful architectures and technologies. The risk is lower because they are not trying to create a new market from scratch; they are trying to gain a greater share of existing markets by offering compelling, integrated products. The investment from Nvidia in Intel stock further solidifies the financial alignment of the two companies.
  In summary, the Itanium partnership was a bold, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to create a fundamentally new computing standard to displace x86. The Nvidia-Intel collaboration, in contrast, is a more pragmatic and strategic alliance to combine the strengths of two industry leaders, leveraging their established technologies and ecosystems to compete more effectively in the evolving data center and PC markets.

maybe oct 30 2025 will outline the bigger plan going forward..

@e1+1k4876rt2

So we want to shift out of the ERP Biz and eliminate any further support for the Maintenance Biz by 2027. Yes, that's right the Maintenance biz for which Siemens by itself pays +50MM per year - a huge amount of revenue will be lost. Our leadership simply says, it's not what we want to be any more.

As was stated in the reference post above, this surely will open the door for 3rd party companies to come in and take over our maintenance biz.

Well, it has already started - have a look: https://www.stocktitan.net/news/RMNI/kbs-partners-with-rimini-street-to-accelerate-its-ai-twpgtdekm3ca.html

KBS is one of largest broadcasting corporations in Korea and they have refused to switch to S4 Hana. So not only will SAP lose the maintenance revenue from this company, it will lose them as a customer on other platforms such as AI investments.

By the time we get to 2027 we will have lost an amazing number of customers to third party maintenance providers and we will also have lost a legacy of future investments from all of our lost customers. What a brilliant idea this was !!

How well our C level team is guiding the company for future growth :-)

Everyone's whining about Mark B, Sandy, Duggan, Savinay, Shannon, etc ..... But you're barking at the wrong tree. It's the board that everybody should be pi---d at. They are the ones who enabled this mess, fostered it and encouraged it until such point where it became counter-productive and too legally risky to keep Mark B in charge. Yes, all the above people contributed in no small part to this mess, but the board is the source of all evil. They are the ones who should have been fired a long time ago by investors, if said investors truly cared about this company growing. Breaking news, it's not meant to, never was. It is (was) a cash-cow and nothing else. The acquire and trim strategy was not born with Mark B. It was always the brainchild of Jenkins, Sadler and Fowlie. This is how OpenText grew since the beginning. So ask yourself what's going to change with Mark B gone? Not much. A new CEO, maybe a new ELT, a trimmed down OT but deep down you can't turn a tow truck into a ferrari, not matter how much visionary or smart you think you are on topics like AI and information management (yes, looking at you Tom J). Once OT 2.0 is more or less in a functioning order with a balance sheet that's not threatening to cut its jugular, the good old habits will come back. That said by the time that's done, the world will have changed dramatically and the amount of catch-up OT will have to do will be massive even compared to their situation today.

Gelb is not the answer. Foskett should be long retired and has no biz talking to mainstreet FIs we serve... he is a Wall Street dinosaur. The RM/Sales leader - useless and clients and his team know it. Product - zero strategy. Our competition is catching up and winning because they are NOT Fiserv or FIS. Same recycled useless people that we keep moving around. Remind me what has changed???? if you have a chance to get another job - LEAVE!

I hate stock buybacks. I think they are a sign that management has no idea what to do with their hard earned cash flow. In Chevron's case, cash flow created by prior leadership. I get the argument that if you can get a higher return from stock appreciation than the investment options, they make sense. However, when you have been buying back millions - may billions of dollars worth of stock and the stock price is middling, at best, what gives? Legacy projects create legacy cash flow - some, not all. Stock buybacks, by my read, have destroyed value because they have kept us from investing in, and worse, pursuing, legacy opportunities. What say you?

Can someone explain what the heck the corporate strategy is here? There have been so many layoffs that most teams around me were barely functional to begin with. Then came surprise voluntary severance, so now all of the most knowledgeable people are leaving voluntarily and probably won’t be backfilled. Teams are literally non functional, no one knows wtf to do, and instead of spending money on what we need (competent people) leadership is wasting money on sh-t like in person SKO and a completely pointless, expensive, disruptive IT migration. If you told me leadership was trying to go for another bankruptcy I’d believe you.
Every day I just smile and nod and try to survive because we don’t have enough resources to actually do anything … meanwhile supposedly AI will come save the day!

Anyone know how location strategy plays into union employees/locations? I get it that their current contract has them working from home, but with management being required to come back, it would stand to reason the union would follow. And the union employees locations are not part of the location announcements we've heard.

Also wondered how the Frontier acquisition fits into location strategy. Seems like some major disconnects

No need for sarcastic or ignorant comments toward any side of the playing field, please.

The world needs to spend some $540 billion a year looking for oil and gas to maintain current output by 2050 as the pace of declines in existing fields increases, according to the International Energy Agency.

https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/iea_says_world_must_spend_540b_a_year_looking_for_oil_gas-16-sep-2025-181814-article/

Team, let’s get to the real meat and potatoes…when will XOM production start declining hard in Permian and Guyana fields…this will set up the next candidate company purchase..any guessing which company XOM buys…this scuttle butt…is great for improving morale…

Is CRC an oil company or an investment bank? CRC only acquires reserves. I never see CRC making large oil discoveries like traditional upstream oil and gas companies. It appears there is an acquisition arm, and then there is an arm that squeezes every dime out of the process. But there is no traditional growth through exploration.

We've been through a lot this year.
Lots of pockets and smaller waves.

It's paid off, they've managed to keep it under wraps this year.

Known Layoffs in 2025:

• 300 SEC (May 15)
• 480 Global Tech (June 10)
• 150 WHQ - IDSA, NAO, Ops, Marketing, DSM (Sept 2)

Not to mention the dozens of one-offs throughout the year.

Nike conducted several small layoffs in staggered batches.
Which must have all remained under the reporting threshold for each wave.

They strategically timed reductions to avoid hitting the “mass layoff” definition.

These are conservative and confirmed numbers impacted.

What other teams, domains or dates are missing from above?

Fiverr announced on Monday that it will lay off around 250 employees, or roughly 25% of its workforce, as part of a sweeping plan to transform the company into what its founder and CEO Micha Kaufman described as an “AI-first” business.

https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/my0gxhpzg

Hurry Mikey boy, follow the leader quick. Since you have no strategy, just copy the cool kid on the block.

https://insideevs.com/news/772344/exxon-mobil-ev-battery-graphite-invention-anode/