The only thing that stands out, for me, is suicide. For instance Tata Motors CEO Karl Slym committed suicide after an argument with his wife [0]. He was heading a $35 billion company, and from what I can see, was facing no fraud/bankruptcy/arrest either.
Makes you wonder what can turn someone at those levels so despondent enough to end it all?
It seems like the propensity to commit suicide is probably a mental disorder, and everyone has the same probability of acquiring a mental disorder, whether they're rich or poor.
When flipping coins, it's rare, but not too rare, to see tails come up five times in a row. When you consider the statistics of suicide, it doesn't seem too far fetched to see a string of five suicides, even within a relatively short amount of time. It really is a shame, and I hope someday the causes will be better understood and made treatable.
The studies I've seen suggest that the poor are more likely to suffer from mental disorders than the rich. http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=21121... estimates that 20-54 year olds making <$20,000 per year are 1.8x more likely to have a mood disorder and 3.7x more likely to attempt suicide than those making >$70,000/year. There is evidence for a relationship in the longitudinal analysis as well, so it's not necessarily a matter of upbringing.
US car companies seem to operate under this model, but in the rest of the world the financing income is seen as a useful supplement to income from selling cars.
For example, Tata's increase in profitability last year is attributed to increases sales of Jaguar and Landrover cars[1], not profits from financial services.
I know it is the case for both French car companies and Volvo -- meaning the influence of financiers over the company decisions is stronger than any engineer: CEO track, risk assessement is about liability not engineering excellence. Most Japanese and Korean companies are better seen as a conglomerates (zaibatsu). I've heard similar stories for US companies, but I don't personally know anyone working for them. It is indeed not the case for German brands, were the engineering excellence still matters. Tata is a large group that works far beyond cars: they handle personal finance, pharmaceuticals, etc. Your link is specifically about the car company, Tata Motors.
The OP isn't talking about profit vs loss financial management, they are referring to the practice of US manufactures of offering finance packages to purchase a car.
These finance packages are quite lucrative in the US market, and for many US manufacturers are more profitable than manufacturing.
(The suicide referred to was an executive of Tata Motors)
Comments
The only thing that stands out, for me, is suicide. For instance Tata Motors CEO Karl Slym committed suicide after an argument with his wife [0]. He was heading a $35 billion company, and from what I can see, was facing no fraud/bankruptcy/arrest either.
Makes you wonder what can turn someone at those levels so despondent enough to end it all?
[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/1060...
It seems like the propensity to commit suicide is probably a mental disorder, and everyone has the same probability of acquiring a mental disorder, whether they're rich or poor.
When flipping coins, it's rare, but not too rare, to see tails come up five times in a row. When you consider the statistics of suicide, it doesn't seem too far fetched to see a string of five suicides, even within a relatively short amount of time. It really is a shame, and I hope someday the causes will be better understood and made treatable.
The studies I've seen suggest that the poor are more likely to suffer from mental disorders than the rich. http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=21121... estimates that 20-54 year olds making <$20,000 per year are 1.8x more likely to have a mood disorder and 3.7x more likely to attempt suicide than those making >$70,000/year. There is evidence for a relationship in the longitudinal analysis as well, so it's not necessarily a matter of upbringing.
I don't understand what Tata Motors has to do with the financial industry.
Neither do I, but without his statistic this story probably wouldn't exist :)
Like most car companies now, it's mainly a financial service (to offer financing options to pay for the car) that subsidises a car-making operation.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the case.
US car companies seem to operate under this model, but in the rest of the world the financing income is seen as a useful supplement to income from selling cars.
For example, Tata's increase in profitability last year is attributed to increases sales of Jaguar and Landrover cars[1], not profits from financial services.
[1] http://www.industryweek.com/finance/tata-motors-profit-soars...
I know it is the case for both French car companies and Volvo -- meaning the influence of financiers over the company decisions is stronger than any engineer: CEO track, risk assessement is about liability not engineering excellence. Most Japanese and Korean companies are better seen as a conglomerates (zaibatsu). I've heard similar stories for US companies, but I don't personally know anyone working for them. It is indeed not the case for German brands, were the engineering excellence still matters. Tata is a large group that works far beyond cars: they handle personal finance, pharmaceuticals, etc. Your link is specifically about the car company, Tata Motors.
The OP isn't talking about profit vs loss financial management, they are referring to the practice of US manufactures of offering finance packages to purchase a car.
These finance packages are quite lucrative in the US market, and for many US manufacturers are more profitable than manufacturing.
(The suicide referred to was an executive of Tata Motors)
Numerology.
Marriage is marriage, no matter how good one's job is.