How to Read a 10Q: Razorfish
Posted Mon Apr 23 13:44:47 2001 by sbaldwin |
By Steve Gilliard
Source Document: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1075088/0000950130-01-001634.txt
Razorfish is a global digital solutions provider founded in 1995.
Digital solutions apply digital technologies to enhance communications
and commerce between businesses and their consumers, suppliers,
employees and other partners. Razorfish provides an integrated,
end-to-end solution that helps clients discover, create, and implement
business solutions by leveraging digital technologies across platforms,
networks, and devices. From business and brand strategy to systems
integration, Razorfish provides clients with opportunities to increase
revenues, enhance productivity, and maximize competitive advantage.
With offices in nine countries and cities of Amsterdam, Boston,
Frankfurt, Hamburg, Helsinki, Los Angeles, London, Milan, Munich, New
York City, Oslo, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Stockholm, and Tokyo,
Razorfish employs more than 1,320 people and is headquartered in New
York City.
| Razorfish
employed 1,800 people on January 1, 2001. A question which needs to be
asked is why did this company expand so quickly around the world? They
can't even say they build Web sites in English. Instead they provide
"digital solutions" (whatever those are).
|
Although we have historically experienced growth in our revenues,
we have recently experienced a decline in revenues quarter to quarter.
We can give no assurance that the decline in revenues and net losses
will not continue in future periods. We believe that these developments
can be attributed to several factors:
o A broad-based general economic slowdown in which clients have
decreased technology budgets and a lack of urgency in approaching
large-scale projects. This has led to longer selling cycles, resulting
in a significant slowing of our revenue stream.
o A slowdown in the market for internet-driven solutions, in which
many smaller firms in the dot.com space have vanished altogether.
o A considerable decrease in the value of many publicly-held
companies that provide digitally-based consulting services, that has
led to a loss in reputation by association.
o Increased competitive pressure from traditional management and strategic consulting firms as well as smaller newcomers.
| Word
on the street, and from former Fish employees, is that their customers
were pissed with both attitude and delivery. More than one web shop
claims they have been called in to fix a Fish mess. Of course, when you
run a business which relies on nitwits with VC funding to be clients,
you can expect a downturn in business when they lose their $20-$40m.
Razorfish went from making a $4m profit in 1998 to losing $148m in 2000.
Caused by snapping up companies they would have difficulty managing.
|
The Razorfish solution
Razorfish continues to believe that companies must reinvent their
traditional business models in order to remain competitive in the
changing digital economy. Razorfish helps its clients incorporate
digital technologies to enable the clients to communicate and transact
more effectively with their customers, suppliers, employees and other
business partners. Razorfish believes that the following factors
distinguish Razorfish's ability to deliver solutions to its clients
from that of its competitors.
Focuses on leading-edge digital technologies. Razorfish uses
leading-edge digital technologies to create solutions on a wide variety
of platforms that include the World Wide Web, wireless, broadband,
satellite communications and legacy systems for use with a variety of
digital devices and information appliances, including desk tops, mobile
phones, pagers and personal digital assistants.
The
Razorfish solution has been to talk big, promise a lot and then hope to
get work. From going to working with Ford, they're now building the
website for HBO's Band of Brothers, the Steven Spielberg-produced, Tom
Hanks-directed, semi-sequel to Saving Private Ryan.
Not exactly the same as working for Schwab and Ford, is it? But any
port in a storm. Not that you need 1,300 people to build this, or any
other Web site. The rest is the nonsense that they tell clients and no
one reading this takes
seriously.
|
Razorfish believes that it is better able to serve multi-national
and local clients because its local consultants understand the nuances
of local cultures, economies and business practices. In addition, each
office has the ability to draw on the knowledge base and resources of
approximately 940 billable Razorfish professionals worldwide.
| 940?
Jesus. When they had their now infamous conference call with Robertson
Stephens last December, part of the reason that the analysts freaked
was that only 35 percent of their workforce was actually doing billable
work. And it has been alleged that they have had a very hard time
managing their resources.
|
Our By-laws do not permit any person other than the Board of
Directors or certain executive officers to call special meetings of the
stockholders. In addition, we must receive a stockholders' proposal for
an annual meeting within a specified period for that proposal to be
included on the agenda. Because stockholders do not have the power to
call meetings and are subject to timing requirements in submitting
stockholder proposals for consideration at an annual or special
meeting, any third-party takeover not supported by the Board of
Directors would be subject to significant delays and difficulties.
|
Normally, I don't care about corporate by-laws, but when you look at the board of directors and officers
you'll see that CEO Jeffrey Dachis has an unusual amount of control of
the top offices of the company. Anyone bucking his will shouldn't
expect much. Dachis has an exceptional amount of power over his board,
acting as both chairman and CEO, but apparently has no business
training, or any significant business experience.
|
Legal Actions
On December 13, 2000, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Razorfish and certain officers of the corporation in the Southern
District of New York. An additional 12 identical actions have since
been filed, and all suits have been consolidated in the Southern
District. The suits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder based on alleged false statements made in
Razorfish public disclosures concerning the integration of i-Cube, a
company acquired by Razorfish in 1999. Razorfish believes these
allegations are without merit in law or fact. Razorfish cannot assure
you, however, that this matter will be resolved in its favor.
| Most
companies do not have this kind of legal action against them. That is,
13 shareholder lawsuits which have been filed by investors, accusing
the company's officers of lying about the condition of the company.
Shareholder suits are usually filed when investors are unhappy with the
company's management. They aren't uncommon, but 13 actions filed is a
fairly large number, especially for such a small company.
|
On February 13, 2001, a derivative action was filed in Delaware
Chancery Court by Robert C. Nichols on behalf of Razorfish against the
members of Razorfish's Board of Directors, alleging breach of the
Directors' fiduciary duties to the Company. This action is currently
stayed by agreement of the parties. Razorfish believes these
allegations are baseless and without merit in law or fact. Razorfish
cannot assure you, however, that this matter will be resolved in its
favor.
| This
is a state lawsuit claiming the directors have managed the company
badly. It may be termed differently, but the idea is that the company's
manager are not doing their job. Both lawsuits stem from the fact that
the company reached a share price of $56.93 and is now hovering at
$1.17 as of April 17.
|
On December 7, 2000, Earlychildhood.com, a former Razorfish client,
filed a complaint in Monterey Superior Court California against
Razorfish alleging breach of contract and related causes of action. The
parties attended a mediation session on February 28, 2001 in an attempt
to resolve the dispute out of court. To date, the parties have not
reached a resolution. Razorfish's answer is due April 10, 2001.
Razorfish intends to defend this case vigorously and will also bring
counterclaims against Earlychildhood.com pertaining to the contract.
Razorfish cannot assure you, however, that this matter will be resolved
in its favor.
On July 14, 2000, Razorfish was served with a complaint by IAM.com
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court that alleged that Razorfish did not
fulfill its duties in connection with work performed for IAM.com.
Razorfish sued IAM.com for recovery of monies owed under the contract
in New York Supreme Court. In March 2001, both parties' claims were
resolved through a payment to Razorfish by IAM.
| These
two are suits filed by clients about the quality of Razorfish work. IAM
closed their doors, and paid Razorfish something for the work done, but
earlychildhood seems to still be in litigation. Now, these suits are
more important than the stockholder suits, which get filed every day,
because they allege the company failed to provide decent sites. What is
amazing is that it got to litigation. This IS uncommon. Most clients
dislike the costs of suits and most companies want to settle their
disputes without courtrooms involved. Suing over work quality is
something most firms which do design work strive to avoid at nearly any
cost.
|
On February 22, 2000, Razorfish issued 200,000 shares of Common
Stock to each of Leonard Sellers and Shane Ginsberg in consideration
for their relinquishment of their rights to receive a percentage of the
profits before taxes (a "PBT Earnout") of Razorfish San Francisco, Inc.
Messrs. Sellers and Ginsberg received their PBT Earnout rights in
connection with their sale to Razorfish in June of 1998 of
substantially all of the assets of Plastic. On February 27, 2001
Razorfish issued an additional 57,714 shares of Common Stock to Dr.
Sellers in full satisfaction with respect to its obligations to Dr.
Sellers in consideration for his relinquishment of his right to receive
the PBT Earnout on Razorfish San Francisco, Inc.
On February 22, 2000, Razorfish issued 44,916 shares of Common
Stock to each of Richard Titus and Stephen Anspach in consideration for
their relinquishment of their rights to receive a PBT Earnout with
respect to Razorfish Los Angeles, Inc. Messrs. Titus and Anspach
received their PBT Earnout rights in connection with their sale to
Razorfish in August of 1998 of substantially all of the assets of Tag
Media.
On August 18, 2000, Razorfish issued approximately 446,000 shares
of Common Stock and approximately $1.4 million in cash to four
individual shareholders and Southern Blue Betelligungsgesellschaft GmBH
in exchange for all of the issued and outstanding common stock of
MediaLab AG.
On May 15, 2000, Razorfish issued approximately 141,000 shares of
Common Stock to Arie van Baarle and Taco Sipma in exchange for all 28
shares of the capital stock of Limage Dangereuse Rotterdam B.V.
On January 24, 2000, Razorfish issued approximately 399,000 shares
of Common Stock and approximately $2.9 million to five individual
shareholders in exchange for the entire equity interest of Qb
International Holding AB ("Qb"). In addition, the Company issued
approximately 8,000 shares of common stock and approximately $.2
million for outstanding warrants to purchase Qb's Common Stock.
| All
of these payments were due to clauses in buyout agreements with smaller
design firms. The Fish expanded by buying smaller companies and then
including them in their corporate structure. Which means they have been
cashing out as the price of the stock headed southward. One can assume
that they sold their companies for stock which was worth far more than
the sale price, forcing their hand. As soon as the crash hit, they
began unloading shares.
|
Revenues
Razorfish's revenues increased $97.7 million, or 57%, to $267.9
million for the year ended December 31, 2000 from $170.2 million for
the year ended December 31, 1999. This increase in revenues was
attributable to an increased volume of projects from new customers, the
leveraging of existing client relationships to obtain repeat business,
increases in Razorfish's billing rates and the impact of the purchase
acquisitions that were completed in 1999 and 2000.
Project personnel costs
Razorfish's project personnel costs increased $66.9 million, or
83%, to $147.9 million for 2000 from $81.0 million for 1999. As a
percentage of revenues, project personnel costs increased to 55% during
2000 from 48% during 1999. The increase in project personnel costs in
absolute dollar terms was a result of the hiring of additional and more
experienced personnel required to deliver Razorfish's services. The
increase in project personnel costs as a percentage of revenues was the
result of a decline in utilization for billable employees due primarily
to slower revenue in the fourth quarter of 2000.
Sales and marketing
Razorfish's sales and marketing expenses increased $9.9 million, or
78%, to $22.5 million for 2000 from $12.6 million in 1999. As a
percentage of net revenues, these costs increased from 7% in 1999 to 8%
in 2000. The increase in selling and marketing costs in absolute
dollars was primarily attributable to increased spending on promotional
activities and increases in selling and marketing personnel.
General and administrative
Razorfish's general and administrative expenses increased $61.2
million, or 126%, to $109.7 million in 2000 from $48.5 million in 1999.
As a percentage of revenues, general and administrative expenses
increased to 41% during 2000 from 28% in 1999. The additional increase
of G&A expense was due to an increase in general and administrative
personnel and support staff necessary to maintain Razorfish's growing
infrastructure and bad debt expense of $13.8 million.
Once
again, a company that increases spending by 100 percent, 150 percent in
a shrinking market suggests that something might be awry. As late as
December, the company was saying that they didn't need to lay off
people. People within the company saw that projects were terminating
all during the last two quarters, and the company was not gaining new
projects. It's hard to imagine that nobody knew this (it's been all
over FC and the Vault). Yet, costs grew, not by 10-15 percent, but 83,
78, and 126 percent. The share price is falling, the company is
spending more money and no one is considering that there is a need to
contain costs.
What also needs to be considered is that Dachis has continued to
buy stock in the company. He has clearly sold no stock over the last
year and he claims he has never sold a share. I cannot explain why he
has done this. CEO's are allowed to sell their shares, most do. There
is no rational explanation for a CEO to hold onto stocks worth $1.17 a
share. It does reflect what one could call a father's pride in the
company. Despite bad management decisions, he still believes in the
company. ANY sale of his shares will leave him with hundreds of
thousands of dollars at a minimum.
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
Razorfish's net cash used by operating activities was $33.1 million
in 2000. Cash used by operating activities was mainly due to the net
operating loss from operations of $ $148.9 million, which includes the
impairment loss of $126.0 million for the year, an increase in accounts
receivable of $10.6 million and a decrease in accounts payable and
accrued expenses of $8.5 million, which was partially offset by an
decrease in unbilled revenue of $8 million.
Razorfish believes that based on its cost reduction efforts, which
have included major workforce reductions in the first quarter 2001 and
will include additional cost reductions if necessary, the Company will
return to profitability and that cash generated by operations combined
with its current cash position will be sufficient to meet its working
capital needs for the next twelve months.
|
Not with rising expenses and losing $148m in one year they won't.
|
Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
On June 23, 2000, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PWC") resigned its
position as Razorfish's independent certified public accountant. PWC's
decision to resign was due to a conflict with a SEC rule requiring that
a partner of an accounting firm who has a close relative that holds an
important position with an audit client be geographically separated
from the relative and from the engagement team by at least 500 miles to
mitigate a presumption of impairment of independence. The conflict
exists because the father of John Roberts, Jr., Razorfish's Chief
Financial Officer since April 24, 2000, is a partner in the New York
office of PWC. PWC had applied to the SEC for relief from this rule,
but such relief was not granted.
| Gee,
I wonder why relief was not granted. OK, the Fish goes and hires their
CFO's father's accounting firm? Huh? What kind of thinking is that? Not
only did they know the law, what about the appearance of impropriety?
The CFO's father is not a janitor or head of IT, but a partner in the
company which audits the books. How can the auditors do their job when
daddy is looking over their shoulder? What's even better is that he was
the company's accountant there. Working for daddy and auditing the
Fish. Interesting.
|
3. Compensation and Benefits.
-------------------------
3.01 Salary. During the period of this Agreement, the Company shall
pay to ------ Executive a base salary at an annual rate of Four Hundred
Thousand ($400,000) ("Minimum Annual Compensation") and shall be
payable in installments in accordance with Company policy. The CEO
shall review the base salary annually, and may in its sole discretion
increase it to reflect performance, appropriate industry guideline data
and other factors. At no time during the Term shall Executive's annual
base salary fall below the Minimum Annual Compensation without the
prior written consent of Executive.
We can't pay you less unless you agree. I wish that applied to ordinary workers.
3.02 Bonus. -----
(a) Executive shall receive an annual bonus in a target amount
equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) (the "Target Percentage") of the
Minimum Annual Compensation (the "Annual Bonus"), as the same may be
increased during the Term upon the attainment by the Company and the
Executive of certain goals as determined by the CEO in consultation
with the Executive at the commencement of each year (the "Annual
Targets"). In the event that no Annual Targets are set in any year, the
Annual Bonus for such year shall be determined by the CEO based on
Executive's work performance and contribution to the Company and the
Company's performance, as evaluated by the CEO. The Company shall
conduct Executive performance reviews in accordance with the Company
policy. Annual bonuses shall be paid to Executive no later than ninety
(90) days following the conclusion of the preceding annual period (the
"Bonus Payment Date").
(b) (i) Executive shall receive options (each an "Initial Option")
to acquire five hundred thousand (500,000) shares of the common stock
of the Company (the "Common Stock") at the closing market price of the
Common Stock as of the first date immediately following the Effective
Date upon which such Options shall be available for grant by the
Company to the Executive in accordance with the Company's option
plans:.
Kanarick is the cofounder of Razorfish and this is a mighty generous
compensation package. According to their documents, Dachis took home
$300K last year, but all of the officers took home considerable, six
figure, bonuses, except him. The salaries grew as the company went from
making a profit to losing money.
In 1998, the Fish had revenues of $83m, in 1999, $170m and in 2000,
$267m. The only problem is that losses grew even faster. In 1998, the
company made a $4m profit, lost $14m in 1999 and $148m in 2000. The
problem is that this is a very closely held company. One where Dachis
and his cronies have a small board and seem to make most of the
decisions among a very small group, yet are managing a multinational
corporation. The filing even seems shocked at the cultural differences
between US and Scandinavian work habits and labor laws.
Managing a multinational is a very tricky, expensive business,
where you have to duplicate services, while managing them from central
headquarters. It is unlikely Dachis visited all of his overseas
operations since they were acquired.
They went on a buying spree to expand their empire over the last
year, which is the largest source of the exploding debt. In less than
two years, they went from a company which was making a small profit,
rare in the dotcom world, to one which was losing millions.
The amazing part about this is that no one inside the company
apparently understood the sea change going on in the economy and in
their sector. The arrogance of the Fish and their workers drips through
even in their 10K. Razorfish solutions? Yeah, one which gets clients
suing you and others looking for new solutions. They basically had to
bid on a simple Web design job for HBO. Yes, the Band of Brothers site
will be interactive and have plenty of doodads, maybe even an
interactive game, but, this is the kind of work handed out to much
smaller companies, certainly not companies with the Fish's grand
strategy. In the past they would have bid for all of HBO's work.
The Fish talked big and tried to live big without the resources to
actually run their business efficiently. If Razorfish's managers had
more, hell, any real experience they would have seen that they could
have stemmed losses by playing their game much closer to the vest. All
these companies, MarchFIRST and the rest, wanted to be massive
companies. They needed to deal with the realities of their market,
which meant that they needed to have happy customers praising their
work. Their top managers are mostly from consultancies, but unlike a
traditional shop, they don;t just recommend sites, they construct whole
Web "presences".
Not anymore. A list of recent projects shows that they are now just building Web sites like any other design firm.
How arrogant was Razorfish? Wired's September 2000 issue described
how Dachis and Kanarick lived, on their mid six figure salaries.
"They have their own nightclub on the Lower East Side -- the
Slipper Room -- where they sometimes Hugh Hefner the nights away,
watching cabarets and dwarves and nearly naked dancers, and drinking
cocktails named after themselves -- the Dachismo (three airline bottles
of Vodka, with tonic) and the Craigar (aka Bloody Mary).
"They drive fancy cars (Kanarick, a 1965 Corvette convertible) and
motorcycles (Dachis a Harley Davidson 883 Sportster and a Ducati
Monster 900SEI). Kanarick is building an apartment in SoHo (featured in
Marie Claire) that has seven shades of red in the den and more shades
of green in the bedroom that you can count.
Imagine Jack Welch owning a nightclub and naming drinks after
himself. Sure the titans of American industry have nice perks, but most
of them make money as well. I think if GE was losing money and Welch
was running a country club on the side, the investors might take it a
bit hard.
The suit
filed by Andrew J. Powers as part of a class action suit, claims that
the company artificially inflated the price of the stock by claiming
that Dachis and his officers lied about the integration of the purchase
of I-Cube and it's corporate culture. Michael Pehl, I-cube's former
president and then President of Razorfish resigned suddenly, according
to the suit, and it is alleged that he sold his shares in advance of
the company's 3Q 2000 earnings warning.
I-Cube was a "boutique" which worked with financial companies with offices in Boston, California, the UK,
Netherlands and Germany. Razorfish, according to the lawsuit, was praised for aquiring the company with $547m in stock.
The i-Cube aquisition, according to the lawsuit, led to turmoil
behind the scenes at Razorfish. They claim that Dachis and Kanarick had
a "reckless and divisive management style" which "alienated" former
I-Cube employees. The suit claims that the rapid acquisition of these
companies led to confusion and the inability of the company to
integrate them into the Fish structure.
The suit then alleges that the company grew to the point where they
had far too many employees than they could "possibly utilize", and that
growth came from acquisitions, and not "management skills". Within
months of the acquisition, former i-Cube, then Razorfish CFO Lawrence
P. Begley left for "family reasons" and Pehl was gone soon after. The
suit then claims Dachis lied to the media, suggesting that the company
would continue to grow during the 3Q 2000.
The lawsuit claims that while the company continued to claim that
I-Cube was being integrated into the Fish, the reality was that the
senior officers were divided on management style and that Pehl and
Begley were unable to deal with Dachis's and Kanarick's management
style. The suit also claims that they were of an "ongoing and
persistent nature" which prevented full integration. It also claims
that the company's inability to manage staff was affecting Razorfish's
ability to "retain existing ...and... attract new clients".
I would say that Pehl and Begley had serious concerns about
Dachis's and Kanarick's behavior which went beyond dancing dwarves and
driving fast cars. What they are remains to be seen, but they were
enough to scare off experienced managers.
The suit then claims that the company's European operations,
instead of being a profit center for the company, were in "complete
disarray" and they were unable to use their employees in a "rational
manner". Which caused problems with their clients.
The Roberts lawsuit then claims that Dachis lied to analysts about
the reason that Pehl was named President of the company, leaving the
Chief Operating Officer slot that he had once held. He then resigned on
August 24, 2000, less than a year after he took over. The suit cites
news articles which claim that Pehl was unhappy with the other officers
antics and statements where Dachis calls Wall Street analysts "clueless
lemmings". Of course, his opinion may have been different when those
lemmings were boosting a company which had begun in an East Village
apartment.
Their European holdings were proving to be difficult. They had
invested heavily in Swedish and Finnish Web companies and the employees
there were not eager to move. Also the cost of employment was higher in
those countries because of national laws which gave far better benefits
than people were used to in the US.
The lawsuit claims that the Fish officers, while claiming
everything was fine, sold 1,215,716 shares of stock worth $12,763,815.
Such a sale indicates that insiders were dumping stock. The only
problem with this allegation is that Dachis has reportedly never sold a
share of Fish stock. Pehl alone sold over $6m in stock.
What seems clear is that Dachis and Kanarick were clearly over
their heads and when they had to integrate a mature business, much less
deal with complex European issues, they faultered badly. Pehl wanted to
protect his reputation, as much as he was frustrated by the
"management" style of Dachis and Kanarick, which seemed to revolve
around owning nightclubs and riding around on fancy vehicles and
getting into magazines.
Also, anyone with brains knows that the East Village scene might
not be one an experienced manager would want to be associated with.
Razorfish antics were well known for years and never seemed to tone
down.
Not managing what could clearly be considered a troubled business.
Instead of fixing their European operations, they were naming cocktails
for themselves in their nightclub, having confused running a web
consultancy with joining the modern day Rat Pack.
While the suit doesn't say this, what it suggests is that they
needed Pehl to turn a messy, growing company into a real business.
Dachis's arrogance is now legendary, but it was also apparently
detrimental to the business and this was a red flag to the street.
Which is why I-Cube was bought and Pehl and Begley brought in. Instead
of taking his advice and letting Pehl run the company, a business he
knew something about, he was quickly shunted aside or became tired of
trying to join the cult of Fish.
|
Why Razorfish is Failing
What Pehl and Begley understood was simple: to deal with corporate
America, you need to conduct yourself in a certain way. A look at
current Fish projects shows them basically building Web sites, not
doing the serious corporate identity work which they were doing in the
previous two years. Even with the slowdown in the economy, there was no
reason for that to have happened. With two clients so angered as to
sue, and others quietly hiring teams to fix their work, which is widely
rumored, it is clear that the company left many clients less than
satisfied.
Because they apparently bought companies with no clear idea as how
to integrate them into a cohesive whole, they were unable to make them
into a multinational services business. These are issues which have
given America's major corporations fits. McDonald's spends millions on
dealing with local and regional issues, customizing menus, dealing with
work rules. None of this is easy or simple, and it is even harder when
the people doing the work have no experience in dealing with foreign
companies, nor have never lived overseas as a business person. These
issues are difficult for the most competent multinationals, they may be
impossible for the neophyte.
The idea of Web consultancies is a shaky one, probably consigned to
the dustbin of business history. Clearly, these companies are failing
badly. They grew too quickly, without any kind of planning or thoughts
of long range stability. Companies grow slowly because it takes time to
work out the process of running a company. You grow too quickly, with
too much money, and bad things happen. Like 13 class action suits
combined into one large class.
The steep drop in stock price, along with the widely-documented
turmoil within the company indicates that certain shareholders were
angered enough to move against the company for poor management. The
rate of shareholder suits are growing but still seem to be fairly low
in comparison to the number of failures. While allegations in a lawsuit
are just that, these allegations explain much of the company's current
conditions. A depressed stock price, unhappy clients, a bloated staff,
all seem to stem from decisions made by senior officers without the
needed experience in the area they chose to work in, and their
inability to retain officers who had that experience.
This is an unlikely recipe for future success.
|
|
|
|
