Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tyson is huge because of acquisition, not innovation (though there is nobody in the industry that is as leading edge as Tyson, simply due to its overwhelming financial advantage). To suggest that Tyson would be better off if they went into free range, for example, is naive. Such fringe (relatively high margin) ventures would be a distraction at worst and a drop in the offal bucket at best. The company is a behemoth and is limited as such. There are only so many ways to cut up a chicken. Or a steer. Or a hog. Or a chunk of surimi.

Not that I disagree with the basic premise that its shareholders are limited to a back seat. This company exists to benefit only those whose last name is "Tyson." But it has always been a proactive company--proactively absorbing its competition is strategically savvy steps.

TDT

Who is not a shareholder.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.