Rolex CEO "resignes" and a bitter rumour...

[walkuere]

Seen in Bloomberg.com:

Rolex Group, the Swiss watchmaker, said Chief Executive Officer Patrick Heiniger resigned for “personal” reasons after 16 years in the post.

Heiniger will leave Rolex at the end of the year, the Geneva-based company said in a statement late yesterday. Separately, Rolex today denied a L’Agefi report that the company may have lost 1 billion Swiss francs ($900 million) invested with Bernard Madoff, the U.S. money manager charged with fraud.

courtesy of bloomberg.com

Oha! Would explain the latest price rises, ha?

Frank

[rfrazier]

This is where language becomes important. Denying that one "may have lost money" is consistent (given certain assumptions[1]) with one "actually lost money".

[1] Generally the semantics for modal claims allows that what is actual is also possible. But, in ordinary discourse, given some principles of conversational implicature, "may" and "actual" can be taken to be exclusive. Sort of like "or" is taken, in ordinary discourse, to be exclusive so "A or B" is equivalent to "A or B, but not both A and B", although in standard logic, "or" is not taken to be exclusive.

Best wishes,
Bob

[Grath]

This is where language becomes important. Denying that one "may have lost money" is consistent (given certain assumptions[1]) with one "actually lost money".

[1] Generally the semantics for modal claims allows that what is actual is also possible. But, in ordinary discourse, given some principles of conversational implicature, "may" and "actual" can be taken to be exclusive. Sort of like "or" is taken, in ordinary discourse, to be exclusive so "A or B" is equivalent to "A or B, but not both A and B", although in standard logic, "or" is not taken to be exclusive.

Best wishes,
Bob

I may have a headache and a twitch in my left eye.

[studs]

This is where language becomes important. Denying that one "may have lost money" is consistent (given certain assumptions[1]) with one "actually lost money".

I would be more tempted to say this is simple lawyer/politician speak to give one the necessary semantic 'get out' clause should unpalatable truths ever come to light.

The use of such linguistic tricks have been ubiquitous in their respective games for years.

[Mike K]

This is where language becomes important. Denying that one "may have lost money" is consistent (given certain assumptions[1]) with one "actually lost money".

I would be more tempted to say this is simple lawyer/politician speak to give one the necessary semantic 'get out' clause should unpalatable truths ever come to light.

The use of such linguistic tricks have been ubiquitous in their respective games for years.

My sister came home from university and said she was thinking of becoming a lawyer. And my mother stated, out of the blue, "I hate all lawyers." :shock:

[swanbourne]

One of my friends' sister is a solicitor so why does she keep calling me "dearie"?

Eddie

[in_denial]

This is where language becomes important. Denying that one "may have lost money" is consistent (given certain assumptions[1]) with one "actually lost money".

[1] Generally the semantics for modal claims allows that what is actual is also possible. But, in ordinary discourse, given some principles of conversational implicature, "may" and "actual" can be taken to be exclusive. Sort of like "or" is taken, in ordinary discourse, to be exclusive so "A or B" is equivalent to "A or B, but not both A and B", although in standard logic, "or" is not taken to be exclusive.

Best wishes,
Bob

Indeed; what language was the statement uttered in, and who translated it into English? Must, may etc. can have quite different meaning in German, Italian, French etc.

-- Tim

[adrian]

I agree with Bob. It was "preventive firing" amid the biggest financial scandal developing.

[psikat]

One of my friends' sister is a solicitor so why does she keep calling me "dearie"?

Eddie

What may she be soliciting?

[sam3k]

I agree with Bob. It was "preventive firing" amid the biggest financial scandal developing.

I always thought that firing/resigning was left till after a scandal had broke. So you have someone to throw to the wolves in an attempt at closure.

[Nev]

One of my friends' sister is a solicitor so why does she keep calling me "dearie"?

Eddie

Maybe its the xmas antlers ??? :)


Nev.

[abraxas]

.
I put >Rolex Madoff< in Google and this popped up:

Rolex appeal fades as recession blues hit Singapore
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 16?sp=true

john

[Mike K]

"New Rolexes are selling at much lower prices than before and that has trickled down to the second-hand market," Ngo said.

Thank god. Maybe I'll be able to afford a 5512 finally. :) One of my final "Grail" watches. If it can drop about 50% I'd be happy :lol: !!!

[hogthrob]

This is where language becomes important. Denying that one "may have lost money" is consistent (given certain assumptions[1]) with one "actually lost money".

[1] Generally the semantics for modal claims allows that what is actual is also possible. But, in ordinary discourse, given some principles of conversational implicature, "may" and "actual" can be taken to be exclusive. Sort of like "or" is taken, in ordinary discourse, to be exclusive so "A or B" is equivalent to "A or B, but not both A and B", although in standard logic, "or" is not taken to be exclusive.

Best wishes,
Bob

It says "denied a L’Agefi report that the company may have lost 1 billion Swiss francs", so could they be denying the amount, rather than the loss?

I see what you're saying though - denying that they "may have" simply says there is no doubt - they have either definitely lost money, or they definitely haven't. They just don't specify which. Do you think that their statement is intended to be an admission that they have lost money though?

[sam3k]

Aren't Rolex privately held. Would they even need to make a public admission of any involvement with Madoff.

[jk103]

Aren't Rolex privately held. Would they even need to make a public admission of any involvement with Madoff.

They are a non-profit I don't know the rules for non profits but they may have too.

[Chris_in_the_UK]

Some stuff kicking around other forums relating to the resignation.

Mixed opinions - some are suggesting that recent models and direction of Rolex is not well received and was done without listening, other suggest these were positive moves :?

A summary of some of the posts:-

Low points - Yachtmater 2 (clownmaster?), Deepsea, Leopard Daytona, failure to secure a repair line for vintage pieces (unlike Patek Phillipe who will make a part from scratch).

High points - Parachrome spring, Green Maxi Dial Subs, Ceramic Bezels.

To be honest, most of the above leave me cold but I am sure some will agree/disagree........

[andrew]

A summary of some of the posts:-

Low points - Yachtmater 2 (clownmaster?), Deepsea, Leopard Daytona

I fully appreciate that this is only a report of what you read, but treating the Leopard Daytona as a symptom of strategic error is ridiculous. Every manufacturer makes gaudy, tasteless bling; why should Rolex miss out on that market to preserve the sensebilities of a minority crowd of ascetic mil-watch fanatics?

failure to secure a repair line for vintage pieces (unlike Patek Phillipe who will make a part from scratch).

Now for a firm whose product designs have been famously unchanged or decades, I'd certainly agree with that, although it appears to be highly variable depending on the country you're in.

[walkuere]

Just an update

Sorry, it's in French...

Frank

[adrian]

Let me guess... Swatch will acquire Rolex.

[Bristolian]

This is where language becomes important. Denying that one "may have lost money" is consistent (given certain assumptions[1]) with one "actually lost money".

[1] Generally the semantics for modal claims allows that what is actual is also possible. But, in ordinary discourse, given some principles of conversational implicature, "may" and "actual" can be taken to be exclusive. Sort of like "or" is taken, in ordinary discourse, to be exclusive so "A or B" is equivalent to "A or B, but not both A and B", although in standard logic, "or" is not taken to be exclusive.

:D

Quite. If the spokesman had said in terms: "... I deny that we may have lost money..." (consistent with meaning 'of course we did lose money - and bloody loads of it') Im not sure too many people would have been confused. The trick that so many politicians have mastered is to say in response to a complex proposition: "I deny that" - without saying which bit of the proposition they actually deny, hoping that the audience will approximate a meaning that lets them duck responsibility without actually taking a firm stand.

The ploy rarely works in court as well as it does on the Today Programme.

If you want some entertaining Xmas reading ( a bluffers guide to wangling your way out of sticky discussions) I would recommend http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Every-A ... 332&sr=8-2
It's a real hoot!

Rgds

David

[Griswold]

This is where language becomes important. Denying that one "may have lost money" is consistent (given certain assumptions[1]) with one "actually lost money".

[1] Generally the semantics for modal claims allows that what is actual is also possible. But, in ordinary discourse, given some principles of conversational implicature, "may" and "actual" can be taken to be exclusive. Sort of like "or" is taken, in ordinary discourse, to be exclusive so "A or B" is equivalent to "A or B, but not both A and B", although in standard logic, "or" is not taken to be exclusive.

Best wishes,
Bob

Indeed. Similarly "nor" and "nand" are also exclusive, though either can be used to provide the same results as the other.

[DeusIrae]

If you want some entertaining Xmas reading ( a bluffers guide to wangling your way out of sticky discussions) I would recommend http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Every-A ... 332&sr=8-2
It's a real hoot!

HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:

*
Drink Liquor.

Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.

*
Make things up.

Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."

NOTE: Always make up exact figures.

If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."

*
Use meaningless but weightly-sounding words and phrases.

Memorize this list:
o Let me put it this way
o In terms of
o Vis-a-vis
o Per se
o As it were
o Qua
o So to speak

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not."

Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."

You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."

Only a fool would challenge that statement.

*
Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.

You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevent phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
o You're begging the question.
o You're being defensive.
o Don't compare apples and oranges.
o What are your parameters?

This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.

Here's how to use your comebacks:

You say As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponent says Lincoln died in 1865.
You say You're begging the question.
OR
You say Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponent says Liberia is in Africa.
You say You're being defensive.

*
Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.

This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."

So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.

[wellsy]

Brilliant, thanks for the above.

[MORRI]

Just an update

Sorry, it's in French...

Frank

Thanks to Frank for the link, here is what i think is the most relevent passage-

"Selon l’édition datée du 17 décembre de L’Agefi, les conflits personnels au sommet de Rolex auraient été amplifiés par une affaire financière. En effet, la Fondation Rolex ferait partie de la liste des victimes du financier escroc américain, Bernard Madoff. Le journal lausannois ajoute que la fondation aurait perdu jusqu’à un milliard de francs dans cette aventure quand sa fortune se monte à dix milliards. Une information formellement démentie hier soir par le groupe genevois"

This basically says that a Lausanne newspaper called L'Agefi has reported that personal conflicts amongst the top brass at Rolex have been aggravated by a financial scandal. The Rolex Foundation may be part of the list of victims of Bernard Madoff. The paper adds that the foundation may have lost up to a billion francs in this venture out of a total capital of 10 Billion francs. This HAS BEEN FORMALLY DENIED BY THE GENEVA GROUP ( i.e. the Rolex foundation)

So, it has been formally denied by Rolex, but what does that mean?