I think there's no surer way to assess managers than by looking at their profits.

I don't know what an 'expect' is and it's not in dictionary.com--but it doesn't sound like a gray, wizend person that's seen it all. I think that's the best advisor.

And of course, when you're running a business, there's no one recipe to allocate funds for engineering vs. advertising, etc, so how could you "grade?" This formula changes constantly for any business.

Finally, who's paying this small team of expects? seems like wasted money to me. Dogbert's management consulting business.

is the purpose of this to asses the risk of the company's stock, or make sure that they will be around long enough to support your warranty, what? and isn't this what all economic and stock magazines do constantly, they asses a corporation's history, leadership, and transactions, and tell you if they think the stock is worth buying, sure you miss out on the interviews and personal details on the presidents and ceo's, but do you really want to read that? also, the most important information would be how the management will react to changes in the economy, which will never be predictable, regardless of your research. for example, Bear Stearns, one of the oldest and most established brokerage houses in the USA just crashed to $2 a share, and was bought out by JP Morgan, all as a result of the US entering a recession, do you really think that your research would have told you that this would happen.

Hey go easy on me here..

1. I am new to this and...2. I wrote the original propostion on an iphone (have you ever tried writing with the the iphone keypad...?)

Anyway to the very and well argued questions...

1) to hrench.. An Interesting arguement. Perhaps I should buy a few of those "Dilbert books!" However you need to understand business a tad more. The ability of the exec does not rest on the quality of the MBA or whatever they have. The ability of a business to perform on a year in year out basis depends on a good and commited executive team - note GE post Jack Welch (a nice guy but not such a hot legacy). My experience in 15+ years of executive coaching and advice suggests that the "financial results" are only 40% of the bigger picture - great if you are a short term investor, but not the most solid platform for a long term investment strategy. However should there be a sector focused management capability rating - well then you at least should be able to make a more informed decision (look to Dell, DaimlerChrysler, Northern Rock, Enron etc.) where perhaps a management capability assessment together with a view on numerical performance might well have saved a few blushes.

So to drewnahant..

If only that were the case. Simply put there is no QA assessment done. Why did the Shell write down happen, what about BP texas city (I admit one sector but I would argue about the capability of Netscapes exec team vs AltaVista vs Microsoft to engineer the right solution). When one company has the cash to destory a competitor then the competitor better have some unique offering to protect itself. That "safety valve" is the executive team and the data and cultural transparency/influence they have.

Guys/girls,

Just in closing I would like to add that this is really good debate and I would welcome thoughts, concerns, and to be honest hardcore abuse in relation to my concept. After all feedback is the perpetual tool to personal and professional success.Oh and by the way - find a way to change the apple iphone keyboard interface.

In my opinion the best QA of past performance is: DIVIDENDS. Any company that continues to generate dividends year after year is on the right track. CPAs are trained in playing financial statements like music scores. Want the company to show a profit in a losing year, just juggle the books, revalue some assets, buy some other company for stock. That will work for a while, but dividends year after year are hard to fake.

Analyzing new companies with the aim of getting in on the ground floor is much more difficult and requires examining all the fundamentals, including the management. Your idea of rating companies is done constantly by the marketplace, the stock market specifically. Opinions change so often that the price yoyos minute to minute for all the companies.

Good companies that you've done business with for years can change hands overnight and implement new policies that impact adversely on your relationship, all in the name of profits now, rather than dividends later. S&P, Valueline, Barrons and all the others employ witchcraft to divine the future of the industry, but the only reliable tool is DIVIDENDS.

I agree that the management quality should be measured. What not, it should also be published as a parameter to measure a company's sucess rate. There are a lot of issues that happen in corporate managemenent that may hinder other employees performance or a product's performance as a whole. THIS DEFINITELY AFFECTS THE DIVIDENDS OF A COMPANY. However, instead of just measuring Exec Management team, all tiers of management should be certerfied as appropriate. This is worth the effort and surely discourages politics to feed into a company atmosphere.