This is essentially assuming that competence translates directly into high monetary value.
That is not true either at the individual level, or at the level of companies. It is particularly untrue with tech behemoths who enjoy near-monopoly status, massive network effects, and/or huge mindshare.
At the very simplest level, it is not at all uncommon for good decisions made previously to allow an organization to "coast" for a significant amount of time after it starts making bad decisions. This is part of why bad CEOs are so frequently not held accountable for their incompetence: they take over, and for 3 years, everything's going great! It's only after the accumulated "soft" resources (customer goodwill, employee loyalty, lack of technical debt, etc) are burned away that the bad decisions actually start being reflected in the balance sheets.
That is not true either at the individual level, or at the level of companies. It is particularly untrue with tech behemoths who enjoy near-monopoly status, massive network effects, and/or huge mindshare.
At the very simplest level, it is not at all uncommon for good decisions made previously to allow an organization to "coast" for a significant amount of time after it starts making bad decisions. This is part of why bad CEOs are so frequently not held accountable for their incompetence: they take over, and for 3 years, everything's going great! It's only after the accumulated "soft" resources (customer goodwill, employee loyalty, lack of technical debt, etc) are burned away that the bad decisions actually start being reflected in the balance sheets.