MSFT - Microsoft

[texual]

- Fired Ballmer?

 

Please be careful about using words like that when nothing so far has confirmed what happened at the top of the firm leading to Ballmer resigning.

 

There is no evidence suggesting he was fired.

[Palantir]

So you don't have any evidence that orders will drop off in 3-4 years, but you're just going to guess because that's what you "heard" from your "contacts". ::)

 

Great. Might as well sell all my shares.

[Guest valueInv]

So you don't have any evidence that orders will drop off in 3-4 years, but you're just going to guess because that's what you "heard" from your "contacts". ::)

 

Great. Might as well sell all my shares.

 

Buy some more  ;)

[Guest valueInv]

- Fired Ballmer?

 

Please be careful about using words like that when nothing so far has confirmed what happened at the top of the firm leading to Ballmer resigning.

 

There is no evidence suggesting he was fired.

 

http://allthingsd.com/20130825/ballmer-departure-from-microsoft-was-more-sudden-than-portrayed-by-the-company/

[texual]

- A Microsoft spokesman declined comment.

 

 

Until there is comment from the company itself saying Steve Ballmer was asked to leave, fired, ordered to accelerate his timeline, this is all speculation and hearsay. I am certain Ballmer was under pressure by a lot of sides to make changes. He also comes from a salesman mindset, he makes sales and doesn't make trends. Microsoft needs a trendsetting CEO. That truth came to light after the Surface debacle. I have no doubt those numbers were clearly indicative of his poor management of the product from a device & services standpoint.

 

Truth is, he isn't the leader for the 'devices and services' future that his company needs to be to succeed. He is a salesman on the end of the day, and Microsoft needs fresh blood. I doubt he was fired or that there was a boardroom coup/battle. This isn't JCP. He presided over one of the 4 AAA rated companies that did fantastic in nearly every financial metric since he joined the company. Stock price is still under performed but the last time I checked that isn't exactly a reason to fire a CEO.

 

 

It will be very risky to find a CEO who is both managing the business customers and the retail/consumer business side of things. I wish MSFT well in their search.

[Guest valueInv]

- A Microsoft spokesman declined comment.

 

 

Until there is comment from the company itself saying Steve Ballmer was asked to leave, fired, ordered to accelerate his timeline, this is all speculation and hearsay. I am certain Ballmer was under pressure by a lot of sides to make changes. He also comes from a salesman mindset, he makes sales and doesn't make trends. Microsoft needs a trendsetting CEO. That truth came to light after the Surface debacle. I have no doubt those numbers were clearly indicative of his poor management of the product from a device & services standpoint.

 

Truth is, he isn't the leader for the 'devices and services' future that his company needs to be to succeed. He is a salesman on the end of the day, and Microsoft needs fresh blood. I doubt he was fired or that there was a boardroom coup/battle. This isn't JCP. He presided over one of the 4 AAA rated companies that did fantastic in nearly every financial metric since he joined the company. Stock price is still under performed but the last time I checked that isn't exactly a reason to fire a CEO.

 

 

It will be very risky to find a CEO who is both managing the business customers and the retail/consumer business side of things. I wish MSFT well in their search.

 

So your theory is that Ballmer started the biggest reorg in MSFT's history and then one day just decided, "Screw it! I'd rather be in Hawaii. I'm outta here!" ?

[Guest wellmont]

think for a second. I agree with the post above. you don't do the biggest reorg in the last 10 years at msft and then announce you are leaving 3 weeks later. my hunch is that there is some new news that hasn't been released yet that isn't good. it could be another write down of inventory or intangible assets.

[blainehodder]

think for a second. I agree with the post above. you don't do the biggest reorg in the last 10 years at msft and then announce you are leaving 3 weeks later. my hunch is that there is some new news that hasn't been released yet that isn't good. it could be another write down of inventory or intangible assets.

 

Ballmer discusses it here.  Is he lying?

 

 

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57599909-75/ballmer-microsoft-doesnt-want-to-be-ibm-or-apple/

 

Q: One more question on timing. Does your announcement today tell us anything about what to expect, earning-wise, for Q1 FY 2014 for Microsoft. Is it going to be nothing to write home about, as some have been whispering in my ear?

 

Ballmer: A) we don't comment on a quarter. We would never comment on a quarter. No chance we'll comment on a quarter. So I can't answer your question.

 

Does anything about this timing, however, have anything to do about anything short term, the answer is absolutely no.

 

The timing here is all (the fact that) these things come in waves. We have kicked off, the leadership team and I have kicked off a new wave. And in looking at that and saying to myself, can I last deep enough into this -- can I last isn't the right way to say it -- do my personal plans sort of fit with me lasting far enough that I'm not leaving in now mid-wave, kickoff's fine but not leaving mid-wave, the timing is all about that. I mean, summer is the kind of time we would do -- this would happen anyway, because summer is when we write our personnel reviews, summer is when we sort of do our long term contemplation. So that's all been consistent, if you will. So there's nothing short term about the selection of timing, and I just refuse to even say anything that relates to your actual question.

 

Q: No problem. I had to ask it. Last licks and all that!

 

[texual]

You said he was fired.

 

We're on a investment board that people pay money to use.

 

You can post the link to that article for our general knowledge of what is being reported about the company. That's fine. But note the title of that article stopped short of saying he was fired. You went ahead and said he was fired.

 

And that catches my attention because I own stock of the company and am very interested in knowing that the CEO was fired. But it isn't actually true, yet. Even if it were true in the coming weeks you would still be wrong for saying so this early. I was under the impression he was leaving the company on his own merit and with support of the board and all interested parties. I wanted Ballmer to retire as well. But nowhere does it say he was fired or asked to leave.

 

Its disingenuous, man.

 

Apologize for my tone here, I usually have a thick enough skin to ignore it, but you have a attitude projecting that you know whats going on in all places at all times. Just drop it, we know you love doing it, other posters also feel you are only supplying information that at times appears to obfuscate the facts, or hide what you know. I get it, though. I just don't appreciate when people spread FUD, I expect that on crummy tech blog forums.

 

[texual]

I also disagree with the theory of the re-org and departure. It is in twelve months. Thats over a year between now and the transition. The re-org actually set up the company better and to produce updates faster. There is nothing in the re-org that says to me that ballmer needs to be here for more than 12 months. If there is, please, somebody show me because I read through all of the new changes and I have agreed that they all make sense and are beneficial to the future of the company.

 

The new CEO will also require time between the transition and I do think it will be done at such a time when any issues with the re-org coming up will be dealt with or handled properly.

 

 

This is nothing like when Sinofsky departed, just weeks after Windows 8. At that time I was worried because Windows 8 was actually the biggest leap the company had ever taken. This re-org is nothing to blow my nose at, but its actually sensible and brings a lot more executives to be responsible and to handle divisions with better integration to other business units. Sinofsky left right away. Ballmer sticks around for a year. I don't see how that raises red flags.

[texual]

Also making an announcement like this now gives them plenty of time to find the right candidate. It even allows people who want that job to make it known. I also believe the new CEO will be younger, more likely able to recruit younger upstart-type talent.

 

And once that guy/girl gets the title, a lot of upcoming talent would like to hitch themselves aboard since that person may be more inclined to hire outside talent. Look at how Marissa Mayer turned Yahoo! into a place where lots of upstarts and young companies want to be working for/with. They bought a lot of small ones, and big guys like Tumblr. I think Yahoo wants to attract a different mindshare. But one year ago I doubt they could do that without a person like Mayer.

 

The new Microsoft could be a lot better at that sort of thing if they find a CEO like Pannos Panay (spell?) who leads the Surface team.

 

I also like Steve Elop, because hardware is the future of Microsoft especially if they want to win the consumer front. They also have been building stores so its likely they'll need to be making their phones, tablets and devices in-house alongside Nokia.

[Palantir]

I want to see

 

Satya Nadella

Qi Lu

Tony Bates

...

Paul Maritz

 

I think Nadella should get the nod, he's highly experienced, respected, and liked by the rank and file, has the core of his experience in Servers and is doing well, so not from the Windows business.

[Guest wellmont]

think for a second. I agree with the post above. you don't do the biggest reorg in the last 10 years at msft and then announce you are leaving 3 weeks later. my hunch is that there is some new news that hasn't been released yet that isn't good. it could be another write down of inventory or intangible assets.

 

Ballmer discusses it here.  Is he lying?

 

 

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57599909-75/ballmer-microsoft-doesnt-want-to-be-ibm-or-apple/

 

Q: One more question on timing. Does your announcement today tell us anything about what to expect, earning-wise, for Q1 FY 2014 for Microsoft. Is it going to be nothing to write home about, as some have been whispering in my ear?

 

Ballmer: A) we don't comment on a quarter. We would never comment on a quarter. No chance we'll comment on a quarter. So I can't answer your question.

 

Does anything about this timing, however, have anything to do about anything short term, the answer is absolutely no.

 

The timing here is all (the fact that) these things come in waves. We have kicked off, the leadership team and I have kicked off a new wave. And in looking at that and saying to myself, can I last deep enough into this -- can I last isn't the right way to say it -- do my personal plans sort of fit with me lasting far enough that I'm not leaving in now mid-wave, kickoff's fine but not leaving mid-wave, the timing is all about that. I mean, summer is the kind of time we would do -- this would happen anyway, because summer is when we write our personnel reviews, summer is when we sort of do our long term contemplation. So that's all been consistent, if you will. So there's nothing short term about the selection of timing, and I just refuse to even say anything that relates to your actual question.

 

Q: No problem. I had to ask it. Last licks and all that!

 

no he isn't lying when he ways he can't comment.  ::) you are free to have your own interpretation of the "resignation". I see a lot of blind faith in what management says. I rarely even listen to the party line. they are paid to obfuscate. Instead I try to understand the subtext. How else could he respond to a question like this? "Yep I am leaving. Just wait for the big surprise and you will see why!" CEOs are practiced in the art of not answering questions. Even if there is something bad on the horizon, he has already provided an alternative explanation for his "resignation", thanks to the reporter asking a question that would never get a straight response. So Ballmer has established a kind of alibi (it's summer!) with this interview. mission accomplished. most seasoned market observers know to expect the unexpected when a CEO under this much fire resigns.

[Guest valueInv]

You said he was fired.

 

We're on a investment board that people pay money to use.

 

You can post the link to that article for our general knowledge of what is being reported about the company. That's fine. But note the title of that article stopped short of saying he was fired. You went ahead and said he was fired.

 

And that catches my attention because I own stock of the company and am very interested in knowing that the CEO was fired. But it isn't actually true, yet. Even if it were true in the coming weeks you would still be wrong for saying so this early. I was under the impression he was leaving the company on his own merit and with support of the board and all interested parties. I wanted Ballmer to retire as well. But nowhere does it say he was fired or asked to leave.

 

Its disingenuous, man.

 

Apologize for my tone here, I usually have a thick enough skin to ignore it, but you have a attitude projecting that you know whats going on in all places at all times. Just drop it, we know you love doing it, other posters also feel you are only supplying information that at times appears to obfuscate the facts, or hide what you know. I get it, though. I just don't appreciate when people spread FUD, I expect that on crummy tech blog forums.

 

Read the link I posted. Did it say that Ballmer approached the board last week and say "I resign"? What does this tell you:

 

While the decision to go seems to have technically been Ballmer’s, interviews with dozens of people inside and outside the company, including many close to the situation, indicate that he had not aimed to leave this soon and especially after the recent restructuring of the company that he had intensely planned.

Instead, sources said Ballmer’s timeline had been moved up drastically — first by him and then the nine-member board, including his longtime partner and Microsoft co-founder and chairman Bill Gates — after all agreed that it was best if he left sooner than later.

 

Who triggered the end? Ballmer or the board?

 

 

[Guest valueInv]

Like I said before, delays and mistakes:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/27/developers-are-pissed-that-microsoft-wont-give-them-windows-8-1-until-everyone-else-gets-it/

[paologorgo]

http://techpinions.com/the-anatomy-of-an-iconic-ceo-firing/22254#.Uh2OSJLzWw0.twitter

 

The Anatomy of an Iconic CEO Firing

[Guest ajc]

Apologize for my tone here, I usually have a thick enough skin to ignore it, but you have a attitude projecting that you know whats going on in all places at all times. Just drop it, we know you love doing it, other posters also feel you are only supplying information that at times appears to obfuscate the facts, or hide what you know. I get it, though. I just don't appreciate when people spread FUD, I expect that on crummy tech blog forums.

 

I agree completely with this sentiment.

 

I'm no expert investor by a long shot, but to me valueInv is unable or unwilling to recognize his own limitations in this respect.

Currently, his determination to show everyone just how smart and right he is at every single turn detracts in a major way from the fact that he's clearly not a stupid guy.

 

Anyway, hopefully this is all taken as the constructive criticism that it is and his signal-to-noise ratio (which I'd argue is in some ways approximate to your substance-to-number-of-posts ratio) becomes more favorable in the future because of it.

 

Ultimately, the tech threads would no doubt be better off for it and he would obviously become a more respected and vital contributor in the end.

 

My 1.25 pennies worth...

[writser]

Agreed. That said, unfortunately most topics about tech stocks end up in a flame war about which technology / service / company is going to be cool in 5 years and which one isn't. I'm not sure you can blame a single person.

[sethatk]

For what it is worth I have reduced my MSFT position by a third. It has been my largest position for two years. I still think MSFT has a great future ahead, but wanted to raise my cash position for other possible options. We all know that the tech industry carries more business risk with the rapid changes that can happen in the industry. MSFT may not have the cool, or fanboy factor, but they money they make is very real. I believe Ballmer suceeded in that sense.

[Guest ajc]

Agreed. That said, unfortunately most topics about tech stocks end up in a flame war about which technology / service / company is going to be cool in 5 years and which one isn't. I'm not sure you can blame a single person.

 

Generally, I think that's a fair point.

However, sometimes I think certain types of behavior need to be stepped on hard for the benefit of the group and if that involves calling a few individuals out by name then to me that's part of the price that needs to be paid.

 

Of course, even if it is necessarily harsh it should be done as fairly and constructively as possible but ultimately a person sometimes needs to decide whether x, y and z are fucking things up for the 50 other people who actually want to have an informed and civil discussion.

 

To my mind, it's unfair for us to expect Sanjeev to police everything on here for a number of reasons (of course I could be mistaken and he'll no doubt say so if that's the case) but maybe a bit of reasonable democracy-in-action could make the tech threads a relatively more productive, friendlier and intelligently critical place.

If that means putting a couple of miscreants into the stocks and launching some rotten eggs and apples at them from time to time then I say so be it (even if I end up there at some point for having gotten ahead of myself).

 

In the end, I think those folks are tough enough to handle the short-term embarrassment and will end up contributing more in the long run once they've dusted themselves off and as well as that the 20 or 30 people who actually want a decent and reasoned discussion - who to my mind are the ones who are really losing out at the moment - will get what's in their best interest too.

 

I'm open to frank and honest comment or correction from those of greater wisdom, experience and influence.

[Guest valueInv]

Apologize for my tone here, I usually have a thick enough skin to ignore it, but you have a attitude projecting that you know whats going on in all places at all times. Just drop it, we know you love doing it, other posters also feel you are only supplying information that at times appears to obfuscate the facts, or hide what you know. I get it, though. I just don't appreciate when people spread FUD, I expect that on crummy tech blog forums.

 

I agree completely with this sentiment.

 

I'm no expert investor by a long shot, but to me valueInv is unable or unwilling to recognize his own limitations in this respect.

Currently, his determination to show everyone just how smart and right he is at every single turn detracts in a major way from the fact that he's clearly not a stupid guy.

 

Anyway, hopefully this is all taken as the constructive criticism that it is and his signal-to-noise ratio (which I'd argue is in some ways approximate to your substance-to-number-of-posts ratio) becomes more favorable in the future because of it.

 

Ultimately, the tech threads would no doubt be better off for it and he would obviously become a more respected and vital contributor in the end.

 

My 1.25 pennies worth...

Hmmm... Let me see what happened here:

 

I said Ballmer was fired.

Texual asked how do you know.

I posted an article from WSJ saying that they talked to insiders and the board asked him to leave.

Textual calls it FUD and launches an attack.

 

Riiiigghhht, I'm the problem. ;)

 

But if you want to improve the quality of threads,how about answering at simple question with your financial  analysis: why does it seem to cost Amazon more to sell a dollar of inventory when Walmart can do it for less with much less technology.

 

After all, since, you posted pages on Amazons operations, you'll have no problem answering the question that actually matters to investors.

 

[Palantir]

Having "timeline moved up" is not the same as getting fired. Because you conveniently ignored part of the statement, " first by him and then the nine-member board". The implication is that Ballmer was already planning on retiring, but the board decided that it was best if he retired sooner, that's not "firing", that's "mutual consent".

 

And that's assuming the sources are even true.

[Guest wellmont]

Having "timeline moved up" is not the same as getting fired. Because you conveniently ignored part of the statement, " first by him and then the nine-member board". The implication is that Ballmer was already planning on retiring, but the board decided that it was best if he retired sooner, that's not "firing", that's "mutual consent".

 

And that's assuming the sources are even true.

 

he left before he wanted to. he wanted to leave in 2018. He left in 2013. you call it whatever you want. but what happened here is open to competing interpretations.

[Palantir]

Great, so now we can discuss "did you dump me or did I dump you"?  ::)

 

Gates made a mistake in not issuing a dual class structure, that way he and Ballmer could have kept control of the company despite selling a lot of stock, and ValueAct would have been an insignificant annoyance. I doubt Google will ever be the target of activism thanks to Larry, Sergey, and Eric holding so much voting power.

[Guest wellmont]

Great, so now we can discuss "did you dump me or did I dump you"?  ::)

 

Gates made a mistake in not issuing a dual class structure, that way he and Ballmer could have kept control of the company despite selling a lot of stock, and ValueAct would have been an insignificant annoyance. I doubt Google will ever be the target of activism thanks to Larry, Sergey, and Eric holding so much voting power.

gates has total control of the company as largest shareholder and chairman. valueact is a pip squeak with around 1% of the shares. if bg had wanted sb to be ceo he still would be.  even bg realized it was time for a change.