Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Sells Part of his Stake in Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "The Financial Times reports that Steve Ballmer has sold part of his MS shares (my early morning math isn't very good, it seems a shade under 10%). Short of cash? Parking tickets? Or the start of a strategy to get rid of it all without causing too much upset in one go? No idea, but speculation is sure to be with us for a while."
No....the seahawks are owned by paul allen
Links to the Developers, Developers, Developers Steve Ballmer dance video.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Interest group?
Ballmer wanted to sell his stock. He would not have been able to sell it unless there existed a buyer. He most likely sold the shares through a brokerage, which would have done the following:
1) Filled any orders from its own customers that could be filled against Ballmer's order. The price charged to those customers would likely be a little bit higher than the price Ballmer wanted to sell it for, since there is typically a difference (called buy/sell spread) in the price to buy vs sell a share of the same stock. The brokerage would have likely determined the buy price for its customers based on the best price available anywhere in the market (this is typically a part of the agreement between a brokerage and its customers). The difference in price becomes brokerage profit.
2) Assuming that once all of the Brokerage's customers' orders had been filled there were still some of Ballmer's shares left over, the Brokerage might buy some of the shares itself (they are cheaper than market price, because of the avoidance of the buy/sell spread).
3) If there are any shares left, the brokerage would likely attempt to fill any orders submitted to the electronic trading system (a computerized system that matches buyers and sellers). Again, doing this allows the Brokerage to keep the spread.
4) The remaining shares would be sold to one or more market making firms. Market making firms (or "Market Makers") are in the business of owning positions in a variety of stocks and profit based on the buy/sell spread when shares are bought and sold. Incidentally, competetive forces between market makers keep the buy/sell spread small, since most brokerages will typically do business with the market maker offering the best price.
I've just described what would happen if Ballmer decided to sell a relatively small chunk of stock (small enough that some people might talk about it a bit, and it might even appear on Slashdot, but not large enough to cause a major market movement). Suppose Ballmer wanted to sell ALL of his Microsoft shares...
If Ballmer wanted to sell all of his shares, he might expect to be able to sell them for $22 per share (for example). Suppose the market realized that this was happening. Prices would likely fall as people considered the impact of a large sell off. Opportunistic investors would quickly sell their own shares, expecting the price to fall further, and would plan to buy the shares back later once the price had fallen (there are also a variety of speculative financial instruments that would simplify executing this kind of strategy). Ballmer would now be unable to liquidate his shares for a reasonable price, because once the market knows that he is determined to sell, he'll have lots of competition.
Obviously, this would never happen, because it would greatly diminish the benefit of Ballmer's decision to sell, and would dissuade him from making the decision.
To accomodate this situation, Ballmer's broker would attempt to arrange the transaction behind the scenes, without the use of all of the machinery described above. This would likely take the form of a few phone calls to the large trades desk at other brokerages. "Psst. If you have a client interested in a large trade of MSFT, I might be able to help". The advantage is to be secretive so as to avoid giving away information that would tip off the market, while still finding someone to sell the shares to.
The eventual price of the shares would probably fall significantly below the market price of the stock. Why? To put it simply, liquidity costs money. It is still cheaper to use this approach than to try to sell a massive number of shares on the open market.
So, Ballmer may have made a life changing decision to sell all of his shares, or he may just want to diversify a bit, but his best move is always to sell it in small chunks in order to get the best price possible for the shares. As you can see, liquidity costs money.
Amazing magic tricks
He most likely sold the shares through a brokerage, which would have done the following:
1) Filled any orders from its own customers that could be filled against Ballmer's order. The price charged to those customers would likely be a little bit higher than the price Ballmer wanted to sell it for, since there is typically a difference (called buy/sell spread) in the price to buy vs sell a share of the same stock. The brokerage would have likely determined the buy price for its customers based on the best price available anywhere in the market (this is typically a part of the agreement between a brokerage and its customers). The difference in price becomes brokerage profit.
2) Assuming that once all of the Brokerage's customers' orders had been filled there were still some of Ballmer's shares left over, the Brokerage might buy some of the shares itself (they are cheaper than market price, because of the avoidance of the buy/sell spread).
3) If there are any shares left, the brokerage would likely attempt to fill any orders submitted to the electronic trading system (a computerized system that matches buyers and sellers). Again, doing this allows the Brokerage to keep the spread.
4) The remaining shares would be sold to one or more market making firms. Market making firms (or "Market Makers") are in the business of owning positions in a variety of stocks and profit based on the buy/sell spread when shares are bought and sold. Incidentally, competetive forces between market makers keep the buy/sell spread small, since most brokerages will typically do business with the market maker offering the best price.
I've just described what would happen if Ballmer decided to sell a relatively small chunk of stock (small enough that some people might talk about it a bit, and it might even appear on Slashdot, but not large enough to cause a major market movement). Suppose Ballmer wanted to sell ALL of his Microsoft shares...
If Ballmer wanted to sell all of his shares, he might expect to be able to sell them for $22 per share (for example). Suppose the market realized that this was happening. Prices would likely fall as people considered the impact of a large sell off. Opportunistic investors would quickly sell their own shares, expecting the price to fall further, and would plan to buy the shares back later once the price had fallen (there are also a variety of speculative financial instruments that would simplify executing this kind of strategy). Ballmer would now be unable to liquidate his shares for a reasonable price, because once the market knows that he is determined to sell, he'll have lots of competition.
Obviously, this would never happen, because it would greatly diminish the benefit of Ballmer's decision to sell, and would dissuade him from making the decision.
To accomodate this situation, Ballmer's broker would attempt to arrange the transaction behind the scenes, without the use of all of the machinery described above. This would likely take the form of a few phone calls to the large trades desk at other brokerages. "Psst. If you have a client interested in a large trade of MSFT, I might be able to help". The advantage is to be secretive so as to avoid giving away information that would tip off the market, while still finding someone to sell the shares to.
The eventual price of the shares would probably fall significantly below the market price of the stock. Why? To put it simply, liquidity costs money. It is still cheaper to use this approach than to try to sell a massive number of shares on the open market.
So, Ballmer may have made a life changing decision to sell all of his shares, or he may just want to diversify a bit, but his best move is always to sell it in small chunks in order to get the best price possible for the shares. As you can see, liquidity costs money.
Amazing magic tricks
Slashdot reader SgtChaireBourne mentioned this 2 weeks ago in a comment titled Pump & Dump, in response to a post of mine saying that probably Microsoft code is difficult to maintain because Microsoft isn't fixing bugs.
According to SgtChaireBourne, selling of Microsoft stock by Microsoft executives is common. He said, "Both the frequency and volume of sales is increasing: They're all selling as fast as they get."
SgtChaireBourne pointed to the SEC (U.S. government Securities and Exchange Commission) list of Microsoft executive trades of stock. I looked around and quickly found an example. A Microsoft Group Vice President, Kevin R. Johnson, received 322,560 shares of stock and sold it the same day. He received 244,760 shares of stock on March 6, 2003 and sold that the same day.
SgtChaireBourne also said, "Don't forget that benefits [employee benefits at Microsoft] have been cut way back and there's also been outsourcing like mad. Consultants and contractors don't show up as layoffs when you let them go.
Earlier in this thread, RoLi said, "Microsoft executives know that Microsoft has a lot to lose and not much to gain. The only market where they are strong (the desktop) they have no room to grow, everywhere else they are losing (servers, embedded systems, gaming consoles)." (RoLi's comment #6030636.)
To this must be added that most people who bought a computer as powerful as a Pentium III 866 MHz won't buy another computer. The faster Pentium IIIs were good enough for almost everyone. I have often seen computers survive for more than 10 years. I have a voicemail computer with a 386 SX-16 processor that is perhaps 15 years old, and has been in continual use. The computer market is fast collapsing.