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."
Sure, he's a billion dollars richer, but he's still got some 400 million shares. must be nice
The thing is, most of the upper management of Microsoft that have been with the company from early on have most of their wealth in Microsoft shares. The problem is that they have to sell it off slowly or they wouldn't manage to get a decent price for it.
Like it or not, Microsoft is doing fine. They have good profits for the forseeable future. His claim that he just wants to diversify is completely plausible. I'm sure his portfolio is disproportionatelyMicrosoft.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Or the start of a strategy to get rid of it all without causing too much upset in one go
/. ?
.net just barely leaving the vaporware category to face more established Java (btw Java is not perfect but it was simply there first).
don't we all just wish so here on
actually all indications show that the current software business model cannot be sustained during the next decade, there are hardly any valuable commercial software without an equivalent open source nephew even if not so-ready today but it is promising (remember how Linux itself started?).
IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft are all stretching this business model to the maximum but the end is coming sooner or later, I think in the future the only valuable commodity in the IT business will be services not licensing commercial software or being so desperate and try to force people to license your IP (SCO).
lets take Microsoft case their revenue is earned mainly from bread & butter Office Suite being challenged by OpenOffice and the desktop which Linux is getting there fast, they are trying to grab a share of the enterprise market by promoting SQL Server 64-bit kicking against market titans like IBM and Oracle, and with
Add global reduction on IT spending to one Microsoft screwing there customers by outrageous license costs and terms and you get yourself a recipe for a loser.
It seems that "the road ahead" has a road block for Microsoft and they don't know "where do they want to go Tomorrow.
But the main reason Microsoft ust keep stock options valuable is that they don't pay very well, and they compensate for that by diluting shares by issuing stock options regularly instead. As long as their share price keeps sky rocketing this is a good deal for everyone involved. However as soon as the share price is flat or falling, Microsoft massive stock options issuing risks causing further share price decline, and the low value of the stock options makes it less attractive for top people to work at Microsoft.
Their alternative if they can't sustain massive growth is increasing salaries and bonuses, and that will cut dramatically into their profit margins, which certainly will further damage their share price.
It's an extremely high risk strategy on their account - as long as they can grow, they look extremely good to investors. The moment they can't sustain it their problems will quickly multiply thanks to their dependence on rapid growth.
He had close to a half billion shares, and he sold 40 million of them.
It is a drop in the bucket of total MS shares, which yahoo shows as 9 billion shares (float).
Again, the entire story should be modded down as flamebait.
The next slashdot story on MS will be that someone got a bad piece of chicken at the MS employee cafeteria: "MS Attempts to Poison Employees to Avoid Layoffs"
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Actually Gates and Ballmer constantly sell shares, ironically at a higher rate since the stock collapse (MSFT used to cost 120$, now it's 50$ (or 25$ after the split)
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).
Microsoft, the stock will certainly go down in the next years.
Microsoft hitting rock bottom is more related to fantasy than anything else. A company with $40 Billion in the bank is essentially isolated from any kind of market failure, unless it's prolonged over five or so years. Microsoft could easily put everyone on vacation for a year, take a marginal stock hit, and then buy everything back. The company will still be there when everyone comes back, and still would be a good investment.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
This is par for the course. All CEOs do it. This story just made it to /. since its Ballmer and, well, if he took a dump people would try and tie it back to MS being evil. Larry Augustin sold 100k shares a the end of February, nobody posted that. Matt Szulik sold 500k shares at the beginning of the year and Mcnealy sold almost 5 million in April. Nobody cared about those. Sorry folks, Ballmer just has a smart financial planner, this doesn't mean MS is doomed.
Not true. While Gates sells stock almost weekly, Ballmer hardly ever sells stock, according to this blurb.
Of course, this could have been written by a NY Times journalist so take it with a grain of salt.
> No idea, but speculation is sure to be with us for a while."
None of which will take into consideration the possibility that he is simply diversifying his holdings as all financial advisors tell us to do. Do you have all your savings invested in your employer's stock?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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).
This is true.
Microsoft, the stock will certainly go down in the next years
This may very well not be true, because predictions of the future are built into the current market price. (If you don't believe me, put your money were your mouth is and start short selling.)
Tor
Steve Ballmer was not an "official" founder, but he was a buddy of Bill and Paul from pre-MS days. My guess is that they feel he should have been a founder.
Also, he's on the board of directors.
And as to your last troll of a question, they do it for the same reasons geeks stay up all night writing code for open source projects. It's not about the money for either Ballmer or Linus. But my guess is that my previous sentence will be enough to get me modded all the way down to hell. Make it so...
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Only the most deluded Linux fanatics think MS is going the way of the dodo.
1. Quality doesn't always determine purchases. (Ex: Consoles - IMO, Nintendo has the best games around)
2. MS produces decent software - not amazing, but pretty good. They make great UIs, and that's what helps the average user.
3. MS is powerful. They'll bully and bribe their way to domination, as they have done in the past.
4. Finally, MS hires passionate people (well, I know they did a few years ago). These people are not going to stand still.
Any publicly listed company has a DUTY to their shareholders to increase the shareholders investments as rapidly as possible.
This is a common, modern misconception. When you buy stock it is a like a loan. The companies are supposed to pay you a percentage of their profits. These are called dividends.
If you invest with the express purpose of buying low and selling high you will fail.
This is of course the problem today. People used to pay higher prices for stocks because it was perceived they would pay big dividends. Now, comapnies (like Microsoft) don't even pay dividends (which is illegal).
People bid up worthless pieces of paper.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
I wasn't trolling. It was a serious question.
Ballmer is a family man. He has kids. If you were in his shoes, wouldn't you want to spend more time with them?
Or, having experienced the highs of corporate management, wouldn't you want to experience life to the fullest? Learn how to scuba dive, paraglide, fly a helicopter, race a Formula One car, trek across the Andes, climb Mount Everest or swim with dolphins?
There is life after Microsoft, many of the company's earliest employees have experienced it, but why not Ballmer? OK, he's obviously driven and loves his work, but what's the point of having billions if all you have to show for it is the number of zeroes on your bank statement?
Life isn't a trial run. You only get one shot. This is a guy who could do almost anything. So, why isn't he?
I know if I had even a thousandth of his net worth you'd never see me in an office ever again. I'm sure all but a handful of sane people would say the same.
Oh well, to each his own.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Indirectly, probably your pension firm, your building society, the bank holding your variable interest rate savings account...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Maybe he wants to have some guaranteed cash when he retires, no matter what happens to microsoft?
He's not doing anything different than many other investors with many other companies.. he's selling stock at a profit to get cash.
Because private islands are BORING. Having everything just becuase you have money is BORING. There is no challenge to it, life ceases to have meaning.
Oh, I'm not saying that I wouldn't live in the lap of luxury if I were that rich.. but simply existing and being wated upon would not be a satisfying life.
I spoke to a banker a few months ago (I live in a banking city) and he explained to me that Stock Brokers are supposed to be seen in the same light as used car salesmen. He said it wasn't always the case but is now and that all consumers should know that and, if they don't, then it is their fault, just as if they believed everything a used car salesman told them.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Gates has to sell if he wants to buy his billionaire toys or donate money to chariy: Almost all his famed wealth was originally tied up in MS stock, so the only way to get at it is to sell. To avoid claims of insider trading, and to smooth out the bumps, he sells a little bit pretty much all the time. If he unloaded even 1% at once, the shock would severely hurt MS's stock price, just because of supply and demand, never mind (justified) thoughts that he must have some inside info.
Dancing Boy is different. MS alrady pays him a 7-figure salary, so he doesn't really need to sell in the way that Gates does. Unless he's got a huge tax bill, gambling debt, ransom demand, etc. to meet.
There are huge issues that go into market cap
Yes: there is a lot of hype and gambling, and then there is actual value. And to discover how much of a stock's price is due to hype, you compare how much it actually earns for a given amount of money invested in it relative to other investments. That's the point of the comparison.
and you really are looking at a longer term for stocks, not just one year.
Maybe you are. Most investment managers aren't.
Optimal investment strategies strike an optimal balance between the cost and risk of trading and the cost and risk of staying with a given portfolio. Given that trading has become very cheap, it makes sense to trade shares much more frequently than it used to.
And even if you do think that its a good stock measurement then why not buy Philip Morris?
You answered your own question: PM is an even higher risk investment than Microsoft. But Microsoft's lawsuits will probably become as vicious and pervasive as the tobacco lawsuits: not only will the monopoly lawsuits expand, you'll probably also get liability and patent lawsuits.
I've come to the sad conclusion that people grow out of trading baseball cards and into trading stocks, and they don't bother learning the new rules.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
> there are hardly any valuable commercial software without an equivalent open source nephew
/ports/ of those apps, I'll be more enthusiastic. We're using linux terminals at work for our sales staff already, and other than some word doc issues with OO.o it works very well. However, our prepress and production department would be simply impossible.
Sorry to disagree, but there are a LOT. Perhaps you mean "high-volume off-the-shelf shrinkwrap software"? Here are a few that don't have anything vaguely approaching an alternative, some of which are shrinkwrap:
- QuarkXPress/Adobe Indesign (No scribus doesn't count)
- Adobe Photoshop (GIMP is good, but nowhere near pshop. No ICC profiles, no decent CMYK, lack of previews, slow).
- Pongrass Classified Pagination (newspaper classified advertising booking & pagination system)
- AutoCAD
- Adobe Illustrator
- Adobe Acrobat (no, I don't mean just distiller)
- An AppleTalk server that's reliable and works properly with all mac apps
- oodles of small-volume "solutions"-based customised software for industry-specific needs (ATEX, etc).
When I start seeing