Slashdot Mirror
CEOs of RIM Step Down
An anonymous reader writes "After two decades of leading the BlackBerry maker, Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balisillie are stepping down from their roles as Co-CEOs at Canada's Research In Motion Limited. Thorsten Heins will now lead RIM as it attempts to beat the likes of Apple and Google."
"as it attempts to beat the likes of Apple and Google"
A strange choice of words. I think "as it attempts to compete with the likes of..." would be more accurate and desirable - the last thing the technology market needs these days is a single, clearcut winner (at least, if you're a consumer). That aside, as a Canadian I'd like to see RIM survive on its own and if this helps to shake things up then it's a welcome move; I don't fancy the thought of the Samsung chaebol gaining even more power than it already has.
I thought you had made a typo with chaebol but no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol
"Chaebol (from chae: wealth or property + pl: faction or clan)[1] refers to a South Korean form of business conglomerate. They are global multinationals owning numerous international enterprises. The term is often used in a context similar to that of the English word "conglomerate". The term was first used in 1984.[1]"
On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
> Kodak board: Hm, there's been some serious financial reporting. We'd better
> fire the person telling us about it.
*cough* that was Olympus. Kodak's board does seem clueless, but not evil.
Oh, it's WAY more than a year too late. Maybe 5 or so.
Of course, Microsoft is setting an absolutely terrible example for the industry. They should have at least demoted the dancing monkey way more than 5 years ago.
I disagree. Microsoft's stock may have been stagnant over the last decade, but its also payed out an enormous amount of money in dividends. Ballmer wasn't holding the reins when the big drop in the stock happened during the dot-com bubble bursting, and the thing that Microsoft got out of it was a firm transition from a "tech" stock to a solid blue-chip stock. The type of investors who buy those securities are very different, and the responsibility of the board and CEO are very different. Microsoft showing solid revenue growth, relative stock price stability and consistent payment of dividends *is* what the stockholders expect. It means everything needs to be more conservative.
Contract that to Apple -- their stock graph, while steadily rising over time, has a sharp sawtooth pattern to it with quick-flip investors sinking billions into it, catching that wave. (I invested a pretty decent amount into Apple two years ago and have nearly *quadrupled* the amount by riding the sawtooth up!) But that pattern doesn't make Apple a better company or a better investment. I've got a lot of Microsoft stock, too -- that stock I'm equally happy with. I *expect* the Apple stock to crash. The investing pattern I follow (and clearly most investors are following, based on those cycles) is exactly that. We all *know* their value is based on transient hype, and not a solid foundation. Thats why people keep pulling money out, waiting out peak and buying back in the dip! The Microsoft stock, on the other hand, I know I'll get a steady return from and never really even consider selling.
For both of those, as an investor in both companies, I'm very happy with both Jobs' job and Ballmers' job.
I don't understand your definition of "enormous amount of money in dividends". Their last dividend of was 20 cents/share or projecting forward 80 cents a year.
Their stock price has been around 25 to 30 dollars a share, to be generous lets call it $25 (for comparing the payout).
$0.80 / $25 = is a 3.2% return on the dividends, that is with the highest payout in 2011 and the lowest stock price. I would not be looking at Microsoft as a blue-chip stock in anyway or form.