Microsoft Investors Call For Bill Gates To Step Down As Chairman

rjmarvin writes "Now that Ballmer is on his way out, flak for Microsoft's middling stock prices and lagging mobile innovation is starting to land on Bill Gates himself. Three of the company's top 20 investors are lobbying the Board of Directors, pressing Gates to step down as chairman. The stockholders believe his presence would handcuff the next CEO's ability to re-make the company with new strategies and sweeping changes. They also think Gates wields a disproportionate amount of power relative to his financial stake and day-to-day activity within the company. No word yet from Gates or the board on this internal strife."

Comments

Power grab

[phantomfive]

These are people who want power for themselves. It's not because they believe Gates does a poor job.

When the investors take over the company, beware. This is what happened to HP.

Fools

[twocows]

As much as I disagree with his business tactics over the years, Gates is a freaking genius. One read of the "Internet Tidal Wave" memo, which was written years ago and was correct about 90% of its predictions, should tell you that. Gates was one of the primary reasons, if not the only reason, Microsoft was successful to begin with. These three people are complete fools and ought to be off with Ballmer.

Re:Fools

[dkleinsc]

As much as I disagree with his business tactics over the years, Gates is a freaking genius.

I'm not sure whether he's a genius, but I had a lot more respect for him once I read this, which is Joel Spolsky's first-hand account of working for the man. He wasn't necessarily a genius, but he was a very effective combination of ruthless businessman and smart technical guy.

Re: Bill Gates' response:

[lgw]

Bill will prevent a new CEO that "remakes" the company via massive layoffs to save costs - which has never once worked to "turn around" a software company, but no one ever seems to learn that. Presumably the activist board members want just that, not realizing it would kill the company in a few years, or perhaps not caring (hey, what's 100k jobs gone if I can boost the stock 10% before it crashes - we'll know when to exit). Heck, even as an old school /.er I find it hard to root for potlatch on that scale.

Bill had a pretty good track record for the shareholders during his tenure - all the same things than made /. create it's own special icon for him. Makes me wonder if the heart of the dispute is as cynical as the above, or something more interesting.

[ BTW: If you're new to the game: "synergy" means "layoffs" and "turnaround CEO" means "lay off most everyone". Look for those terms in a merger near you (and run). ]