3 ms·
You haven't been following IBM then. 2010-2015 was "Roadmap 2015" during which the principal goal of the CEO was to bring earnings per share up to $20. It's 201
by jldugger 11y ago
You haven't been following IBM then. 2010-2015 was "Roadmap 2015" during which the principal goal of the CEO was to bring earnings per share up to $20. It's 2016, and the EPS is still only $10. In the process, they've issued countless share buyback programs, fired anything that looked like it might be earning less than the average required, and sold the rest at firesale prices. For example, they paid GlobalFoundries 1.5 billion to take their POWER chip fabs and run them. IBM's notable for their government services, and they lost a cloud computing contract with the CIA to Amazon, and filed suit, only to be found against publicly as 'not actually a cloud computing service.' So they bought Softlayer, which incidentally, doesn't have the profit margins they would have needed for ye olde Roadmap. Bloomberg Businessweek went so far as to describe the executive strategy in 2014 as "financial engineering."
Given the complete failure to achieve not only value for shareholders, but their own fucking stated goals, it seems reasonable to question exactly what the executive team is paid and why.
- reddytowns 11y agoI think the question should be whether a different executive team should be in place, and this should be asked by the shareholders. Whether the CEO is paid $1.6 million, $100K, or $16 million, it doesn't really effect IBM's bottom line much.