5 ms·

From what I undersand, Buffet has always avoided technology companies because he believe he didn't understand them well enough in order to invest. Someone at I

• leyfa 15y ago
  Revealing my ignorance on this topic: Why would IBM care who owns their stocks, assuming the specific shareholder doesn't try to take influence on the development/direction of the company?
  • loumf 15y ago
    Buffett only owns companies at a level where he can influence. Usually, what he wants is profit paid as a dividend, but it depends on his level of investment. He usually does not invest for growth -- he thinks IBM is under-valued, so he's taking a position.
  • noahc 15y ago
    They don't. The parent is wrong in suggesting someone 'convinced' Buffet. Because of the herd mentality around investing who invests in you does matter, but not for this discussion.
    • bobbles 15y ago
      I didnt say convinced so you shouldnt really quote it like that. But then I didnt really mean it that way either. I was thinking more along the lines of Buffet talked with people at IBM and realised that he understood the way they operated.
      • noahc 15y ago
        He never met with the CEO[1] and in fact messed up the name. It is in the realm of possibility (and quite likely) that he talked with people inside IBM. But I don't think they were really pushing for him to buy it. At least it doesn't appear that way. [1]http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/14/warren-buffett-ibm/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/14/warren-buffett-ibm/
        • mattmcknight 15y ago
          On CNBC this morning, Buffet made it sound as if it was more about liking the value based on the annual report he saw in March. He's been reading IBM's annual report for over 25 years. He did some diligence, and then began establishing a position.
          • X-Istence 15y ago
            If 25 years is some diligence then I clearly have started off WAY too early.
            • sireat 15y ago
              Buffett is famous for doing exactly that, reading company reports (and other research) for a really long time before investing(I would imagine he must have read IBMs even earlier than 1986). He would read company reports, even if he had no plans to invest. It is one of his hobbies (not only a job).
• barry-cotter 15y ago
  IBM's business model is approximately "We will solve your problems for piles and piles of money. Usually not problems that require technical breakthroughs or research level computer science knowledge, but ill-defined problems that involve many stakeholders, much politics, and complex business logic." They make their money as a professional services company (a model Buffett has no trouble understanding) that uses technology. That, at least, would be my take on it.
  • gaius 15y ago
    That is IBM Global Services, which is basically the same as Accenture, Cap Gemini, Wipro etc, IT outsourcing/offshoring. It's about half of IBM, by revenue.
    • noahc 15y ago
      Even so IBM's business model when they are not selling wetware involves selling expensive black boxes that are maintained, installed, and serviced by expensive wetware. Even though it makes up half of revenue, that doesn't mean the other half is not directly related to driving business to the wetware side. I think the business model outlined above is correct in the global strategy sense, even if you looking at a few pie graphs makes you think otherwise.
      • gaius 15y ago
        IBM GS is tech-agnostic; they don't just implement IBM mainframe solutions, they'll take your money to do SAP, Oracle, whatever you want, same as any of the other bodyshops.
        • noahc 15y ago
          Right, but doesn't that just strengthen my point? If they are tech-agnostic then they aren't in the hardware/software business, which was my original point. They are in the hardware/software business because it helps them take your money for the wetware side.
    • 15y ago
• mathattack 15y ago
  I wondered the same. All I can think is this is a sign that IBM is no longer a technology company.