4 ms·
Forbes named "worst CEOs" based on one pretty clear criteria: These CEOs have failed to create value (or stopped creating value) for their shareholders over lon
by etrain 14y ago
Forbes named "worst CEOs" based on one pretty clear criteria: These CEOs have failed to create value (or stopped creating value) for their shareholders over long periods, yet remain employed, and their companies remain pretty large.
GE has underperformed the S&P by 40% since Immelt took over, Microsoft by 30%, Walmart by 40%, and while both Lampert and Chambers created value for a while, their companies have substantially trailed the market over the last 3 and 10 years, respectively.
Ballmer is perhaps guilty of inheriting a growth company just as it stopped growing, but you can't deny that Microsoft has essentially stopped growing under his watch.
- kevin_morrill 14y agoDuring Ballmer's tenure as CEO tripled revenues and more than doubled profits. It's one of the 5 most profitable companies in the world.
- etrain 14y agoFirst - my point was about shareholder value. That has been depressed substantially since he took over, on a market relative basis. Second, It was the largest company in the world when he took the reigns. He's been the boss for 12 years. 9% annualized revenue growth and 6% annualized earnings growth doesn't strike me as astronomical, particularly when people were calling for 25% annualized growth for MSFT in 99/00. Again, you can argue that Microsoft was overvalued when Ballmer took over (and you'd be right), but the point is that even on the basis of fundamentals, his performance has not been outstanding.