4 ms·
That's because Ballmer couldn't sell much while he was CEO (that would look very bad).
by elwell 13y ago
That's because Ballmer couldn't sell much while he was CEO (that would look very bad).
- jmspring 13y agoIf I recall rightly, I recall Ballmer mentioning he was actively buying shares...But my recollection may be fuzzy (it was a year or two ago when I recall hearing it).
- boomzilla 13y agoActually, unless Ballmer has some grand plan that needs a lot of capital, holding MSFT is not a bad idea at all. With more than 300M shares, he gets a yearly dividend of roughly 350M USD which is only taxed at most 20% as qualified dividend. Well, even if he needs capital, I am sure he can get debt at much more favorable rate than the tax he would have to pay if he sold the shares. The only argument for selling is if he wants to diversify. Another example is the Walton family: they still keep >50% ownership of Walmart and live off the dividend.
- whoismua 13y agoNot really. He's owed stock for what, 30 years? He could've said that starting from January 20xx (2 years after this announcements) I will automatically sell XX Million shares a year for diversification purposes. But why give the IRS and the state 50% of it via taxes? He gets a nice chunk in dividends at very low taxes. And the mega rich borrow against the stock so when they die that debt is taken out from the estate without paying taxes. (Ellison got an earful from his accountant for doing so, lotsa debt and refusing to sell his shares. If the stock crashes, you're royally f-ed as the bank demands new collateral...death spiral etc etc) And what is he going to do with all that money?