Linked by David Adams on Fri 13th May 2011 04:54 UTC
Microsoft In business school the first thing they teach you about CEOs is: it is the CEO’s job to increase the shareholder value of the company. Since taking the position Ballmer has decreased shareholder value, as reflected by stock price, by -56.63%. That. Is. Not. Good . . . Microsoft should be searching for a new CEO right now.
Thread beginning with comment 472905
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I beg to differ
by wirespot on Fri 13th May 2011 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE: I beg to differ"
Member since:

Say a CEO makes the share value (or margins) of his company inflate artificially (for the short term, of course). In doing so, he sacrifices important assets and damages the company's prospects for the long term. Is that a good CEO? Is that what Ballmer should do?

PS: Please add arguments to your statements and/or links to resources that do that. I've done my research and documented my point above; where's yours? Alternatively, if you have better credentials than Horowitz and your opinion alone is valuable on its own, please provide them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I beg to differ
by sgtrock on Fri 13th May 2011 13:35 in reply to "RE[2]: I beg to differ"
sgtrock Member since:

Quoting a guy who reaped the benefits of buying a piece of a company valued at $2.5B and turned around and sold it for $8.5B two and a half years later as an expert on evaluating CEOs? OK, I can buy that. Sort of. As long as you're talking about the CEO who was running the company prior to the initial purchase.

However, when you are using that to justify declaring the chump who PAID $8.5B for a company worth only $2.5B two and a half years earlier as a good CEO? Not so much. Doubly so when the company for sale is just barely breaking even. Triply so when the chump has has a long string of failed acquisitions over the previous decade.

Reply Parent Score: 3