Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Sep 2013 11:44 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless

Finland is boiling with rage this weekend over the $25 M bonus payment the CEO Stephen Elop is set to receive as he leaves Nokia after his two-year tenure. Questions are now being raised by the oddest aspect of the bonus: the board of Nokia seems to have given Elop a $25 M incentive to sell the handset unit cheaply to Microsoft way back in in 2010. This effectively means that the board hired a man who was given a giant carrot to drive down Nokia's overall valuation and phone volumes while preparing a sale to Microsoft. What could possibly be a reason to structure Elop's original contract in this manner? Did the board in fact end up promising Elop more compensation in case he sells the phone division than if he runs it with modest success?

Vindication. We were right all along.

Thread beginning with comment 573021
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Nelson
by galvanash on Tue 24th Sep 2013 14:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

I'm glad I ignored the endless piles of bullshit here and loaded up on Nokia stock while it was low, made a nice return.


But of course, the small minds here are allergic to common sense and don't own any Nokia stock, never shorted any Nokia stock...


Um, maybe because this isn't an investment forum? If your argument is and has always been ultimately about market performance, why didn't you just say so like months and months ago? You would have gotten a lot less heated arguments over your opinions, because frankly very few people here care one wit about Nokia's stock price...

I for one would not have argued that what Elop did wouldn't net a modest return for share holders - my problem with it is they dismantled a once great company without ever really even trying to compete on their own terms.

Everyone is having some fun right now at the expense of BlackBerry because they failed miserably. They did, they took too long and they delivered too little - but at least they went out on their own sword, not with someone else's dagger in their back.

From a purely financial perspective I actually think that Nokia may well have gone the right route - there is a very good chance they would have failed badly and ended up in far worse shape than they are in now. But then again I don't have stock in Nokia, so I don't much care.

If you think most of the opinions on this forum are about stock market performance your really missing the forest through the trees...

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Tue 24th Sep 2013 14:15 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I'm sorry, but being sold off to an investment bank because BBRY was too pigheaded to see they didn't have the cash to compete on their own isn't smart to me, or morally righteous. Its actually the opposite, its almost criminally negligent.

What's worse, having a single division bought by Microsoft, or being bought whole by a non tech company and turned into a zombie firm of sorts?

I've always maintained that this is about Nokia's financials, and I didn't let the obsession some of you had with Android, MeeGo, or (even more laughably) Symbian cloud my judgment. The results speak for itself, Elop, who's ultimate job is to protect shareholder value did a terrific job.

He transferred the phone division to a healthy buyer with an interest in continuing the vision that many employees in Finland worked on, and he unlocked shareholder value for the remaining company.

Dying valiantly is nice, but not dying is better. Lumia phones will be sold for time to come, BB10 handsets will go right up there with webOS as foolish endeavors by companies who overestimated their own resources.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Radio on Tue 24th Sep 2013 15:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

I didn't let the obsession some of you had with Android, MeeGo, or (even more laughably) Symbian cloud my judgment.

OSnews.

OS News.

OS. News.

Operating System News.

News about operating systems.

News about the pieces of software that are needed to run other softwares on a computer or a mobile device.

Hello.

Reply Parent Score: 16

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Radio on Tue 24th Sep 2013 15:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

He transferred the phone division to a healthy buyer with an interest in continuing the vision that many employees in Finland worked on, and he unlocked shareholder value for the remaining company.
Just to show how stupid this is, here is an metaphor: consider, on one side of a city, an upper class school, and on the other side, a desheritate school, so wide apart that the worst student of the upper school is better than the best student of the lower school.

Now imagine that the worst student of the upper school decides to go to the lower school. Suddenly, the level in BOTH schools has risen.

Do you really think anything has improved?

Statistics are funny, heh?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by dsmogor on Tue 24th Sep 2013 16:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Using your logic, Nokia shareholders would get much better off if Nokia had simply offered Samsung a takeover/merger deal in 2010/2011, than struggling alone with WP mission, after most MS partners have left the building.
Not to mention that MeeGo was much more featurefull than WP at that time and some Nokia signature features got supported only on subset of Lumias, 2+ years later.
Recall it was in hugely dominant position by then, (all of which was ruined during Elop's tenure) and any smartphone contenter would have happily paid 10x current price just to get its market share.
And no, it's not Nokia that dropped the ball here. It made everything to make WP/Lumia successful:
- put it in award winning design
- followed on with HW innovation in screen and photo departments
- put all the weight of its brand (still strong in many parts of the world) behind it despite WP missing signature features
- ditched all of it's native production capability to align with WP limitations
- agreed to lower ASP and profitability to offer wide pricing levels despite WP limitations

It's really not Nokia hw design fault that its WP devices have failed to gain traction.

Reply Parent Score: 6