SDxCentral
Join Log In
SD-WAN 5G Edge 1 IoT SDN NFV Containers Cloud Security AI Data Center Storage APM/NPM Open Source

Log In to SDxCentral

Log in with your email? Forgot your password?
  • Newsletters
  • eBriefs
  • Podcasts
  • Webinars
  • Videos
  • Directory
  • White Papers
  • Resources
  • Use Cases
  • Support

Join SDxCentral and get information tailored to your particular interests everyday.

Join
Sponsored:
Dell EMC Citrix Riverbed

The Ballmer Critics Are Wrong, Microsoft’s Fine

rayno-report-investing-sdx-sdn-nfv-cloud-virtualization-infrastructure-1
Scott Raynovich
Scott RaynovichAugust 26, 2013
6:34 am MT

You would think after reading the wide-ranging indictment of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in the technology and business press, he had run Microsoft into the ground and driven his shareholders bankrupt, the way past managers of, say, Enron or Lucent Technologies Inc. had done. These people are wrong — and clueless.

Ballmer announced he was retiring last week. The stock went up, prompting everybody to mock him. But be careful what you wish for, because Ballmer’s reign wasn’t that bad.

Am I crazy? No. Imagine you are running a company. Your job is to build value for the shareholders. That measure, if you are Warren Buffet, is book value. Microsoft’s book value almost doubled in the last five years. Its cash hoard grew from $32 billion to $77 billion. Net income grew from $14 billion to $22 billion annually.

From $32 billion to $77 billion in cash in five years! These are not the numbers of a CEO grown irresponsible, or even moderately incompetent. If you were running a company and grew  profits by 57%, tripled the amount of cash on the balance sheet and doubled the book value, would you feel like the public had the right to attack you? What’s the problem, exactly?

As CEO, Ballmer upheld his primary responsibility, which was to grow the company’s profitability and balance sheet. He did that.

The problem is that too many people refer to Microsoft’s  stock price and compare it to, say, the bubble valuations of 2000. That’s more an indictment of our dysfunctional financial system than it is of Steve Ballmer.

On the technology front, the criticism is that Microsoft missed tablets, missed mobile, e.t.c. But it is very rare that a technology company of a prior generation catches the next big move in technology. This is natural, because the company becomes large and less nimble as it grows, and its installed base is based on the last technology paradigm (in this case, Microsoft’s base was PCs and client-server networking). It is constantly battling more nimble and wiley insurgents, ready to take it on.

Look at companies like Blackberry, Novell Inc., or Lucent Technologies. These were once glamour technology companies that missed the “next wave” — but at the same time completely screwed up their legacy businesses and imploded. They destroyed value, in the end.

Microsoft, under Ballmer, did not do that. Over the last decade, Ballmer presided over a company that gradually diversified into other businesses such as gaming, Internet, and media. Its core business, Windows server and applicaitons, remained strong. It grew a decent cloud applications business.

The fact is, maintaining a technology franchise over the course of many decades is incredibly difficult, nearly impossible. Very few companies have done it. Think back over the last 3 decades and name a technology company that has survived many waves of change.

One name you might think of is IBM. If you look at a company like IBM, it has morphed into a consulting and services business — it sells very few mainframes and typewriters anymore — which is indicative of what a giant technology company has to do to survive.

But the comparison of Microsoft to IBM is apt, because Microsoft has arguably done better than IBM over the long haul. Microsoft has a market capitalization of $290 billion. IBM’s is $200 billion. Microsoft’s total stockholder equity is $57 billion. IBM’s is $29 billion. Microsoft is a more valuable company.

This is just a demonstration of how perceptions can be wrong. The fact is that Steve Ballmer made some mistakes, but he built up a fortress balance sheet in the face of an onslaught of scary competitors such as Google, Oracle, and others. Although Microsoft made some deals that could be rightfully criticized, such as the $8 billion acquisition of Skype, overall it has been pretty conservative with shareholder cash.

Is that so terrible? Not at all. Given the history of the technology business, Microsoft could have destroyed value, rather than creating it. Ballmer can retire knowing he did well to preserve and build the value of one of the world’s most successful companies, and the successor has many resources and options in the next phase. He’s left the next CEO a very strong company with tons of options. Let’s see how that person does.

Related Articles

SDxCentral Weekly Wrap: Google Pledges $13B for US Data Centers and Offices
SDxCentral Weekly Wrap: Google Pledges $13B for US Data Centers and Offices
SDxCentral Weekly Wrap: Google Pledges $13B for US Data Centers and Offices
SDxCentral Weekly Wrap: Verizon Slashes 5G Latency With MEC Equipment, Software
AWS Remains Dominant Player in Growing Cloud Market, SRG reports
AWS Remains Dominant Player in Growing Cloud Market, SRG Reports
Blockchain for Multi-Cloud Management? WANdisco’s Down to Boogie
Blockchain for Multi-Cloud Management? WANdisco’s Down to Boogie
VMware PKS Update Embraces Azure, Kubernetes Security
VMware PKS Update Embraces Azure, Kubernetes Security
SD-WAN-Will-Be-Fueled-By-Collaboration-Between-Cloud-Providers-and-Vendors
SD-WAN Will Be Fueled By Collaboration Between Cloud Providers and Vendors
SDxCentral Daily News

Join your Peers! Subscribe to SDxCentral's Newsletter

Article Tags:

Application Google Microsoft

Scott Raynovich

About Scott Raynovich

Raynovich is the VP of Research and Analysis at SDxCentral Previously, he was Chief Analyst and Publisher of The Rayno Report (www.raynoreport.com), which was acquired by SDxCentral in October of 2015. Considered an expert on networking and service-provider technology, he has been covering these areas as an editor, analyst, and publisher for 25 years. He was the Editor in Chief and Editorial Director for Light Reading for a decade, where he started the Heavy Reading Insider research service. Prior to joining Light Reading, Raynovich was Investment Editor at Red Herring, where he started the New York Bureau and helped build the original Redherring.com Website. He has won several industry awards, including an Editor & Publisher award for Best Business Blog and a Folio award for Best Website. His analysis has been featured on prominent media outlets including NPR, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and the San Jose Mercury News.

Subscribe to Get the Daily News!

About SDxCentral

  • Newsletters
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Work With Us
  • Editorial Team
  • Careers
  • Legal
  • Support

Engage With us

This material may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose except with express written permission from an authorized representative of SDxCentral, LLC. In addition to such written permission to copy, reproduce, or modify this document in whole or part, an acknowledgement of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced. All Rights Reserved.

© 2012-2019 SDxCentral, LLC, All Rights Reserved. SDNCentral™, the SDNCentral logo, SDxCentral™, SDxCentral logo, SDxNews™, SDxTech™, SDx™, the SDx logo, and DemoFriday™ are trademarks of SDxCentral, LLC in the U.S. and other countries.

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy