A recent anonymous comment on this site inquired or asked "Did We Give Up". The comment inquired why we failed to respond or post comments concerning Microsoft's last quarterly earnings. Well, the comments can be viewed at http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43995
In response to the question "Did We Give Up?", the answer is no. We have been engaged in other projects that have consumed time and attention. However, if the question was "Have you lost HOPE?" the answer would be "Yes".
The campaign was initially launched in mid-December 2008. It gained attention from various blogs. It secured interviews with various blogs and reporters, including an article with PC Plus magazine. It obtained support from various Microsoft employees (who we thank for offering analysis and feedback). It also secured support from various shareholders.
Unfortunatley, it appears evident that Microsoft's fate is secured. Regardless, of conducting analysis and securing support, regardless of other sites indicating the same analysis, it appears Microsoft is headed on a path of no return. To quote the Phantom of the Opera "Microsoft has passed the Point of No Return".
Initially, the campaign indicated that Microsoft is relaint on its cash cows which will eventually fail to provide the desired revenue. The campaign indicated that Microsoft required a "New Strategy" to alleviate this dilemma. The campaign referred to the growing trend of SaaS, handhelds or mobile, and also online.
Despite trying to influence change, despite media attention, The SLT continued with its "Strategy". This resulted in the well publicized reality of a 30% decline in revenue. The primary direct result of less OS revenue.
Recently, the company has lost a lawsuit to a Canadian company. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-loses-in-toronto-firms-patent-suit-2009-08-12
The reality of the above article is that Microsoft is confronted with losing additional revenue.
This will potentially have a substantial impact on company revenue. Word is perhaps the most recognised and utilised product in the Office Products. This is subsequently another nail in the coffin.
The company is losing revenue with OS. It has lost Word. The trend is moving towards Saas and netbooks, which offer less revenue.
It is languishing in the online sector. The Yahoo and Microsoft deal will still only provide 30% share compared to Google controlling over 60%.
The company recently announced a deal with Nokia. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-nokia-form-mobile-computing-alliance-2009-08-12
However, the alliance will fail to compete with Apple or RIM. Therefore, Microsoft will fail to compete in this growing sector.
We don't believe the campaign has the definitive answers. However, it secured support from reporters, employees, shareholders and analysts. Microsoft employees provided analysis and feedback concerning the "New Strategy".
We have lost Hope that the SLT will ever understand the dilemmas confronting the company and listen to outsiders (this includes analysts, reporters, shareholders). Therefore, it appears evident that Microsoft will continue to loss revenue. It will fail to innovate. It will fail to recognise trends. It will fail to become relevent.
It appears more evident and understandable why msftextrememakeover gave up and Mini Microsoft creates fewer posts. The SLT has refused to listen to legitimate complaints and solutions posted on Mini Microsoft for years. The SLT appear to be blind and oblivious to the realities confronting the company. Unfortunately, it is to the detriment of employees and shareholders.
The SLT has failed to create shareholder value for a decade. It has failed to create shareholder value for a decade with the shares trading at approximately $23 per share or the same level for LONG-TERM. It has failed to listen to complaints for a decade. It has made false promises and ignored reports from other parties (newspapers, blogs, reporters) for a decade. Sadly, it appears obvious that the SLT will continue its "Strategy" adding more nails to the coffin until its time for the shareholders and analysts to deliver the eulogy.
Its time to rally support and effect change.
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Eric Jackson of Ironfire Capital
In past blogs we have made reference to Eric Jackson of Ironfire Capital. In 2007, the firm acquired less then 100 shares of Yahoo. Utilizing the Internet the firm implimented "Plan B" and rallied support from frustrated Yahoo shareholders.
Mr. Jackson has a blog called Breakout Performance. In this post we wish to provide the article Mr. Jackson posted on June 10. The article reiterates what this campaign has been stating regarding R&D spending and a reality check.
Mr. Jackson has a blog called Breakout Performance. In this post we wish to provide the article Mr. Jackson posted on June 10. The article reiterates what this campaign has been stating regarding R&D spending and a reality check.
Eric Jackson
A couple of weeks ago at the D7 Conference in Carlsbad, Calif., Microsoft(MSFT Quote) CEO Steve Ballmer boasted the software company could create a lot of new things by spending $9.5 billion annually on research and development expenses. That's right, Microsoft spends almost $10 billion each year on R&D. That's more than any other company in the world, by a long shot.R&D spending at many tech, pharmaceutical or biotech companies is treated as motherhood and apple pie. R&D is never a bad thing -- it's only good. More is always better.
When you invest in research, you are investing in hope and possibilities. No matter how much you have lost in past projects that never panned out, every new dollar invested in a R&D project holds the possibility that it will deliver a large multiple of that dollar in future earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.
Spending a lot on R&D would be a good thing for Microsoft if it was generating a large return from that investment. But that's not the case and it hasn't been the case for a long time.Ballmer's comments show that Microsoft's senior leadership is proud of its continued investment in R&D and sees it as a source of competitive advantage for the company. On an absolute dollar comparison basis, Microsoft is making a much bigger bet than most in this area.Microsoft spent 46% more than the $6.5 billion IBM(IBM Quote) invested in R&D last year, 252% more than Oracle(ORCL Quote) ($2.7 billion), 763% more than Apple(AAPL Quote) ($1.1 billion), and 390% more than Google(GOOG Quote) ($2.8 billion).
Yet, most would conclude that Microsoft isn't 9 times as innovative as Apple, despite the discrepancy in how much money it is pouring into its research activities. Beyond its Office, Client, and Server core franchises, it's difficult to name innovations associated with Microsoft.
What is also remarkable about Microsoft's spending on R&D is the cumulative total racked up over the years. In the last 10 years, Microsoft has invested $62 billion in the R&D area. Microsoft could have bought back nearly 40% of its stock with that amount; it could have beefed up its dividend; it could have made a string of acquisitions which presumably would have continued to grow its top and bottom lines more than what it has achieved organically.It's hard to know exactly what Microsoft has delivered for its R&D investment; it doesn't break out the numbers according to its five business segments. However, the two smallest business segments -- Entertainment & Devices, which includes the Xbox, Zune, and Windows Mobile software groups, and Online Services, which includes Search, and the Microsoft MSN, Hotmail, and Messenger properties - likely have taken the lion's share of the investment. Combined, these two divisions have delivered $71 billion in revenue for Microsoft over those 10 years and $15 billion in losses.
So, what Microsoft's $62 billion R&D investment has led to a $15 billion loss for at least those two businesses in 10 years.Ballmer has argued that Wall Street investors are too focused on the short-term. One large Microsoft investor told me recently that Ballmer had complained loudly to him about the short-sightedness of investors who called on the company four years ago to do a large stock buyback and pay out a dividend with the excess cash on Microsoft's pristine Microsoft balance sheet.
Ballmer apparently said to this large investor: "We did everything they asked for. We did a huge buyback. We did the biggest one-time dividend ever. And what good did it do us?"Ballmer's right. Total shareholder returns, or TSR, for Microsoft since it initiated its stock buyback and dividend program are down 25%. For the last 10 years, TSRs fell 47% (as of early April). This includes returns from dividend payments (including the big, one-time dividend of $3 a share), as well as stock appreciation, over that time.Is 10 years a sufficient amount of time for a shareholder to wait to judge a company's management team for how it has performed?
Those TSR numbers are clearly unacceptable and likely reflect poor investment decisions and loss of confidence by shareholders in the future prospects for the company.Over that same 10-year time period (again, as of early April), Apple's total shareholder returns have been 826%, Nintendo's have been 243%, Oracle's have been 166%, IBM's have been 3%, and Nasdaq's returns have fallen 37% -- all substantially higher than Microsoft's TSRs.
If the predominant Microsoft strategy of investing more in internal R&D, steering away from acquisitions, and keeping tight control of the five business segments has led to these results in the last 10 years, should shareholders expect that the same approach will lead to different results in the next 10 years?
Are we being "short-termists" or "flippers" of the stock by pointing out these results and suggesting they should have been much better?
R&D spending can lead to blockbuster returns. And Microsoft has a big advantage relative to its competitors in that it can invest enormous sums for future product development. But Microsoft, in being proud of the fact that it can spend almost $10 billion a year on R&D, is like a driller of oil and gas being proud of the fact that it can drill thousands of dry holes. It doesn't matter what you spend on R&D; it only matters what return you make from that investment for your investors. So far, Microsoft hasn't delivered on its promises.
A private-equity investor friend of mine once told me that he only liked investing in companies who practiced "small 'r' and large 'D' R&D" - meaning he wanted to see fewer ivory tower white coats and more of an emphasis on taking cutting-edge ideas and technologies out of the lab and building a real product and revenue stream around it. That process requires discipline, but it can be managed.Microsoft isn't the first large company to face this challenge of effectively managing its R&D process. Hewlett-Packard (HPQ Quote) lost its way a few years ago. Pfizer(PFE Quote) and other "big pharma" companies are facing similar questions around their R&D activities.
Instead of patting Microsoft on the back for its continued spending on R&D, investors and the press should be asking, "Where's the beef?" The onus should be on the company's management to articulate why its status quo approach for running this function will lead to different results in the next 10 years. Otherwise, I can think of several better ways to spend the next $62 billion of cash flow.
This campaign fully agrees with Mr. Jacksons assessment. It is time that shareholders speakout against Microsoft and its investment practices and its strategy.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Thursday, July 2, 2009
"Ads" Fail to Add Value
Various companies have failed to advertise and market their brand successfully. Ask.com has through numerous campaigns failed to increase its brand perception. Microsoft has also fallen into this category.
It is without dispute that Microsoft suffers from a battered image. Through our research we have discovered such sarcastic comments as Microsh*!. Please forgive the vulgarity. However, with such references it is clear that the company has poor brand perception.
Part of the poor brand perception is the failure to produce and market superior products. The company has offered Vista, Zune and other failures. As one Microsoft employee stated "if we can sell garbage and get away with it we will sell garbage".
Consumers want superior products. They want products that work. They want products that offer features. They want products that don't break or crash or freeze. They want products that are compatible with other products. In most of these areas Microsoft has failed.
Microsoft has also failed in changing its image. If you suffer from a poor image the logical strategy would be to improve it through some serious PR work and campaigns. However, this is an area that Microsoft has failed miserably.
Julie Bort at Microsoft Subnet was a tremendous catalyst for this campaign gaining attention. Julie provides some insight into Microsoft and its advertising campaigns. Refer to: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43240
It is without dispute that Microsoft suffers from a battered image. Through our research we have discovered such sarcastic comments as Microsh*!. Please forgive the vulgarity. However, with such references it is clear that the company has poor brand perception.
Part of the poor brand perception is the failure to produce and market superior products. The company has offered Vista, Zune and other failures. As one Microsoft employee stated "if we can sell garbage and get away with it we will sell garbage".
Consumers want superior products. They want products that work. They want products that offer features. They want products that don't break or crash or freeze. They want products that are compatible with other products. In most of these areas Microsoft has failed.
Microsoft has also failed in changing its image. If you suffer from a poor image the logical strategy would be to improve it through some serious PR work and campaigns. However, this is an area that Microsoft has failed miserably.
Julie Bort at Microsoft Subnet was a tremendous catalyst for this campaign gaining attention. Julie provides some insight into Microsoft and its advertising campaigns. Refer to: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43240
Follow the link in the article to view the choices of the worst ads. The sad reality is that Microsoft continues to fail to capture consumers through advertising.
Regrading the recent IE 8 commercials refer to:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10276705-71.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody and refer to http://news.softpedia.com/news/Internet-Explorer-8-Vomit-Video-Gets-Pulled-115692.shtml
The ads are hosted by Dean Cain. However, the most recent called "OMGIGP-Oh My God I am Going To Puke" is repulsive. Who wants to watch someone puke during a commercial. The sad reality is the ads made me want to puke. Consumers are use to brand association. Lets refer to Win 95
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VPFKnBYOSI
The Win 95 commercial was terrific. It had the Stones playing in the background. Everytime you thought of Win 95 you thought of "Start It Up". Incredible brand association. Now, the same company creates a commercial were IE 8 is forever linked and associated with Oh My God I am Going to Puke. There is marketing genius at its worst.
I think that its time Microsoft fire its ad agency?
Perhaps what is the most disconcerting with the recent ad is the message it delivers. The puke is repulsive. However, the feature it is trying to promote is watch and view Porn with privacy. Lets acquire IE 8 with "In Private Browsing" with no history so we can view PORN. Well, there is a selling feature to promote to consumers!!!
What demographic and audience is this ad trying to capture?
Is Microsoft seeking to expand its IE 8 into the prison markets?
Thankfully, the ads were yanked from the air. Yet, the company also yanked the Seinfeld and Gates ads. Yet, they said it was all part of the strategy. Well, that is certainly believable.
Why are they spending shareholder capital on such poor ads that eventually get pulled from the air?
Do they really think these ads are going to create excitement with consumers to buy the products?
Word of advice Microsoft. Revert back to creating excitement. Use brand association similar to "Start It Up". What about IE 8 with "We are the Champions" or the Beatles "Got to Get You Into My Life".
Fire Crispin Porter now?
Fire Bradley Montgomery now?
Its time to improve the company image with proper advertising and marketing. Maybe the $9 billion on R&D should be spent on making a decent advertising commercial. The past commercials aren't even worth 9 cents.
To offer support through shares we can be contacted at newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Will Microsoft Shares Ever Show Growth
For several years Microsoft shares have remained relatively stagnant. For approximately a decade the share price has displayed minimal variation. Refer to: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=MSFT&CP=0&PT=10
This campaign has indicated on multiple occassions that several years ago at an annual shareholder meeting Mr. Ballmer stated "the shares have been stagnant but we have plans and the shares will take care of itself". Despite Mr. Ballmers confidence in the "shares taking care of itself" there still is minimal variation.
A article with CBS Marketwatch makes reference to the potential of Microsoft shares reaching a level of $35 per share. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-microsoft-msft-makes-it-back-to-35
In this article the author states that Microsoft could become a growth stock based on two primary factors. First, the author states "would be a home run for its new search technology, Bing". Microsoft has committed approximately $100 million towards an advertising campaign to promote Bing. Research shows that its share has increased by approximately 3%. That is relatively impressive growth, however, Google doesn't need to feel threatened. Google commands over 60% while Microsoft controls 13% of the search market. Bing will have to convince numerous users to steal another 50% share away from Google. It is optimistic yet not very likely.
In a CBS Marketwatch article the author Therese Poletti refers to Bing creating competition. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-stirs-search-engine-pot-with-bing.
The author concludes the article stating " So the key question now among investors, as Lindsay notes, is "is Bing sustainable, or will Microsoft mess it up?"
This campaign can very simply answer the above question presented by Ms. Poletti. At the beginning of the article she references to a parody video created concerning Bing. Refer to:http://techblips.dailyradar.com/video/googling_with_bing/
According to the initial CBS Marketwatch article the second issue confronting Microsoft is "More important to Microsoft's success is a very successful launch of Windows 7, the replacement for Vista".
It is evident that Microsoft failed with its release of Vista. The Mojave Experiment failed to rejuvinate interest with Microsoft and its operating system. There are numerous reports indicating that competitors such as Apple are slowly eroding Microsoft's dominance.
Microsoft still controls over 80% of the market. However, with increased competition and an weakened economy will Win 7 bring success?
Several consumers and companies will likely remain with a current operating system as oppossed to upgrading. Additionally, this segment of Microsoft will not bring much growth. It might show modest growth, sustain growth or loss share. Regardless, this segment is not a huge growth sector for Microsoft.
This ultimately leads to the final question or comment posted by the author of the initial CBS article. The author states "It is possible that both the launch of Bing and Windows 7 will under-perform investor expectations. Microsoft shares could go back to below $15, where they traded in March, if that happens".
Bing might have created a buzz with a $100 million advertising campaign, but, it is probably not sustainable. Google is part of the culture. Bing might be the best product from Microsoft in a long time, however, its probably not good enough to dethrone Google as King of Search.
Win 7 might generate renewed licenses and consumers might upgrade, however, it will not be perceived as growth. However, if Microsoft remains with Crispin Porter as their advertising agents then Win 7 will fail to create excitement with the consumer.
The sad yet realistic prediction is most likely Microsoft will remain stagnant. Despite Mr. Ballmers "plans" and his belief "the shares will take care of itself" they will probably remain flat. Microsoft requires a "New Strategy" before it ever becomes a Growth Stock.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
This campaign has indicated on multiple occassions that several years ago at an annual shareholder meeting Mr. Ballmer stated "the shares have been stagnant but we have plans and the shares will take care of itself". Despite Mr. Ballmers confidence in the "shares taking care of itself" there still is minimal variation.
A article with CBS Marketwatch makes reference to the potential of Microsoft shares reaching a level of $35 per share. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-microsoft-msft-makes-it-back-to-35
In this article the author states that Microsoft could become a growth stock based on two primary factors. First, the author states "would be a home run for its new search technology, Bing". Microsoft has committed approximately $100 million towards an advertising campaign to promote Bing. Research shows that its share has increased by approximately 3%. That is relatively impressive growth, however, Google doesn't need to feel threatened. Google commands over 60% while Microsoft controls 13% of the search market. Bing will have to convince numerous users to steal another 50% share away from Google. It is optimistic yet not very likely.
In a CBS Marketwatch article the author Therese Poletti refers to Bing creating competition. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-stirs-search-engine-pot-with-bing.
The author concludes the article stating " So the key question now among investors, as Lindsay notes, is "is Bing sustainable, or will Microsoft mess it up?"
This campaign can very simply answer the above question presented by Ms. Poletti. At the beginning of the article she references to a parody video created concerning Bing. Refer to:http://techblips.dailyradar.com/video/googling_with_bing/
According to the initial CBS Marketwatch article the second issue confronting Microsoft is "More important to Microsoft's success is a very successful launch of Windows 7, the replacement for Vista".
It is evident that Microsoft failed with its release of Vista. The Mojave Experiment failed to rejuvinate interest with Microsoft and its operating system. There are numerous reports indicating that competitors such as Apple are slowly eroding Microsoft's dominance.
Microsoft still controls over 80% of the market. However, with increased competition and an weakened economy will Win 7 bring success?
Several consumers and companies will likely remain with a current operating system as oppossed to upgrading. Additionally, this segment of Microsoft will not bring much growth. It might show modest growth, sustain growth or loss share. Regardless, this segment is not a huge growth sector for Microsoft.
This ultimately leads to the final question or comment posted by the author of the initial CBS article. The author states "It is possible that both the launch of Bing and Windows 7 will under-perform investor expectations. Microsoft shares could go back to below $15, where they traded in March, if that happens".
Bing might have created a buzz with a $100 million advertising campaign, but, it is probably not sustainable. Google is part of the culture. Bing might be the best product from Microsoft in a long time, however, its probably not good enough to dethrone Google as King of Search.
Win 7 might generate renewed licenses and consumers might upgrade, however, it will not be perceived as growth. However, if Microsoft remains with Crispin Porter as their advertising agents then Win 7 will fail to create excitement with the consumer.
The sad yet realistic prediction is most likely Microsoft will remain stagnant. Despite Mr. Ballmers "plans" and his belief "the shares will take care of itself" they will probably remain flat. Microsoft requires a "New Strategy" before it ever becomes a Growth Stock.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Monday, June 22, 2009
No Accountability in The Boardroom
Activists typically target companies for various reasons. There is the natural underperforming company. Numerous companies have fallen within this realm and have subsequently become the target of a hedge fund or a shareholder activist.
Historically, activists have created pressure on companies to effect change. Sometimes the activist has controlled a majority interest within the company. However, occassionally the activist has controlled a minority interest. It is more difficult to lead an activist campaign through controlling a minority interest. It is more difficult but not imposssible. Ironfire Capital through owning less then 100 shares forced change at Yahoo.
Microsoft recently aanounced that a shareholder with 25% of the company shares can call a special meeting. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-declares-quarterly-dividend-board-of-directors-proposes-new-shareholder-right
The article makes reference to a comment by John Sethoof, the Deputy Counsel for Microsoft. In the article he states that "the ability for shareholders to call special meetings is important" and "proposing this new policy is our commitment to maintaining strong corporate governance practices".
No offense Mr. Sethoof, but, with the ability to sling crap like that comment you should consider a career in politics.
Lets briefly analyze these comments. The ability for shareholders to call a meeting is important. If it was truly important would the bar be set at 25% of the company?
This naturally leads to the next comment. Setting the New Policy or Standard at 25% of the shares is considered a commitment to maintaining strong corporate governance?
What this new policy is stating is simply this "Here at Microsoft we don't believe in accountability or TRUE Corporate Governance".
Currently, Mr Gates owns less then 25%. Mr. Ballmer owns less then 25%. According to information Mr. Gates owns 8% and Mr. Ballmer owns 4%. Refer to: http://www.startribune.com/science/47766497.html
The largest institutions such as Capital Research or Fidelity also own less then 25%. According to the above article the largest institutional investor only owns 4%. Therefore, it would require Barclays, Fidelity, Vanguard and numerous other shareholders to call a meeting.
Microsoft shares have displayed a modest increase in value. They are currently trading at approximately $23 per share. This gives Microsoft a market cap of approximately $200 billion. Therefore, what Microsoft is stating is "if as a shareholder you own $50 billion worth of shares then our strong commitment to corporate governance is important".
Now, even if Microsoft drops to former levels of the mid to high teens, the company would still have a market cap of atleast $100 billion. Subsequently, this strong and important commitment requires a shareholder to own atleast $25 billion worth of stock.
To quote Charles Elson of the University of Delaware "It would be impossible to hit that number and that's exactly why they picked it".
Regardless of the fact that Mr. Sethoof states "Its important to the company". Regardless of the fact that "its the company strong commitment to governance". Regardless of the fact that Mr. Sethoof states "its attainable". The reality is that 25% demonstrates that Microsoft set a standard that will never enable a shareholder to hold The SLT or the Board accountable for its decisions.
Once again this demonstrates Mr. Ballmers TRUE attitude towards shareholders. To set a standard at 5% would be realistic and attainable. A 5% stake in Microsoft would still constitute as one of the largest shareholders. Based on the 25% standard this means no mutual fund or hedge fund will ever have the capacity to utilize this "important and strong commitment to corporate governance".
We suggest that all shareholders vote against this provision and demand a more attainable number that would actually place accountability on Ballmer and The Board.
To offer shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Historically, activists have created pressure on companies to effect change. Sometimes the activist has controlled a majority interest within the company. However, occassionally the activist has controlled a minority interest. It is more difficult to lead an activist campaign through controlling a minority interest. It is more difficult but not imposssible. Ironfire Capital through owning less then 100 shares forced change at Yahoo.
Microsoft recently aanounced that a shareholder with 25% of the company shares can call a special meeting. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-declares-quarterly-dividend-board-of-directors-proposes-new-shareholder-right
The article makes reference to a comment by John Sethoof, the Deputy Counsel for Microsoft. In the article he states that "the ability for shareholders to call special meetings is important" and "proposing this new policy is our commitment to maintaining strong corporate governance practices".
No offense Mr. Sethoof, but, with the ability to sling crap like that comment you should consider a career in politics.
Lets briefly analyze these comments. The ability for shareholders to call a meeting is important. If it was truly important would the bar be set at 25% of the company?
This naturally leads to the next comment. Setting the New Policy or Standard at 25% of the shares is considered a commitment to maintaining strong corporate governance?
What this new policy is stating is simply this "Here at Microsoft we don't believe in accountability or TRUE Corporate Governance".
Currently, Mr Gates owns less then 25%. Mr. Ballmer owns less then 25%. According to information Mr. Gates owns 8% and Mr. Ballmer owns 4%. Refer to: http://www.startribune.com/science/47766497.html
The largest institutions such as Capital Research or Fidelity also own less then 25%. According to the above article the largest institutional investor only owns 4%. Therefore, it would require Barclays, Fidelity, Vanguard and numerous other shareholders to call a meeting.
Microsoft shares have displayed a modest increase in value. They are currently trading at approximately $23 per share. This gives Microsoft a market cap of approximately $200 billion. Therefore, what Microsoft is stating is "if as a shareholder you own $50 billion worth of shares then our strong commitment to corporate governance is important".
Now, even if Microsoft drops to former levels of the mid to high teens, the company would still have a market cap of atleast $100 billion. Subsequently, this strong and important commitment requires a shareholder to own atleast $25 billion worth of stock.
To quote Charles Elson of the University of Delaware "It would be impossible to hit that number and that's exactly why they picked it".
Regardless of the fact that Mr. Sethoof states "Its important to the company". Regardless of the fact that "its the company strong commitment to governance". Regardless of the fact that Mr. Sethoof states "its attainable". The reality is that 25% demonstrates that Microsoft set a standard that will never enable a shareholder to hold The SLT or the Board accountable for its decisions.
Once again this demonstrates Mr. Ballmers TRUE attitude towards shareholders. To set a standard at 5% would be realistic and attainable. A 5% stake in Microsoft would still constitute as one of the largest shareholders. Based on the 25% standard this means no mutual fund or hedge fund will ever have the capacity to utilize this "important and strong commitment to corporate governance".
We suggest that all shareholders vote against this provision and demand a more attainable number that would actually place accountability on Ballmer and The Board.
To offer shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Is Bing What Microsoft Was "Searching" For
Within the past there has been various shifts within the search sector. Consumers have seen the rise and fall of former tech darlings Netscape and AOL. There was a shift to when IE was a popular search engine. Yahoo experienced a period when it was the favorite. Currently, the word Google is synonymous with search. Now, on June 3, 2009 Microsoft has released Bing.
According to a recent article with All Things Digital it states that Microsoft has gained share. Based on data accumulated by comScore, Microsoft has gained approximately 2%. It has increased share from approximately 9% to 11%. Refer to: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090610/if-you%e2%80%99re-not-worried-about-bing-why-are-you-talking-about-it-so-much/?reflink=ATD_mktw_quotes
However, the primary question is will Microsoft be able to continue to drive share growth?
To achieve the desired results Microsoft is confronted with two fundamental issues. First, the company is required to create attention and drive consumers towards the product. Microsoft has very deep pockets. Reports indicate that the company has committed $100 million to advertising. Refer to: http://www.marketingvox.com/mfst-shells-out-bucks-for-bing-ad-campaign-044159/
The company has deep pockets to advertise and gain consumer attention, however, will it be positive or negative attention?
Microsoft through previous campaigns have failed to capture consumers through positive advertising. Consider the Seinfeld and Gates ads. The I Am a PC ads. These campaigns were considered terrible ads. The Gates and Seinfeld ads were according to reports nominated for the worst campaign.
The current Bing commerials and campaign are of the same poor caliber as previous campaigns. They fail to create excitement and a desire to use Bing. Refer to:http://www.pcworld.com/article/166067/microsofts_bing_ad_claims_to_terminate_search_overload.html
The next dilemma confronting Microsoft is the ability to retain attention and consumer loyalty. Microsoft has the ability to advertise and gain attention. However, does it have the ability to retain consumers?
Microsoft has become known for creating poor products. Remember Vista and Zune?
The biggest dilemma confronting Microsoft is if Bing will have the consumer loyalty to surpass Google. It will have to be a superior product that will cause consumers to leave Google and use Bing. Considering Google has over 60% of the market, it can easily be determined that Microsoft and Bing have a tremendous amount of convincing to acheive before Google has to feel threatened.
Hopefully for Microsoft and its shareholders Bing will produce some good results.
Hopefully, Bing will produce the results Microsoft has been searching for now for several years. Bottom line is it is going to take perhaps much more then $100 million in advertising to convince consumers to switch from Google to Bing.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
According to a recent article with All Things Digital it states that Microsoft has gained share. Based on data accumulated by comScore, Microsoft has gained approximately 2%. It has increased share from approximately 9% to 11%. Refer to: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090610/if-you%e2%80%99re-not-worried-about-bing-why-are-you-talking-about-it-so-much/?reflink=ATD_mktw_quotes
However, the primary question is will Microsoft be able to continue to drive share growth?
To achieve the desired results Microsoft is confronted with two fundamental issues. First, the company is required to create attention and drive consumers towards the product. Microsoft has very deep pockets. Reports indicate that the company has committed $100 million to advertising. Refer to: http://www.marketingvox.com/mfst-shells-out-bucks-for-bing-ad-campaign-044159/
The company has deep pockets to advertise and gain consumer attention, however, will it be positive or negative attention?
Microsoft through previous campaigns have failed to capture consumers through positive advertising. Consider the Seinfeld and Gates ads. The I Am a PC ads. These campaigns were considered terrible ads. The Gates and Seinfeld ads were according to reports nominated for the worst campaign.
The current Bing commerials and campaign are of the same poor caliber as previous campaigns. They fail to create excitement and a desire to use Bing. Refer to:http://www.pcworld.com/article/166067/microsofts_bing_ad_claims_to_terminate_search_overload.html
The next dilemma confronting Microsoft is the ability to retain attention and consumer loyalty. Microsoft has the ability to advertise and gain attention. However, does it have the ability to retain consumers?
Microsoft has become known for creating poor products. Remember Vista and Zune?
The biggest dilemma confronting Microsoft is if Bing will have the consumer loyalty to surpass Google. It will have to be a superior product that will cause consumers to leave Google and use Bing. Considering Google has over 60% of the market, it can easily be determined that Microsoft and Bing have a tremendous amount of convincing to acheive before Google has to feel threatened.
Hopefully for Microsoft and its shareholders Bing will produce some good results.
Hopefully, Bing will produce the results Microsoft has been searching for now for several years. Bottom line is it is going to take perhaps much more then $100 million in advertising to convince consumers to switch from Google to Bing.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Friday, May 29, 2009
Will "Bing" Bring Success for Microsoft
It has been announced that on June 3rd Microsoft's new initiative at the search sector called "Bing" will be deployed globally. According to reports Microsoft is currently third within the search sector. Based on a Nielson rating, Microsoft commands approximately 9% of the search sector. However, Google and Yahoo control 64% and 16% respectively. Refer to: http://nielson.com/nielsonwire/online_mobile/top-10-search-providers-for-april-2009-us/
In 2008, Microsoft attempted a acquisition bid for Yahoo. Microsoft pursued a 65% premium bid for Yahoo valued at $45 billion. Hypothetically, if Yahoo had of accepted the bid, Microsoft would have deployed $45 billion and the combined entities would have 25% of the market compared to Google at 64%. Regardless of the failed bid, Microsoft is still required to pursue a strategy that will enable the company to compete with Google.
There are reports that Mr. Ballmer has resumed negotiations with Yahoo in regards to a potential search deal. Refer to: http://blogs.com/techtraderdaily/2009/04/10/report-yahoo-microsoft-in-talks-on-search-ad-deal/
Why is Mr. Ballmer in talks with Yahoo and at the same time releasing a new search engine?
According to Mr. Ballmer "Bing, is the first step in delivering innovation in search to enable consumers to find information quickly and make informed decisions". Refer to: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=25414
The main dilemma with the above statement by Mr. Ballmer is the notion that it is the "first step in delivering innovation". Microsoft for several years has not been known for delivering innovation. It is a company that for several years has built a reputation on copying other innovative products but not to the same level of success. A not so popular "Zune" is a primary example of this hard reality facing Microsoft.
In an attempt to be optimistic, perhaps Microsoft has the capability to produce a truly innovative product. According to a report with CBS Marketwatch, the new search engine is designed to be a "decision making" product. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-good-news-and-bad-news-on-bing
However, as pointed out in the above article, there is no reason why Google and Yahoo cannot produce a similar product. Therefore, does Microsoft have the capability to produce a truly innovative product that Google can not emulate?
Based on consumers response to Microsoft products in the past it is difficult to remain optimistic in regards to how consumers will respond. It has been mentioned on numerous occasions that Microsoft has a battered image. Therefore, with over 60% of the searches being conducted through Google, it is difficult to imagine consumers will migrate to a new Microsoft product.
In 2007, at an analyst meeting, Mr. Ballmer was confronted with a question concerning acquiring Yahoo. Mr. Ballmer indicated that Microsoft was "organic minded". Less than one year later Mr. Ballmer announces a bid for Yahoo.
In 2008, Mr. Ballmer pursues a 65% premium bid for Yahoo valued at $45 billion. This bid fails and Mr. Ballmer indicates that all negotiations with Yahoo are final.
In 2009, it is reported that Mr. Ballmer has entered negotiations with Yahoo in regards to a potential search deal.
In 2009, while in negotiations with Yahoo, Mr. Ballmer announces the release of a new search engine to compete with Google.
Perhaps the most important initiative for Microsoft would be to develop a platform that could enable the "decision making" ability of "Bing" be integrated into the SLT. It appears that the first step should be to develop a product that would enable Mr. Ballmer and the SLT to enter a query for how to compete with Google and then get the best answer. It seems evident that Mr. Ballmer is failing at finding information quickly and then making informed decisions.
It is without dispute that the most important search initiative for Microsoft is the "Search" for a New CEO.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
In 2008, Microsoft attempted a acquisition bid for Yahoo. Microsoft pursued a 65% premium bid for Yahoo valued at $45 billion. Hypothetically, if Yahoo had of accepted the bid, Microsoft would have deployed $45 billion and the combined entities would have 25% of the market compared to Google at 64%. Regardless of the failed bid, Microsoft is still required to pursue a strategy that will enable the company to compete with Google.
There are reports that Mr. Ballmer has resumed negotiations with Yahoo in regards to a potential search deal. Refer to: http://blogs.com/techtraderdaily/2009/04/10/report-yahoo-microsoft-in-talks-on-search-ad-deal/
Why is Mr. Ballmer in talks with Yahoo and at the same time releasing a new search engine?
According to Mr. Ballmer "Bing, is the first step in delivering innovation in search to enable consumers to find information quickly and make informed decisions". Refer to: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=25414
The main dilemma with the above statement by Mr. Ballmer is the notion that it is the "first step in delivering innovation". Microsoft for several years has not been known for delivering innovation. It is a company that for several years has built a reputation on copying other innovative products but not to the same level of success. A not so popular "Zune" is a primary example of this hard reality facing Microsoft.
In an attempt to be optimistic, perhaps Microsoft has the capability to produce a truly innovative product. According to a report with CBS Marketwatch, the new search engine is designed to be a "decision making" product. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-good-news-and-bad-news-on-bing
However, as pointed out in the above article, there is no reason why Google and Yahoo cannot produce a similar product. Therefore, does Microsoft have the capability to produce a truly innovative product that Google can not emulate?
Based on consumers response to Microsoft products in the past it is difficult to remain optimistic in regards to how consumers will respond. It has been mentioned on numerous occasions that Microsoft has a battered image. Therefore, with over 60% of the searches being conducted through Google, it is difficult to imagine consumers will migrate to a new Microsoft product.
In 2007, at an analyst meeting, Mr. Ballmer was confronted with a question concerning acquiring Yahoo. Mr. Ballmer indicated that Microsoft was "organic minded". Less than one year later Mr. Ballmer announces a bid for Yahoo.
In 2008, Mr. Ballmer pursues a 65% premium bid for Yahoo valued at $45 billion. This bid fails and Mr. Ballmer indicates that all negotiations with Yahoo are final.
In 2009, it is reported that Mr. Ballmer has entered negotiations with Yahoo in regards to a potential search deal.
In 2009, while in negotiations with Yahoo, Mr. Ballmer announces the release of a new search engine to compete with Google.
Perhaps the most important initiative for Microsoft would be to develop a platform that could enable the "decision making" ability of "Bing" be integrated into the SLT. It appears that the first step should be to develop a product that would enable Mr. Ballmer and the SLT to enter a query for how to compete with Google and then get the best answer. It seems evident that Mr. Ballmer is failing at finding information quickly and then making informed decisions.
It is without dispute that the most important search initiative for Microsoft is the "Search" for a New CEO.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)