back to article Who's top Microsoft shareholder? Uh oh, it's STEVE BALLMER

When former Microsoft CEO and current board member Steve Ballmer said he was "very interested" in the company's future, he wasn't kidding. As of Wednesday, Ballmer became Redmond's largest individual shareholder, with a stake even greater than that of founder Bill Gates. The switcheroo wasn't because Ballmer acquired new …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Ketlan
    Devil

    Sweaty Betty Ballmer

    You'd've thought with a zillion dollars tucked away, Ballmer could afford a decent anti-perspirant.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sweaty Betty Ballmer

      You should see him without the antiperspirant a billion dollars will buy. Something like this:

      http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/cultist/sweatiest_movie_03.jpg

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You're the man now, Satya Nadella.

    1. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Ballmer out, good.

      A former ***-> Symantec <-*** CEO Jim Thompson in? Bad.

      We're doomed... Just when I had some faint hope that the next Windows would be a Ballmer-stupidity-free winner, you tell me that it's going be infused with the deep dreadful evil that is that putrid festering pile of crap: Symantec mindset. Geezuz H...

      To be crystal clear, I've nothing against Jim Thompson the man, but all things Symantec can burn in Hell as far as I'm concerned. If that indictment includes his decision making skills at Symantec circa 2006-2008, so be it.

  3. Gene Cash Silver badge

    Getting rid of it all by 2018?

    According to Reuters, Gates has sold 20 million shares each quarter for most of the last dozen years under a pre-set trading plan.

    "Assuming no change to that pattern, Gates will have no direct ownership of Microsoft shares at all four years from now."

    Er, why? Is this tax-related? I'd think he'd want the bucks to fund his philanthropy? What am I missing? Financially he's a hell of a lot smarter than I, so I'm sure it's something.

    1. frank ly

      Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

      From what I've read, Warren Buffet has decided to give all of his 'spare' money to Bill Gates' foundation. This makes sense because it's a lot easier that setting up and governing his own foundation. So, Gates will have lots of bucks to do good works with.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

        Quote

        Gates will have lots of bucks to do good works with.

        Shouldn't that be

        Gates will have lots of bucks to arm twist 3rd world countries into buying MS products in return for a small bit of philanthropy and charity.

        See here for more examples of his ilk.

        http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts12260947.aspx

        Only when he has no financial interest in MS will I start to believe that he is doing good.

        Now just where did all those Surface Mk 1's that could no be sold get sent to? They sure didn't go for landfill.

        1. Don Jefe

          Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

          Yeah, who is supposed to give a shit about a guy who can't do basic arithmetic and uses an online dating site as proof of the dumbest leveraged sales conspiracy in history.

      2. Nuke
        Thumb Down

        @Frank ly - Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

        Wrote :- "Warren Buffet has decided to give all of his 'spare' money to Bill Gates' foundation. This makes sense .. "

        It only makes sense if your idea of where charity money should be spent is exactly the same as Gates' idea. Some co-incidence. It is certainly not where my money would go.

    2. Bernard

      Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

      Not tax related.

      From a personal financial security perspective the biggest challenge facing owners of newly successful companies is the fact that a disproportionate amount of their wealth (sometimes all) is tied up in one asset.

      Selling too much in one go would invite a share price crash (shareholders don't like executives or founders selling too much of their holding at once) and selling ad hoc breaks insider trading regulations when you're still at a company, so these kinds of periodic selling of agreed numbers of shares allow divestment of personal wealth without spooking anyone.

      As for why he'd continue until he's sold all of it, I think you've covered that. Microsoft is no longer his primary focus and Microsoft shares can't directly be used to fund his philanthropic projects. If the publically stated plans are to be believed neither he nor Buffett want to create large and unwieldy funds which dole out small amounts in perpetuity. They want to use large amounts on high impact projects until the money is gone.

      I've never understood how that public plan tallies with his continuing to be among the world's richest men, but I assume at some point that will start to diminish.

      1. Eddy Ito

        Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

        The thing with philanthropic foundations is they are largely tax exempt and when you start talking about real money, and make no mistake we're talking real money, it becomes very difficult to spend it fast enough to actually spend it all regardless of how high the impact you achieve is. After all, a billion or two here and there every year makes a pretty big crater but if the investment income on the remaining capital is four or five times that amount, how do you spend it all?

        1. Cliff

          Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

          How do you spend it all?

          R&D I guess, especially into unfashionable/low profit areas like polio, malaria, condom use. I have so much time for this foundation taking an engineers approach to major problems - where can we get most value for money, not limited by popularity and political posturing. Spend as fast as is needed, make a difference in your lifetime.

          Politics is the only thing stopping the eradication of polio now. That stinks.

          On the other hand, Ballmer, for all his shoutiness, made his money from doing his job at a company he loved. The same company made a lot of other people wealthy and kept others employed. Can't really stick it to him for that.

          1. Don Jefe

            Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

            You don't spend it all. Which is precisely the point with the enormous amount of money that will ultimately be controlled by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

            Everybody laughs, but giving away money in a responsible way is a motherfucker of a thing. It's really, really hard to do. You want to help people (because it's the right thing, the tax deductions don't scale) but you've got two huge areas of concern:

            a): You don't want your money to be subverted and used for things you don't approve of and the best way to do that is by creating or giving to a foundation that's immune to outside pressure; either financial or political. The Board, Executives and Committees are wealthy themselves and get paid as much for what they do, as for what they don't do. Obviously even some wealthy people are very greedy but the foundations are structured in a way that any one group can't do too much damage. Like start a war or put a puppet in a national office, neither of which would be difficult with the money and influence of really large foundations.

            b) You want to be certain the foundation won't tank in a few years or decades. If you're going to give money away you don't want some jackass having all the fun with it seven or eight years after you're dead. Again, foundations with shitloads of money don't have to worry about insolvency and that attracts other big donors.

            A lot of people get their anti-MS panties in a wad with anything Bill Gates does but it's always the people who don't have enough money to give away that do it: 'True charity is anonymous' is one of my favorites. They've mangled Biblical scripture, two comments after a quasi-Atheist rant and have no idea what they're talking about. It's a big reassurance to know your money won't be going to waste, or lost in derivatives trading or some other bullshit.

            Instead of spending tens, or hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating various charities and foundations you can just give it to the foundation that has all of Bill Gates and Warren Buffets money. It takes a lot of the pressure off if you know your seven figure annual donations won't ever end up funding a mercenary invasion of Zimbabwe or Britain. Your money will hang out with other people's money and do good stuff for a very, very long time. It isn't a question of how to spend it all, it's a question of how long you can keep spending.

          2. Charles Manning

            Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

            " I have so much time for this foundation taking an engineers approach to major problems "

            Unfortunatey this approach does not always give the best results. Far too often these solutions don't work because they don't take local conditions and capabilities into account. $1500 toilets, where a $5 spade and a hole in the ground is often a better approach. Or wifi/tablet/gee wizz education solutions where even just $2 on a pencil & paper would be a major step up, not to mention the complete lack of IT infrastructure to suport these efforts.

            I spent 30 years in Africa - most of that in rural or semi-rural areas. I shake my head trying to understand some of the ways that first world engineers think they can solve third world issues with the expertise they gain from watching a couple of documentaries.

        2. picturethis
          Joke

          Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

          re: "how do you spend it all?"

          Brewster's Millions (updated for Billions):

          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088850/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

      2. largefile

        Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Investment#List_of_investments_and_companies

    3. Tom 7

      Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

      Coke habit?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

      He's doing it because the charity tax dodge business is his thing now.

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

        Jesus Fucking Christ. Where do you people get this stuff? I hope it's not someone you trust or someone you're paying.

        The 'tax dodge' is in leaving your wealth as stock and borrowing the money you need. Every so often you convert some shares to pay off the interest on those loans and any taxes owed from the conversion. Which is perfectly legal and not remotely sketchy. It has been that way since day 1.

        Charity donations do not scale. Depending on who you're giving the money to the maximum charitable amount qualifying for deduction is limited to 50% of gross adjusted income without regard to net operating loss carrybacks.

        For private charities like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation the maximum donation amount that qualifies for tax deduction is 30% of your gross adjusted income without regard to net operating loss carrybacks.

        As you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, just know this. If you are donating cash or appreciated property to a charitable foundation it costs you more to transfer those things and pay the taxes on them than you get in tax deductions unless your annual income is in the form of cash, which isn't the case for many executives. You're way out of your depth.

    5. Michael Habel

      Re: Getting rid of it all by 2018?

      According to Reuters, Gates has sold 20 million shares each quarter for most of the last dozen years under a pre-set trading plan.

      Like Rats... and sinking Ships....

  4. IGnatius T Foobar
    FAIL

    Gates Foundation is EVIL

    All comments about how Bill Gates is such a wonderful philanthropist are badly misdirected. Gates philanthropy does not excuse the decades of lying, cheating, stealing, and ruining of other people's lives and businesses that Gates (and Ballmer and others) performed in order to acquire all that money.

    Furthermore, through the foundation, Gates and Microsoft maintain pharmaceutical patent investments, tobacco investments, investments in alcoholic beverages, petroleum investments, investments in experimental and controversial crops, and even investments in news/media. Gates need not even pay tax, though he keeps control of the assets and uses that control to influence private and public policy. Money talks and politicians can in turn be persuaded to buy from Microsoft. This dependence/lock-in cascades down to businesses and homes, creating a revenue stream that would not exist in a free market. Gates is also able to bring public money to himself through energy and public health policy. As Gates has diversified, his corrupting influence has spread to other portions of the economy.

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Gates Foundation is EVIL

      "Gates philanthropy does not excuse the decades of lying, cheating, stealing, and ruining of other people's lives and businesses that Gates (and Ballmer and others) performed in order to acquire all that money."

      Maybe, maybe not. But people change. Ever think that maybe Billy G did? He was evil. There is a distinct possibility that he currently is not.

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: Gates Foundation is EVIL

        Enlighten us Trevor. Are Canadians evil because they manipulate the maple syrup market? How about how they mislabel dimensional lumber headed for disaster relief areas in the States and Mexico. Is that evil? They're defrauding taxpayers and foisting structurally unsound building material on poor people who have no other choice. How about that?

        You have no idea what evil actually is. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you don't. But it's best if you don't talk about things you know absolutely nothing about. Come on with me down to Uruguay and Argentina this autumn. I'll show you what evil is and how it still has a foothold there three decades after their military dictatorships ended. Pop over the Berkley County WV during the fall harvest and watch the police cars come pick up the sick illegal immigrants instead of ambulances. Maybe you can ride along on the bus full of sick people who will be tossed out at Mexican border, just so Canada can have cheaper applesauce.

        You are confusing aggressive business with decrepit ethics and skewed morals. I know you're smarter than that. If you can't see the difference between the two things then something is terribly wrong. What are you going to do if real evil rears its head? How will you even recognize it? It won't be labeled GNU or OSS, you know. Evil will destroy the things you love and you don't get to download a free alternative. Evil will determine you have too much money and too much freedom and will take both away from you and nothing computer related is going to help you.

        Tell me. If shitty software licensing is evil, and you couldn't do anything about that, what are you going to do about real evil? If software has overwhelmed you it's probably best if you don't venture out where things can really hurt you.

      2. Nuke
        Meh

        @Trevor_Pott - Re: Gates Foundation is EVIL

        Wrote :- "people change. Ever think that maybe Billy G did? He was evil. There is a distinct possibility that he currently is not"

        I don't think Gates has changed. He is - and always was - a control freak. Now, in retirement from MS, he is just control-freaking in a different direction.

        As for giving to charity making him "good", what else does a man with $75 billion, and only perhaps 15 more years to live, do with his money? I don't think most people come close to grasping the magnitude of that wealth - and the impracticability of spending it oneself. He could theoretically spend ~$1 million per hour for the rest of his waking life, even ignoring new income. That's a new car about every two minutes, but he would soon run out of different ones to try. He could hire about 6000 escorts in continuous attendence (sorry Melinda), but he would find them impossible to handle (as would any of us).

        What would convince me he had "changed" would be if he first gave back to past MS customers his portion of the money that MS has cheated out of them. Otherwise I just see him as being generous with other people's money.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    people as rich as gates should

    have their money taken away and be made to work for free in burger king

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: people as rich as gates should

      Why? Do you want to pay more for your fast food burger? You don't accumulate wealth because you stand behind the counter and do what people tell you. Quite the opposite actually.

  6. Mikel

    Ballmer for Chairman now

    Why not? Bill doesn't have time for it anymore.

  7. ecofeco Silver badge
    Pirate

    Duty to the shareholders!

    Wait... shouldn't that mean "duty to the shareholder?" As in singular? And maybe appease Wall St. as an afterthought? And the Class B/C stockholders? Phhhtt. Don't make me laugh!

    My point being that when I hear the free market capitalist battle cry of "...duty to make money for the shareholders!", I find that most often, the majority shareholders are ALWAYS the board of directors.

    Which means everyone else gets to suck hind tit. Including your pension, be it private or company. And what's to stop them from running the company into the ground? They walk away with millions no matter the outcome.

    Thanks again for the reminder El Reg.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Duty to the shareholders!

      Class B, or common shares, are what most non institutional investors buy. The difference is that in the event of liquidity, insolvency or being acquired Class B shareholders get their money after everything is sorted, debts are paid and Class A shareholders get their money.

      Most managed funds can't buy Class B shares precisely for that reason. There is very little security in them as their value is tied to the metrics Class B shares have no influence over. It's a bit disingenuous when 'financial news' providers blab about current stock values common shares can swing wildly and Class A shares will remain fairly stable. Obviously, that's not always the case, but it is very common. They'll give the impression that pension funds are having the shit kicked out of them but the pension funds aren't actually tied to the value they're displaying. They'll also show A and B Class shares, without noting which is which and as near as I can figure they do that based on if they've been told to have an upbeat or downbeat outlook. You gotta pay close attention, they're shifty like that.

      The other big difference is that most Class B shares do not have a 1:1 voting ratio and Class A shares do. Depending on the company, the conversion ratio for voting purposes can range from 2:1 to ridiculous things like 100:1, or much, much more. When people buy common shares in a company there are rarely any rights associated with those shares, unless you've got a shitload of them. So they don't get to vote and usually can't get into the shareholder meetings and parties.

      The differences are pretty big, and it's important to know not only what information you're actually being given, but how the company by laws address differences in shares and how any managed funds you've got money in deal with them. Without all that information it's very difficult to be certain if the actions of a major shareholder will matter, at all, to the value of a given fund. It's all quite complex and it's kept that way on purpose. They can give doom and gloom or unicorns and sunshine easier that way :)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like