Thread regarding IBM layoffs

IBM outlook remains cloudy at best as new CEO fails to plot the way forward

Since Krishna became CEO in late January, IBM has cut an unspecified yet seemingly large number
of jobs. In the first quarter, IBM took a $728 million charge for workforce rebalancing, according to
its most recent 10Q from late April. In the second quarter, IBM took another $140 million charge
for workforce rebalancing, but did not specify how many jobs were cut or moved to other
businesses as a result. An IBM spokesman said it announced structural actions during its earnings
call in January, to reposition its global services business, and that the charges in the first and
second quarter are part of that same announcement.

IBM ended 2019 with about 352,000 people, and yesterday said it would hire 1,000 paid interns
from inner-city schools, as part of a program to diversify its tech talent. But the spokesman
declined to say how many jobs IBM has cut, adding that IBM only reports its employee population
at the end of the year.

One Wall Street analyst wrote Tuesday that she believes the pandemic may be delaying even more
aggressive moves by Krishna, which she believes are necessary for a complete turnaround.

“Although IBM should fare relatively well through a recession, the pandemic will delay new-CEO
Krishna’s ability to take more aggressive strategic actions to turn around IBM’s business (e.g.,
divestitures, acquisitions, radical restructuring) — in our view, essential to the success of the
turnaround — and in the meantime, the company will continue its slow, difficult decline,” wrote
MoffettNathanson Research analyst Lisa Ellis, in a note. In an email, Ellis estimates IBM’s job cuts
in a range of 5,000 to 10,000, and said that she believes the new CEO needs to do more, such as
potentially splitting up services and/or legacy products, to focus on its higher growth
opportunities.

“We believe that IBM should consider — not saying it is the right answer, but should be seriously
evaluated — breaking up the company, splitting the services businesses apart from products;
potentially separating the growth products (like Red Hat) away from the legacy platforms that are
stable, but declining and can be run for cash,” Ellis said. “As a new CEO in a turnaround situation,
we believe Arvind should — and arguably has a fiduciary duty to — evaluate some more drastic
options.”

Undoubtedly, the worst is yet to come in 2020 and into 2021. And stick the fork in Services & legacy, they're done.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ibm-stock-gains-after-earnings-beat-but-the-really-important-stuff-could-be-doing-better-analyst-says-2020-07-21

by
| 2690 views | | 9 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+164pWxfE

9 replies (most recent on top)

This is an old article, but it’s contents hit home. AK there are lessons to be harvested from this

https://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-corporate-america-history-2016-6

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2cmf+164pWxfE

IBM CEOs have not felt a fiduciary duty in a very long time to anyone but themselves. If they had an actual duty they would be in jail.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1adh+164pWxfE

AK. The street is giving you a thumb’s down on your first 100 days. You need to improve your game Mr Kavanaugh Being accused of being dishonest is not helping your reputation IBM board. You should resign as this problem has lingered for 7 years.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4360029-first-performance-evaluation-of-ibms-new-chief-executive-officer-first-100-days

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1buo+164pWxfE

Interesting that IBM cloud growth of 30% beat Wall Street's expectations, while Microsoft's cloud growth of 47% missed expectations.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ghc+164pWxfE

Hard to plot new course when Ginni is in charge of the board and still pulling all the strings. Let's see what happens after 12/31/2020.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ufb+164pWxfE

I did this what if last quarter, but it’s worth looking at again now that we have another quarter in the rear view mirror

Cloud and cog = 5.7 billion. (Cloud/data, cog apps, TPP). (2.8, 1.2, and 1.7 billion respectively)
GBS = 3.9 billion (app management, GPS, consulting). (1.7, .2, 1.9). Cloud 1.4
GTS = 6.3 billion. (infra/cloud, TSS). (4.8, 1.5). Cloud 2.4
Systems = 1.9 (HW 1.5, OS .4)

We need to make a couple of assumptions from the analyst call. GBS is viewed as the growth driver, TSS is viewed as very profitable but shrinking, Z is boom or bust, Power is dead man walking, and Storage is not growing even though Z had a boomer quarter. GTS is viewed as capital intensive, where as GBS is viewed as labor intensive. IBM stated they were continuing to look at each division for efficiency and where it made sense to invest. From an investment point of view, why invest capital into a stagnant (think non-growth part of GTS)? Again from an investment point of view why pay folks to sit on the bench after “some time period” given that GBS is labor intensive. Lastly why invest in a product (power) shrinking at 30% rates? TSS is a wild card in that it’s shrinking but very profitable. I assume below that IBM keeps it all, but could easily see IBM spinning off Power and low end storage and keeping the vastly profitable Z and high end storage. Here is the swag

IBM wants cloud/cognitive except for non Z TPP. That’s cloud/data 2.8 billion plus cog apps 1.2 Plus .85 TPP

IBM wants consulting and app management under GBS That’s 1.9 and 1.7 respectively

IBM wants anything cloud related under GTS and TSS due to profit Or 2.4 and 1.5 billion

Lastly Systems is a cost of doing business but most likely only for Z and it’s storage (approx 66% of revenue steam or 1.3 billion

IBM keeps 5.05 cog, 3.6 under GBS, 3.9 under GTS, and 1.3 under systems = 13.85

IBM dumps 1/2 of TPP .85, .2 for GPS, 2.4 for non-cloud services under GTS, and .6 for power and storage = 4.05 Or a 23% shrink from today give or take

Assuming a 4th q skew of 1.3 of 2nd that results in an IBM of 59.5 billion
IBM’s non-growth element = 16.2
TSS is the wild card and could move the numbers .5 billion

If I were in IBM Exec management this is where I would be heading for a restructure

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bva+164pWxfE

look at the earnings report and see how well systems outperforms services and how profitable systems is still to the business...enough said

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @uoa+164pWxfE

How does cutting thousands of jobs create almost a billion dollars of cost?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @uqx+164pWxfE

If you sell off Services and "Legacy Products" there's far less left ("Growth Products") than these analysts think. Red Hat was a $3.4B company when acquired. Cloud and AI (the real stuff, not the re-labeling of the legacy stuff) has never been more than a few billion. IBM would be a $10B company. Maybe that's the right approach, who knows. But these analysts are underestimating what % of IBM is "Services and legacy products".

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dso+164pWxfE

Post a reply

: