Thread regarding IBM layoffs

When I was part of SWG back in the mid-2000s, one of my teammates decided to reverse engineer one of the larger deals that we'd closed and just how many people at IBM 'got paid' on it. The number was astounding; something in excess of 20 people when the reality was that our team of 5 did ALL of the work. So much for "what gets paid is what gets done" ... you can literally be a worthless middle management parasite at IBM and make a lot of money off the backs of the plebes ... kind of like what we have now with our government. Even back then it had me wondering how that was an equitable and sustainable business model. It was around this time I seem to recall the stock topped out around $212 or so under the guidance of "Super" Sammy P who then handed the reins over to "The Forehead" Ginny R

Because it's run by unconscionable, greedy, soulless a$$h0les who have no clue how to be real managers and are void of any leadership capabilities.

When was the last time IBM developed an actual new SW product that wasn't an acquisition or rebranding of existing product? Websphere in the late 90s? And before that MQ in the early 90s? The last 25 years have been nothing but Marketing/PR stunts, acquisitions and divestitures, layoffs, new lipstick on old pigs, and constant financial engineering.

Funnily enough, the bots in Asia have not understood the mood of the above topic and haven't stop their frenzy of down voting. I say Asia because the timing of down voting's is quite telling.

To become as successful as GE, IBM will need to start paying attention to GE's good habits in R&D and product development. (As opposed to just paying attention to GE's bad habits in financial engineering.) If IBM is to employ hundreds of thousands of employees, then it needs a diverse and robust line of offerings that provides enough revenue to employ all those people. This means researching, developing and marketing new products and services that customers want to buy.

In its current form, IBM is a company that sells expensive hardware and software to select enterprise customers. It's a viable business model, but it can be and should be so much more. Get to work and stop being a one-hit wonder...mainframes have been great for many decades, but start working on something new. Buying other companies won't do it either...the growth must be internal, or it doesn't work.

I disagree that "IBM will go the way of GE". If it actually followed in GE's footsteps, that would be an incredible story. IBM's long-term trajectory is actually the reverse of GE, even though it is following GE's worst habits.

GE has a LOT of faults, including the endless financial reporting issues. However, it also has a bunch of really, really strong product lines that have been very successful over time. Aircraft engines, power systems (gas, hydro, nuclear), renewable energy, even healthcare (which was just spun off). CAT scan and MRI machines, pharmaceuticals, ultrasound machines, you name it. Lots and lots and lots of great products that you see all around you in everyday life.

What does IBM have? Mainframes and enterprise software products. Good stuff, in their own market segments. But how many customers these days are buying new mainframes? How many customers have long-term transition plans to get off mainframes? (Answer: Just about every IBM customer has a long-term plan to discontinue mainframe purchases and use at some point, when an alternative presents itself.)

So what does IBM do? They buy more businesses, fire the staff and play numbers games. That's it. Sure, they learned how to cook the books from Welch and Immelt, but they don't have the vast amounts of corporate innovations and customer good will that GE has to work with. So sadly, no, IBM will not go the way of GE. It's too bad.

Hello stockholder.
IBM has been sued for discrimination.
In those lawsuits the manager is deposed.
IBM has in some form stated all decisions for employee action is a decision of the manager.
Now you tell us it is from a business model.
Giving false information in a deposition is a violation of the law, perjury.
A deposition is used as evidence and tampering with evidence in a government process is a serious offense.
Making money is fine, just do so without violating the law when challenged in court regarding motives behind the "course if business".
I'm certain employees prefer to have their wage frozen than to keep getting increases just so they are priced out of a job for being salaried.
Full disclosure in the contract is essential
If you take this wage increase it may subject you to future resource action should the company need to cut costs.

About simple finance : buying back your own shares for over $150 billion at market price of around 150$ each when it is valued less than 20$ in your balance sheet is called "burning of assets". Additionally it conveys the message that you have no faith in the Return On Investment of your business, among other things.

IBM has to offshore, RA salaried workers cause they stop being innovative, and keeping up with new technologies. While companies Google, Microsoft, AWS were developing their cloud environments IBM CEO then Sam Palmisano said cloud won't take off. Then Ginni came along picked up few buzz words to throw around spending billions to buy companies to play catch up. That is a big reason for RA older salaried workers, need to pay for those acquisitions. And look what happened to those acquisitions. Softlayer ? Then AK comes along buying more companies. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree

IBM will go the way of GE: a former industrial powerhouse ruined by the relentless drive to report increasing revenues demanded by Wall Street’s relentless quarterly reporting cycle.

One of GE’s sins was to “disturb” exiting contracts in order to sell a new one and report the new revenue. The problem was that the new products were discounted heavily in order to book the new deal. But the numbers looked good for the Street (but don’t look too close).

Same thing at IBM.

The drive to “hit the numbers” along with the threat of losing one’s job if management doesn’t is responsible for this. Moreover, if one figures that they not going to be around for that long anyway they might as well pull out the stops to do what they can to report any kind of new revenue. Senior management encourages this because it flows through to their executive incentives e.g. options. The underlying mentality is to grab what you can now.

Regarding costs, yes, they have to be minimized. Lopping heads is a no-brainer, as is slashing R&D, which represents a risky bet on some uncertain future. The phrase “eating the seed corn” comes to mind.

As for the share price, if the revenue does fall short, there are always share buybacks to keep the price up. One has to keep the shareholders and the Street happy. But they’ll eventually figure you out.

So yes, it’s all about the finance and the profit. Just as it was at GE.