If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vancouver Sun)   18 months as CEO of a failing company that's going to be sold off for parts is certainly worth $56 million, isn't it?   (vancouversun.com) divider line 43
    More: Sad, BlackBerry Ltd., incentive payments, Siemens AG, Canada Pension Plan, Thorsten Heins, Jim Balsillie, RBC Capital Markets, JPMorgan Chase & Co.  
•       •       •

3394 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Aug 2013 at 1:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-18 01:12:23 AM  
It's OK, no one is going to buy Blackberry.  He won't make anything.
 
2013-08-18 01:30:43 AM  

Lsherm: It's OK, no one is going to buy Blackberry.  He won't make anything.


How is that GED in business working out for you?

/Blackberry has many assets worth cash - at the very least - its patent portfolio
 
2013-08-18 01:32:04 AM  
The board is responsible for this...whatever happened to responsible Board of Directors that had the best interests of the stockholders in mind?
 
2013-08-18 01:38:44 AM  

slayer199: The board is responsible for this...whatever happened to responsible Board of Directors that had the best interests of the stockholders in mind?


When the board members are professional inside traders and sit on almost every board in the industry, they think big picture. They'll burn one of their companies to boost profits for their others.
 
2013-08-18 01:40:42 AM  

gingerjet: Lsherm: It's OK, no one is going to buy Blackberry.  He won't make anything.

How is that GED in business working out for you?

/Blackberry has many assets worth cash - at the very least - its patent portfolio


gingerjet: Lsherm: It's OK, no one is going to buy Blackberry.  He won't make anything.

How is that GED in business working out for you?

/Blackberry has many assets worth cash - at the very least - its patent portfolio


It's all based on their last quarter share price - and that is dropping fast.  Most of their value right now is cash on hand, which last year was 6 billion, but it's even less this year.  His payout isn't based on what Blackberry is worth, it's based on what the share price is.  So how's that GED in business working out for you, asshole?
 
2013-08-18 01:48:55 AM  

slayer199: The board is responsible for this...whatever happened to responsible Board of Directors that had the best interests of the stockholders in mind?



i203.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-18 01:51:26 AM  
I don't even have a GED in business, so could someone explain to me what the CEO of a large corporation does? Like, day-to-day duties?

I get that they are in charge of making certain decisions and whatever, but they do not seem to be held responsible for much of anything. They can do a great job and make a shiat-load of money. Or they can suck ass and make a slightly smaller shiat-load of money.

I guess I'm mostly wondering if it's something I could do. I guarantee you I'd work twice as hard for half the salary and not fark things up nearly as much as some of these dipshiats.
 
2013-08-18 02:07:32 AM  

Lsherm: It's all based on their last quarter share price - and that is dropping fast.


It's going the right way now at least.  FTFA: Shares of BlackBerry have surged 19 per cent in the past week
 
2013-08-18 02:12:26 AM  

doglover: When the board members are professional inside traders and sit on almost every board in the industry, they think big picture. They'll burn one of their companies to boost profits for their others.


Emposter:

Yeah, yeah...I know.  But it's farking frustrating when boards do deals like this...or pay ridiculous salary for someone that runs a company into the ground (some salary yes, but the rest should be stock options based on company performance).  A Board's duty should be to the stockholders...and anyone that still owns Blackberry stock is farked.
 
2013-08-18 02:13:15 AM  
How is it that these guys always get paid due to contracts, but those who do the work at the bottom who have contracts will not? Why do so many of those who support these contracts for CEOs also tend to support forced labor concessions when times are bad? Shouldn't the buck stop with the leader and shouldn't they be the first to lose money if the company fails?
 
2013-08-18 02:21:33 AM  

cybrwzrd: How is it that these guys always get paid due to contracts, but those who do the work at the bottom who have contracts will not? Why do so many of those who support these contracts for CEOs also tend to support forced labor concessions when times are bad? Shouldn't the buck stop with the leader and shouldn't they be the first to lose money if the company fails?


According to every historian, philosopher, economist, and social engineer: Yes. A good leader is the first to make sacrifices and we respect good leaders accordingly.

On the other hand, bad leaders in business make money hand over fist.
 
2013-08-18 02:22:29 AM  

skinnycatullus:  I guarantee you I'd work twice as hard for half the salary and not fark things up nearly as much as some of these dipshiats.


That's my new strategy if I ever have to close the doors of my small business. I won't be sending resumes... I'll be sending bids.

"Do you have a useless shiatsack gobbling down six figures a year? I submit that with a bit of training, I'd do the job better at half the price."

Make their greed work for you. It's a fun little daydream if nothing else...
 
2013-08-18 02:27:00 AM  

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: It's a fun little daydream if nothing else...


And the odds are probably better than playing the Powerball.
 
2013-08-18 02:41:00 AM  

skinnycatullus: could someone explain to me what the CEO of a large corporation does? Like, day-to-day duties?


I think they are like queen ants, they dont actually do much except birth out menial jobs for the drones in the colony which ultimately serves to benefit the royalty.
 
2013-08-18 04:59:48 AM  
Sounds like they know it's going to end in a sale and his compensation is based almost entirely on stock price, i.e., he gets $56M based on the current price.

BBRY is currently worth $5.5B so he might easily make a billion's worth of difference to the stock price - which is what shareholders care about.

Assuming he gets nothing (or close to...) for running into the ground and there is some cap on the upside, this *might* be worth it.

If however it's just cash that he gets no matter what, it's clearly not.
 
2013-08-18 05:30:14 AM  
But could the guy hit major league pitching safely three out of ten times over the course of a summer, he'd be worth every penny.
 
2013-08-18 06:22:14 AM  

doglover: cybrwzrd: How is it that these guys always get paid due to contracts, but those who do the work at the bottom who have contracts will not? Why do so many of those who support these contracts for CEOs also tend to support forced labor concessions when times are bad? Shouldn't the buck stop with the leader and shouldn't they be the first to lose money if the company fails?

According to every historian, philosopher, economist, and social engineer: Yes. A good leader is the first to make sacrifices and we respect good leaders accordingly.

On the other hand, bad leaders in business make money hand over fist.


It's like the Rules of Acquisition was an awesome addition to Star Trek mythos and the overall character of the Ferengi race but when applied to real life, living by the Rules would render one a bitter lonely mother fark who kills the interest of any to be their friends. Like (Fark) libertarians.
 
2013-08-18 06:31:35 AM  

cybrwzrd: How is it that these guys always get paid due to contracts, but those who do the work at the bottom who have contracts will not? Why do so many of those who support these contracts for CEOs also tend to support forced labor concessions when times are bad? Shouldn't the buck stop with the leader and shouldn't they be the first to lose money if the company fails?


I know you've asked a rhetorical (sp? I'm too lazy to look it up if it's wrong...) question but I've always thought:

1. The 'top level' CEO that's courted for this stuff is already massively loaded and has no qualms about dragging the company into court over it with a similarly high-priced lawyer. Also, if the company stiffs one CEO on the way out, it'll spook the rest.

2. The plebs below VP level are highly replaceable and, heck, what do you think they'll do with their 45k per-year salary? Hire their own lawyer? HA, all the company has to do is wait for the employee's funds to run out topping up the retainer and the suit is gone.
 
2013-08-18 06:48:22 AM  

doglover: slayer199: The board is responsible for this...whatever happened to responsible Board of Directors that had the best interests of the stockholders in mind?

When the board members are professional inside traders and sit on almost every board in the industry, they think big picture. They'll burn one of their companies to boost profits for their others.


Hello, Richard Anderson.
 
2013-08-18 08:09:30 AM  

skinnycatullus: I don't even have a GED in business, so could someone explain to me what the CEO of a large corporation does? Like, day-to-day duties?

I get that they are in charge of making certain decisions and whatever, but they do not seem to be held responsible for much of anything. They can do a great job and make a shiat-load of money. Or they can suck ass and make a slightly smaller shiat-load of money.

I guess I'm mostly wondering if it's something I could do. I guarantee you I'd work twice as hard for half the salary and not fark things up nearly as much as some of these dipshiats.


The qualifications for CEO are about the board using your resume to excite people into buying the stock. Thats it. So if you can bild up that resume and sell it to the right people, yes you could do the job. Once hired they have no actual duties to speak of, other than continue to generate excitement for the companies stock. Some can do this by their mere presence alone. Note that excitement in the company itself is secondary to keeping the stock price high.
 
2013-08-18 08:13:36 AM  

Lost Thought 00: skinnycatullus: I don't even have a GED in business, so could someone explain to me what the CEO of a large corporation does? Like, day-to-day duties?

I get that they are in charge of making certain decisions and whatever, but they do not seem to be held responsible for much of anything. They can do a great job and make a shiat-load of money. Or they can suck ass and make a slightly smaller shiat-load of money.

I guess I'm mostly wondering if it's something I could do. I guarantee you I'd work twice as hard for half the salary and not fark things up nearly as much as some of these dipshiats.

The qualifications for CEO are about the board using your resume to excite people into buying the stock. Thats it. So if you can bild up that resume and sell it to the right people, yes you could do the job. Once hired they have no actual duties to speak of, other than continue to generate excitement for the companies stock. Some can do this by their mere presence alone. Note that excitement in the company itself is secondary to keeping the stock price high.


And that popularity contest is the driving force behind our stock market.
/just like middleschool all over again.
 
2013-08-18 08:47:47 AM  
It may just be me but after I finish ruining one company and get a large payout for it, I would just go to a low cost area like Belize and retire.  Why bother continuing to work?  With 56 million I can just chill out on the beaches and pursue leisure time activities.
 
2013-08-18 09:28:08 AM  

cybrwzrd: How is it that these guys always get paid due to contracts, but those who do the work at the bottom who have contracts will not? Why do so many of those who support these contracts for CEOs also tend to support forced labor concessions when times are bad? Shouldn't the buck stop with the leader and shouldn't they be the first to lose money if the company fails?


Son, you're sounding an awful lot like one of them progressives. You'd better be kidding, because only through absolute servile behavior to business leaders can America remain great. Something, something, invisible hand.

Lets put it this way: They're better than you. They have money and power. You don't deserve either, so shut up and get to work.
 
2013-08-18 10:14:05 AM  

skinnycatullus: I don't even have a GED in business, so could someone explain to me what the CEO of a large corporation does? Like, day-to-day duties?

I get that they are in charge of making certain decisions and whatever, but they do not seem to be held responsible for much of anything. They can do a great job and make a shiat-load of money. Or they can suck ass and make a slightly smaller shiat-load of money.

I guess I'm mostly wondering if it's something I could do. I guarantee you I'd work twice as hard for half the salary and not fark things up nearly as much as some of these dipshiats.


At the end of the day, the CEO's job is to increase the value of the company.  Good CEO's do that by:

- Setting the overall vision / business plan of the company
- Selling the business plan to investors, shareholders, and the board
- Building a solid leadership team to execute the business plan
- Explaining corporate actions in the context of the business plan
- Adjusting any and all of the above due to adversity

You can measure whether a CEO is doing a good job by asking yourself the following questions:

- Before the CEO was brought on, what was the expected value of the company today?
- What is the actual value of the company today?

Sometimes this approach results in non-obvious results.   The value of a company may increases, but the CEO could still be doing a bad job as they aren't fully taking advantage of the opportunities in front of them.  The value of a company may decreases, but the CEO may still be doing a good job as they are managing an expected decline better than anticipated.

If this is something you think you could do, there is an easy way to become a CEO: start your own company, lay out a business plan, drum up investment, and then start building your team.
 
2013-08-18 10:18:14 AM  

Gergesa: It may just be me but after I finish ruining one company and get a large payout for it, I would just go to a low cost area like Belize and retire.  Why bother continuing to work?  With 56 million I can just chill out on the beaches and pursue leisure time activities.


Sociopaths don't work that way.

/no, I'm not implying that all CEOs are sociopaths
//I'm flat out saying it.
 
2013-08-18 10:45:39 AM  
Blackberry was simply Too Canadian to compete in a global market.
 
2013-08-18 11:17:48 AM  

Gergesa: It may just be me but after I finish ruining one company and get a large payout for it, I would just go to a low cost area like Belize and retire.  Why bother continuing to work?  With 56 million I can just chill out on the beaches and pursue leisure time activities.




As an ex-CEO you could be on the boards of 3-4 companies and attend all the meetings via phone.
 
2013-08-18 11:55:53 AM  
www.vancouversun.com

That's easily the most punchable face I've seen all week.
 
2013-08-18 11:59:34 AM  

TomD9938: But could the guy hit major league pitching safely three out of ten times over the course of a summer, he'd be worth every penny.


Absoutely. Because that's a saleable commodity with proven value.
 
2013-08-18 12:33:10 PM  
It's really fitting that Blackberry was the majority sponsor of the Toronto Blue Jays this season. I doubt they will be by next year.
 
2013-08-18 12:46:44 PM  
Could have sworn this would be about Yahoo!

Don't know much about BB, but I believe they  have their own OS, would it really hurt them to make some low-end Android devices just to supplement their higher end BB devices with their own OS or look into WebOS?
 
2013-08-18 02:33:26 PM  

OhioUGrad: Don't know much about BB, but I believe they have their own OS, would it really hurt them to make some low-end Android devices just to supplement their higher end BB devices with their own OS or look into WebOS?


Don't know much about smartphones, but in general with mass produced items, your cost is the amortized R&D per unit plus the manufacturing cost. I'd guess the R&D to produce a smartphone (even on a well defined platform like Android) isn't cheap.  If you're not producing anywhere near the volume of your competitors, then you cannot hope to compete on price - you have fewer units to recoup the R&D from, so you need to charge a lot more per unit.

Makes a handy barrier to entry to keep out upstarts - you have to either go big, or go home.
 
2013-08-18 02:46:26 PM  

gingerjet: Lsherm: It's OK, no one is going to buy Blackberry.  He won't make anything.

How is that GED in business working out for you?

/Blackberry has many assets worth cash - at the very least - its patent portfolio


FTFA: "BlackBerry bankers JPMorgan Chase & Co. and RBC Capital Markets quietly contacted possible bidders for almost a year and found little interest in acquiring the company, said two people familiar with those discussions."
Maybe if you had a GED in basic literacy you wouldn't need to have this pointed out to you.
 
2013-08-18 02:54:13 PM  
What, he couldnt figure out how to blame Unions?

Oh, Canadian.

Carry On....
 
2013-08-18 03:19:46 PM  

MisterRonbo: OhioUGrad: Don't know much about BB, but I believe they have their own OS, would it really hurt them to make some low-end Android devices just to supplement their higher end BB devices with their own OS or look into WebOS?

Don't know much about smartphones, but in general with mass produced items, your cost is the amortized R&D per unit plus the manufacturing cost. I'd guess the R&D to produce a smartphone (even on a well defined platform like Android) isn't cheap.  If you're not producing anywhere near the volume of your competitors, then you cannot hope to compete on price - you have fewer units to recoup the R&D from, so you need to charge a lot more per unit.

Makes a handy barrier to entry to keep out upstarts - you have to either go big, or go home.


I don't know much about their production in general, but I would think that keeping their phones the same but just switching the OS shouldn't be that big of a deal. *however, you obviously cannot buy a PC and run a legitimate copy of a MAC OS on it and visa versa, so their infrastructure may be wired that way*. Oh well, I don't run the company, don't have a BB or even a smartphone, and have no BB stock, and they don't pay me for my opinion ha.
 
2013-08-18 05:24:13 PM  
SomeAmerican:


If this is something you think you could do, there is an easy way to become a CEO: start your own company, lay out a business plan, drum up investment, and then start building your team.

That is not how most people become CEO's of existing corporations though. Most become CEO's because their parents were also rich influential people with connections, who could afford buying their kids into elite business schools where they could make more connections. All of this ensuring they enter companies on a leadership track and through connection they then move up from one company to another. Of course, you need to be able to have some skills , but  the majority of business and political leaders have their position because they were born in to it.

Most top-ceo's got there because in addition to a network and some business skills, they have strong social and political skills combined with a healthy dosis of greed and a distinct lack of morals enabling them to backstab their competitors.
 
2013-08-18 08:00:18 PM  

OhioUGrad: I don't know much about their production in general, but I would think that keeping their phones the same but just switching the OS shouldn't be that big of a deal. *however, you obviously cannot buy a PC and run a legitimate copy of a MAC OS on it and visa versa, so their infrastructure may be wired that way*. Oh well, I don't run the company, don't have a BB or even a smartphone, and have no BB stock, and they don't pay me for my opinion ha.


Blackberry phones run on RIM's (or Blackberry's) own infrastructure, so all data flows through a Blackberry data center.  Or at least it used to.  The reason it took so long for them to change the OS on their phones is because the back-end infrastructure was designed with the assumption that one person would only have one device on the RIM network.  When they launched the Playbook they couldn't include native email support because the back-end might be tied to a BB user with a phone, which prevented them from being associated with a Playbook.

Or, at least, that's what I vaguely remember from a conference with BB back in 2010.
 
2013-08-18 08:28:43 PM  
Oh, BlackBerry, the company that took bunch of people who could barely write Java and then said, "here, take this C++ thing, it's not too bad, you'll figure it out!" and then let it become the wild west while people decided "good C++" means things like: don't use exceptions; Boost is bloated and no good; etc.
 
2013-08-18 09:21:00 PM  

Lsherm: OhioUGrad: I don't know much about their production in general, but I would think that keeping their phones the same but just switching the OS shouldn't be that big of a deal. *however, you obviously cannot buy a PC and run a legitimate copy of a MAC OS on it and visa versa, so their infrastructure may be wired that way*. Oh well, I don't run the company, don't have a BB or even a smartphone, and have no BB stock, and they don't pay me for my opinion ha.

Blackberry phones run on RIM's (or Blackberry's) own infrastructure, so all data flows through a Blackberry data center.  Or at least it used to.  The reason it took so long for them to change the OS on their phones is because the back-end infrastructure was designed with the assumption that one person would only have one device on the RIM network.  When they launched the Playbook they couldn't include native email support because the back-end might be tied to a BB user with a phone, which prevented them from being associated with a Playbook.

Or, at least, that's what I vaguely remember from a conference with BB back in 2010.


Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
 
2013-08-19 12:16:40 AM  

Lsherm: OhioUGrad: I don't know much about their production in general, but I would think that keeping their phones the same but just switching the OS shouldn't be that big of a deal. *however, you obviously cannot buy a PC and run a legitimate copy of a MAC OS on it and visa versa, so their infrastructure may be wired that way*. Oh well, I don't run the company, don't have a BB or even a smartphone, and have no BB stock, and they don't pay me for my opinion ha.

Blackberry phones run on RIM's (or Blackberry's) own infrastructure, so all data flows through a Blackberry data center.  Or at least it used to.  The reason it took so long for them to change the OS on their phones is because the back-end infrastructure was designed with the assumption that one person would only have one device on the RIM network.  When they launched the Playbook they couldn't include native email support because the back-end might be tied to a BB user with a phone, which prevented them from being associated with a Playbook.

Or, at least, that's what I vaguely remember from a conference with BB back in 2010.


The new RIM phones do not use the same ole Enterprise network that they built before. All of the new ones use ActiveSync just like iPhones and Android devices.
 
2013-08-19 01:05:01 AM  

TheGhostofFarkPast: Lsherm: OhioUGrad: I don't know much about their production in general, but I would think that keeping their phones the same but just switching the OS shouldn't be that big of a deal. *however, you obviously cannot buy a PC and run a legitimate copy of a MAC OS on it and visa versa, so their infrastructure may be wired that way*. Oh well, I don't run the company, don't have a BB or even a smartphone, and have no BB stock, and they don't pay me for my opinion ha.

Blackberry phones run on RIM's (or Blackberry's) own infrastructure, so all data flows through a Blackberry data center.  Or at least it used to.  The reason it took so long for them to change the OS on their phones is because the back-end infrastructure was designed with the assumption that one person would only have one device on the RIM network.  When they launched the Playbook they couldn't include native email support because the back-end might be tied to a BB user with a phone, which prevented them from being associated with a Playbook.

Or, at least, that's what I vaguely remember from a conference with BB back in 2010.

The new RIM phones do not use the same ole Enterprise network that they built before. All of the new ones use ActiveSync just like iPhones and Android devices.


Activesync is just a protocol for syncing, it's not the actual network a phone uses for syncing.  I don't know that the new phones are off the BB infrastructure altogether.  They had some proprietary compression algorithms that carriers paid for on each phone in the past.
 
2013-08-19 07:42:30 AM  
so no more rim jobs for him?  for 56 million I'm pretty sure he could pay 112 hookers to give him rim jobs all at the same time.
 
2013-08-19 12:35:54 PM  

Riche: [www.vancouversun.com image 442x479]

That's easily the most punchable face I've seen all week.


Yeah, I love these execs and their 'fark all y'all, I got mine' look.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report