Days since IBM last reported revenue growth: About 810 IBM revenues have overall declined, year on year, for the ninth quarter in a row as the company struggles to adjust to a cruel world increasingly led by lower-cost competitors. The venerable tech company reported second quarter of 2014 financials on Thursday. Revenues for the period were $24.4bn, down two per cent on the $24. …
Competing on price when quality *was* your defining attribute, and when other providers are still capable of undercutting the price, has lead to a barely skilled technical outsourcing resource pool that is chronically short staffed. Customers who thought they were spending a little more to buy top shelf service are disappointed, and customers only focused on the bottom line were never potential IBM clients anyway. Constant focus on short term quarterly results has undermined long term customer commitment.
Sorry this is anonymous but we're not allowed to say such things.
They, like all of the American big companies who got used to no real competition through most of the last century, are dinosaurs at best, but mostly parasites day to day.
Name one American Fortune 500 company that actually offers anything of value to the average person besides a job. Usually a not a very secure one at that.
is untouched. Yep, still drones galore around the PHBs insulating them from the Real World. I am surprised that IBM had any new customers. But most big US derived multinationals are the same. The only question is when will the implosion come across the USSA when the Real World imposes itself in a way that can't be ignored by professional brown noser protected aristocrats. Feel sorry for those ho did their best to be rewarded with more overwork and a pay cut.
Demand their pound of flesh from IBM.
The bigger issue from my perspective as a shareholder is that the board's incentive scheme for the directors is focussed solely on increasing the dividend to shareholders. This means that the directors don't care about whether the company grows in financial terms only whether they can generate sufficient free cash to pay the shareholders and earn themselves huge buckets of dollars.
I think that this focus on returns to shareholders is driven by the directors and has nothing to do with the demands of Wall St. IBM's directors are in this business for one purpose alone, to make as much money as they personally can at the expense of the staff and the company.
I am ex IBM and I still hold a few shares. I was proud to join and sad to leave of my own accord.
Any company that jeopardises it's brand will pay in the long term.
The question now is why is IBM a better supplier than another?
Profits are only made by providing what the CUSTOMER wants at a price they can afford.
The customer wants reliability, service, honesty, performance and they want it now.
The cash flow vs. debt shows some inclination to finance share buyback with debt instead of free cash flow.
This is not necessarily a bad thing with just about everyone willing loan at essentially negative interest rates. When people are throwing money away like that, it is a potentially good plan to take their voluntarily offered fleece. (you know there is too much money sloshing around when investors are willing to accept low interest on new tranches of bonds from still bankrupt Greece)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
