[kb5zht]

rim shareholders resolution

I warned everybody it was coming...

That news story can be found all over the net.

Rim shareholders have seen the value of their investment drop and drop and drop... watching Lazaridis and Ballsillie play the fiddle while rim burned.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[kill_9]

According to the Globe Mail article, " small investor in Research In Motion Ltd. (RIM-T28.23-0.91-3.12%) is anticipating big support for a shareholder resolution calling on the BlackBerry maker to split the jobs of CEO and chairman."

Read carefully... a small investor in Research In Motion Ltd. While I would not object to the separation of these two actors from co-CEO status to perhaps one serving as CEO and the other serving as President, the call by the lone investor seems suspect and probably driven by simple greed - his own - than anything else. Personally, I am surprised RIM weathered the economic downturn to the point the company was expanding during the turmoil. Now as market demand for tablets and smartphones has shifted a bit faster than RIM had anticipated it seems everyone wants the co-CEOs heads on a platter. I'd settle for them sitting at opposite ends of the banquet table instead of both trying to seat at the "head of the table." Grow up! Research In Motion will come out of this turmoil as it realigns is product offerings and reorganizes some of its less necessary personnel.

[shlammed]

According to the Globe Mail article, " small investor in Research In Motion Ltd. (RIM-T28.23-0.91-3.12%) is anticipating big support for a shareholder resolution calling on the BlackBerry maker to split the jobs of CEO and chairman."

Read carefully... a small investor in Research In Motion Ltd. While I would not object to the separation of these two actors from co-CEO status to perhaps one serving as CEO and the other serving as President, the call by the lone investor seems suspect and probably driven by simple greed - his own - than anything else. Personally, I am surprised RIM weathered the economic downturn to the point the company was expanding during the turmoil. Now as market demand for tablets and smartphones has shifted a bit faster than RIM had anticipated it seems everyone wants the co-CEOs heads on a platter. I'd settle for them sitting at opposite ends of the banquet table instead of both trying to seat at the "head of the table." Grow up! Research In Motion will come out of this turmoil as it realigns is product offerings and reorganizes some of its less necessary personnel.

They already do though. Jim is the business/finance guy. Mike is the R&D/physics/tech guy.

[kb5zht]

According to the Globe Mail article, " small investor in Research In Motion Ltd. (RIM-T28.23-0.91-3.12%) is anticipating big support for a shareholder resolution calling on the BlackBerry maker to split the jobs of CEO and chairman."

Read carefully... a small investor in Research In Motion Ltd. While I would not object to the separation of these two actors from co-CEO status to perhaps one serving as CEO and the other serving as President, the call by the lone investor seems suspect and probably driven by simple greed - his own - than anything else. Personally, I am surprised RIM weathered the economic downturn to the point the company was expanding during the turmoil. Now as market demand for tablets and smartphones has shifted a bit faster than RIM had anticipated it seems everyone wants the co-CEOs heads on a platter. I'd settle for them sitting at opposite ends of the banquet table instead of both trying to seat at the "head of the table." Grow up! Research In Motion will come out of this turmoil as it realigns is product offerings and reorganizes some of its less necessary personnel.

The resolution is expected to pass.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[nycspaces.]

They already do though. Jim is the business/finance guy. Mike is the R&D/physics/tech guy.

This is explains it - they both are failing to grasp their roles.

[BoldtotheMax]

Time tells all. Hopeful for a better RIM in the future, rather jim or Mike are still there is no matter as long as we start to see an upswing.

Sometimes change is good, sometimes it isn't. All I know is all the bad publicity is not a good thing. Something needs to be done and done soon....

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[sg8330]

about time.

[sleepngbear]

Time tells all. Hopeful for a better RIM in the future, rather jim or Mike are still there is no matter as long as we start to see an upswing.

Sometimes change is good, sometimes it isn't. All I know is all the bad publicity is not a good thing. Something needs to be done and done soon....

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

All true. They obviously made some big missteps a few years ago - which itself concerns me, because you'd hope that two guys at the helm would prevent such things from occurring, but that's another story. Fact is, they have made/are making steps to correct things, and I think that even while the stock price has tumbled, this is recognized be analysts and stockholders and is why there hasn't been a more widespread call for their heads. As for the call to split the roles, they think they have 50% support for it, and of course the guy pushing for it is going to say there's a lot of support for it. But it's far from a foregone conclusion, and nobody knows for sure until they actually put it to a vote.

Personally, I don't think these guys need to go, but I do think that executive leadership and board leadership and membership need to be diversified. This article (4 Things That Could Double Research In Motion's Stock Price - Seeking Alpha) suggests some possible additions to RIM's board (see 4. Bold partnerships to broaden their appeal), among other good suggestions. Of course this same article earlier suggests a management change, but I think at this point that might be a little too drastic. They should at least allow some time to see how the newest devices about to drop perform before making any rash decisions just for the sake of change, when the needed changes may in fact have already been made.

[Charlieo132]

I'll admit that i did vote for the split. My hope is they both still hold the co CEO roles as it keeps the company focused on the roles they are good at. Would like to see an outside chairman come in and hold the CEO's accountable and drive them to get this company back on track. Meeting deadlines they provide and marketing to a consumer has been weak points that hopefully a new chairman would help address.

[johnenglish]

Unless I'm misktaken Jim and Mike have preferred shares with super voting rights. Even though they own a minority strake in the company they easily out vote all the other shareholders combined since each of their shares gives them something like 10 or 20 votes compared to the regular "one vote per share" policy of regular shares. If that's the case then shareholders can present any plans they want. If Mike and Jim don't like it then they'll just it down.

[sleepngbear]

Unless I'm misktaken Jim and Mike have preferred shares with super voting rights. Even though they own a minority strake in the company they easily out vote all the other shareholders combined since each of their shares gives them something like 10 or 20 votes compared to the regular "one vote per share" policy of regular shares. If that's the case then shareholders can present any plans they want. If Mike and Jim don't like it then they'll just it down.

If that's true, depending on how many other shareholders are in favor of a split, they still run the risk of bucking a numeric majority, some of whom might bail if they really don't like how things go. Again, it just depends on how the vote goes. Not that the kind of split they're talking about is necessarily a bad thing.

[stubbornswiss]

Cunfucius say "Too many cooks spoil the broth".

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[kb5zht]

stubbornswiss- nice quote.

There have been many nay-sayers regarding my post... desperate fan bois i imagine who are seeing the waters rise and looking for anything to stand on have read "a small investor" and wiped the sweat off their brow and said "whew!"

Well they havent read this.

That pop u just heard was their bubble.

Look, i own rim stock and i defend it by saying i have faith in the shareholders owning the company, not those two arrogant tools running the show. Collectively they own 10% of the stock, you know they will vote against the resolution and so be it.
t
However, read that article and you will see the political reality taking shape. Even if the resolution doesnt pass, the very fact that this happened is a good sign that the companie's owners are getting fed up. Enough with the blind loyalty to the two pilots as they plunge the aircraft straight into the ground. When will you guys wake up?

I figured the stock bottomed out at around 45, an insanely low 7 times earnings. Shares continued to plunge to 28 today... 5.7 times earnings! And as you have read recently, Lazaridis and Balsillie have seen themselves drop from billionaire to millionaire status... Yea being a millionaire is great but this is the final sign to me that those two nimrods are so fare removed from the reality of the situation that they just dont get it. Most people- um, like rim shareholders- really get upset at seeing their financial holdings plummet 60%. Imagine your salary, bank account and all your assets diminishing by almost. Three-quarters, and the fault mostly falling on the arrogance and complacency of two men.... who continue to show a lack of interest in doing what everybody knows they need to do to change course... to pull back on the stick and bring the plane up out of the nose dive?

One final thought to those about to throw the now tired phrase "transition period" and sheep's bleat of "new devices are on the way"..... The market has lost faith over the last couple of years that B and L are serious about all that, when the only reality they see is "delay"...

...while the competitors are saying "ta-da! look at what we have, for sale, right now!"

i even see a shocking majority of crackberry visitors have voted "yes" in the poll.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[_StephenBB81]

Cunfucius say "Too many cooks spoil the broth".

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Problem with this quote is does it mean having 2 CEO's is too many? History would dictate that isn't the case.
Or is the Stockholders trying to get their spoons into how the company is run to extra cooks?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[j-10]

Problem with this quote is does it mean having 2 CEO's is too many? History would dictate that isn't the case.
Or is the Stockholders trying to get their spoons into how the company is run to extra cooks?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I can't name any other company with two CEO's running the show. I think the issue becomes they are missing that single person to give the company one solid, defined direction to go. They could also use someone who has a bit more charisma dealing with the media, and not lose their cool when questions get brought up.

Complement that with them running the board of directors, leaving them with a lot more power and nobody above them to report to.

At the end of the day, I think it will soon make one very interesting case study for college kids to read.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[stubbornswiss]

Problem with this quote is does it mean having 2 CEO's is too many? History would dictate that isn't the case.
Or is the Stockholders trying to get their spoons into how the company is run to extra cooks?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Maybe I should have tweaked the quote to read "Two many cooks spoil the broth".

C'mon, let's face it. You can't have two captains on a ship. Just doesn't work!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[belfastdispatcher]

If it wasn't for Mike or Jim there would be no Rim and no Blackberry, cut them some slack and be more apreciative. It's amazing how quick people are looking for somebody to blame.

No one cam guarantee your stocks will keep going up, or your house price will keep going up, or your horse of choice will win etc

For one company to win another has to lose.

Mike and Jim has made a lot of people a lot of money over the years right?

Live by the sword, dye by the sword, quit crying.

You can keep all your money safe under the matress and you can watch its value drop.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Economist101]

If it wasn't for Mike or Jim there would be no Rim and no Blackberry, cut them some slack and be more apreciative. It's amazing how quick people are looking for somebody to blame.

It's true there would be no RIM without Mike Laziridis, though I'm not sure that RIM would have been worse off if someone other than Jim Balsillie was hired. He's done a great job, but I don't know if he's someone you look at and say "he can't be replaced." I think you'd say that of Mike Laziridis. As for blame, the person(s) at the top of a business is going to get too much credit when the business succeeds and too much blame when it fails. That's just part of being at the top. People aren't "looking for somebody to blame"; they just look at whoever is in charge.

[_StephenBB81]

I can't name any other company with two CEO's running the show. I think the issue becomes they are missing that single person to give the company one solid, defined direction to go. They could also use someone who has a bit more charisma dealing with the media, and not lose their cool when questions get brought up.

Complement that with them running the board of directors, leaving them with a lot more power and nobody above them to report to.

At the end of the day, I think it will soon make one very interesting case study for college kids to read.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

BUT! RIM has has 2 CEO's from the get go, so History says 2 CEO's brought them to their peak, and 2 CEO's have brought them to where they sit now,

saying if they only had 1 CEO this wouldn't have happened is ridiculous because how many company's fail with a single CEO?


I am NOT saying I agree the 2 CEO's is better than 1, or vise versa, I'm just saying that the 2 CEO model DID work, until they shifted their vision to the global market and lost focus on their core Markets.
if ANYTHING the problem was NOT enough management in 2007/08 to ensure they were focusing on both emerging markets and competitive devices in developed nations.

[_StephenBB81]

Maybe I should have tweaked the quote to read "Two many cooks spoil the broth".

C'mon, let's face it. You can't have two captains on a ship. Just doesn't work!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

But you can have 2 admirals in a fleet..

a Ship can only travel in one direction at a time,

a Fleet can be moving in multiple directions with multiple courses

RIM is more like a Fleet than a ship

[howarmat]

stop trying to make good sense derusett! haha

[qbnkelt]

I know! How dare he!!!! We want drama, no cool logic!!!

[j-10]

BUT! RIM has has 2 CEO's from the get go, so History says 2 CEO's brought them to their peak, and 2 CEO's have brought them to where they sit now,

saying if they only had 1 CEO this wouldn't have happened is ridiculous because how many company's fail with a single CEO?


I am NOT saying I agree the 2 CEO's is better than 1, or vise versa, I'm just saying that the 2 CEO model DID work, until they shifted their vision to the global market and lost focus on their core Markets.
if ANYTHING the problem was NOT enough management in 2007/08 to ensure they were focusing on both emerging markets and competitive devices in developed nations.

I agree with you it did work for awhile. They had a virtual monopoly on the smart phone market until 2007/2008, but they became complacent and haven't been able to counter the market.

I think if you had the right person for the job, things could have been drastically different. I have a huge CEO crush on Alan Mulally at Ford. He came in from Boeing, no automobile experience. People called him out on it, and he confidently shut them down by reminding them planes have thousands more parts than cars do, and they have to stay in the air. Then he asked wild questions that nobody could answer, like "why haven't we been able to turn a profit on this model?" Now things are much brighter over there.

I think if you put the right person in, properly read the market, and set a clear diection things might be better. If you have two people that aren't on the same page, that direction might be muddled and lead to a situation where they are slow to react to change.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[_StephenBB81]

I agree with you it did work for awhile. They had a virtual monopoly on the smart phone market until 2007/2008, but they became complacent and haven't been able to counter the market.

I think if you had the right person for the job, things could have been drastically different. I have a huge CEO crush on Alan Mulally at Ford. He came in from Boeing, no automobile experience. People called him out on it, and he confidently shut them down by reminding them planes have thousands more parts than cars do, and they have to stay in the air. Then he asked wild questions that nobody could answer, like "why haven't we been able to turn a profit on this model?" Now things are much brighter over there.

I think if you put the right person in, properly read the market, and set a clear diection things might be better. If you have two people that aren't on the same page, that direction might be muddled and lead to a situation where they are slow to react to change.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I don't disagree, except with you saying they became complacent,
I believe they miss read the market and put to much focus on emerging markets, not paying attention to their own back yard, it wasn't complacent as much as it was too focused on a singular task, which was establishing themselves in 120 some odd countries.

that should have been assigned to a VP not the CEO's the CEO's should have stayed in touch with ALL the markets. using VP's to guide them.

[stubbornswiss]

BUT! RIM has has 2 CEO's from the get go, so History says 2 CEO's brought them to their peak, and 2 CEO's have brought them to where they sit now,

saying if they only had 1 CEO this wouldn't have happened is ridiculous because how many company's fail with a single CEO?


I am NOT saying I agree the 2 CEO's is better than 1, or vise versa, I'm just saying that the 2 CEO model DID work, until they shifted their vision to the global market and lost focus on their core Markets.
if ANYTHING the problem was NOT enough management in 2007/08 to ensure they were focusing on both emerging markets and competitive devices in developed nations.

But remember, 'it is the END that justifies the means'.

Have a good Sunday everyone......