3 Comments

Summary:

InfoWorld reports that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer each received total compensation of $901,667 in Microsoft Corp.’s 2004 fiscal year, up 4.4 percent from $863,447 one year ago. Why did they get the raises? They clearly did not merit it? The net income from “continuing operations” […]

InfoWorld reports that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer each received total compensation of $901,667 in Microsoft Corp.’s 2004 fiscal year, up 4.4 percent from $863,447 one year ago. Why did they get the raises? They clearly did not merit it? The net income from “continuing operations” that is excluding all the cash they generate from their massive cash hoard and true measure of Microsoft’s corporate cojones was down 18% for the same time frame – $9.9.993 billion in fiscal 2003 versus $8.168 billion in fiscal 2004. ballmer_gates.jpgThe stock price was essentially flat during the period – fluctuating between $26 and $28 a share. They have been range bound since. Only the revenues were up by about $4.5 billion to $36.84 billion for the period. The company lost market share in server space to Linux and more competitive threats are looming. There are product delays of all sorts. And the life members of “world’s billionaire club” get a raise. Not to be harsh, but in any other industry….oh I don’t know like consumer durables or telecom, if this was the report card for the head honchos, the CEO and his cronies would be by now playing golf in Bahamas… I am just saying, not that there is anything wrong with Bill and Steve getting more dollars.

By Om Malik

You're subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

Related stories

  1. Douglass Turner Tuesday, September 21, 2004

    Om,

    Dude. What the hell are you smokin’? These guys are each getting paid less then 1 million dollars. They have got to be some of the lowest compensated CEOs in the entire Fortune 500. You should be applauding them fella.

    -Douglass Turner

    Share
  2. well when things were rough at cisco and apple, john chambers and steve jobs set an example by taking a dollar-a-year for compensation. i think its about being more accouuntable to the shareholders

    Share
  3. It’s not like they need the money. I think the point is if you don’t improve the company, don’t get a raise. Jobs still makes $1 a year in non-performance (read: stock) pay.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post