So now Nokia's decision to replace Symbian has nothing to do with a careful analysis of the situation, but everything to do with keeping $3 million dollars worth of Microsoft stock on the up for 1 man?
I have not seen 1 insightful post since this FUD has been spreading. It's amazing how much petty hatred is out there towards Microsoft...
I don't even think this has anything to do with Microsoft itself, but rather with people's psychological need to create conspiracies, to see themselves as the little guy fighting the big guy, and pretend that they have knowledge / can see what other's can't.
And by the way, the ownership table that is linked to isn't even CORRECT. Not even remotely.
Sinofsky isn't listed, and just 2 weeks ago he reported 737,000 shares, which would make him #4 on that list. [1]
Ray Ozzie has just under 1 million shares, and again he's not listed. [2]
The way you assemble these kinds of tables is by mining the SEC filing Form 4, "Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership of Securities". But you have to include every Form 4 for your data to be at all accurate.
So already we can see that Elop is #9, and that's just by me guessing two people who seemed conspicuously absent. There could be dozens of others. And don't forget that non-executives don't have to report their shares. I would bet a few grands that there are senior developers who have been working at Microsoft for 15 or 20 years who own more than $3M in stock.
In fact, I just cast my first ever "flag" vote on HN. (With gusto, I might add.) This doesn't deserve the #1 slot.
Seriously? This is a clear case of conflict of interest. The scary thing is that you might be right about
'So now Nokia's decision to replace Symbian has nothing to do with a careful analysis of the situation, but everything to do with keeping $3 million dollars worth of Microsoft stock on the up for 1 man'
Pardon for the comment. I will likely be voted out of existence. Regardless, before that happens and you can see this comment ... is there a contingent gaming the scores? Perhaps paid trollers? How did this get 48 points? A post that's basicly saying "criticism of Microsoft is petty" getting cheered like it's the Gettysburg address? I smell something fishy going on.
petty hatred? Microsoft made a lot of enemies bullying their way to the top. Much of the enmity and fear is well placed. Microsoft acted like Walmart for 15 years destroying their competition and their suppliers. Many remember getting run out of business by these guys. It's not petty, it's payback.
Tallqvist told YLE that Elop will divest all of his Microsoft shares as soon as security exchange regulations and Nokia's own internal directives allow. Elop intends to purchase Nokia shares as soon as it is legally possible.
As an executive at MS who announced his role at Nokia while at MS, it was all but impossible to liquidate quickly, given all the disclosure that needs to happen to avoid insider trading issues.
There's no conspiracy or conflict of interest since all of his MS shares will be gone before any actual work product from the alliance has occurred.
Given that he has been a Microsoft veteran, it's hardly surprising that (1) he's a big shareholder, and (2) whatever decision he makes as Nokia chief, his position as one of the largest individual shareholders of Microsoft will come into scrutiny.
I think it's naive to say that he chose to go down the Microsoft route because he is one of its largest individual shareholders. It is equally as likely that Elop would have made his decision regardless of his $MSFT stock ownership. A little too much FUD for me in this case.
Oh come on, no sane person is arguing that Elop went the Microsoft route _because_ he's a big shareholder. The reason people bring up the issue of the stock he owns is to point out that not only his decisions at Nokia are mostly consequence free for him personally, but he also stands to benefit handsomely form this decision that many argue is very bad for Nokia and very good for Microsoft.
The scrutiny in this case comes directly from the fact that Elop's actions at Nokia are very much Microsoft centric, and arguably Microsoft serving.
This was a news item on Friday in Finland. Nokia says that Elop wasn't allowed to sell all his Microsoft holdings or buy Nokia because of insider trading laws.
Do we really need a deep conspiracy theory angle to explain the deprecation of a horribly lagging OS (Symbian) and a next-gen OS whose development was severely lagging even behind WP7?
The board brought on Elop to do precisely what he did - any ire should be directed squarely at them.
Say what you will about RIMM, at least they aren't striking at the prospect of QNX replacing their OS.
There's no need for conspiracy theories, but this is something that should not be overlooked either. Elop's decisions influence two very large companies and their shareholders, and one small to medium sized country and its taxpayers. One thing is to make sure that his actions are legal (which they appear to be, unsurprisingly), and other is to understand the context and biases he is operating with.
The partnership is still suspicious; any reasonable person would tell you Nokia should have picked Android instead. There's no competitive advantage picking up WP7, unless microsoft wanted to subsidize every nokia handset
I don't see it elsewhere in the comments, but to be very clear, Elop's being listed there does not mean he is the 7th biggest individual shareholder at Microsoft. The headline is 100% inaccurate.
Not all shareholders are publicly reported — there are likely hundreds, even thousands, with larger individual stakes, both those still working Microsoft and not. Moreover, that list doesn't even necessarily report all of the holdings of each individual, many listed in public filings can and do own far larger amounts (by orders of magnitudes).
I'm not sure what reporting requirements dictated Elop be listed there to begin with, but regardless, the article is wrong.
HN desperately needs the ability to retroactively retract such silliness when it happens (which it does from time to time), because people tend to quote and repeat headlines so quickly these days that they create their own truth. (Six months from now, if someone says, "Isn't Elop the 7th biggest individual shareholder of Microsoft", you'd say, "Yeah, I remember hearing that, I think he is.")
The first stage of grief is shock and denial. So I'll forgive all the FUD flying in this kind of discussion. The key is that the Nokia board approved this move. They are most Finnish, and Nokia loyal. This isn't some kind of devious plot coming out of Redmond, you give them way too much credit.
Yeah, it seems like a bit of a misleading way to put it. $3.12 million is a lot, and perhaps a story in itself, but 7th largest individual stakeholder sounds a lot bigger.
If I were him, I'd sell/sold all my MS stocks (its just 3M), to avoid all the FUD being created around it, and all the energy going in PR and possible scrutiny by the authorities.
to be fair, he might have options or other incentives structured around nokia stock. i'm not sure he should be expected to sell all his microsoft shares on leaving the company- perhaps put it in the control of a trust so that it doesn't look like a blatant conflict of interest?
"i'm not sure he should be expected to sell all his microsoft shares on leaving the company" - Why not? Executive options are explicitly justified with reference to their incentive value.
I've seen a lot of people carrying work relations to their new work places and continue doing(favouring?) business. Only in this case, the person is a CEO, making a really important decision for his new company, and is likely to come under the scanner.
Why do people think Microsoft has the ability to "inject" their man as CEO into another company? Nokia's board would have chosen and appointed him with full knowledge of his MS past, probably for the sole purpose of getting the deal done with MS.
That is just f*cked up but hardly surprising. How can anybody be elected CEO when it's pretty clear he will see to his own interests rather than the companys interests?
His interests ARE aligned with Nokia. Like every CEO everywhere, a big chunk of his comp package is bonus and stock options.
Much ado has been made about him having $0 Nokia stock. This just means that he hasn't executed any of his Nokia options yet, and hasn't been awarded any stock as part of his bonus yet. Neither is suprising: He hasn't been with Nokia for a year yet and he certainly has a vesting schedule.
The difference in shares between the top two and all the rest is remarkable. I would have expected to see a bigger spread - clearly everyone else sold-out years ago.
[+] [-] powertower|15 years ago|reply
I have not seen 1 insightful post since this FUD has been spreading. It's amazing how much petty hatred is out there towards Microsoft...
I don't even think this has anything to do with Microsoft itself, but rather with people's psychological need to create conspiracies, to see themselves as the little guy fighting the big guy, and pretend that they have knowledge / can see what other's can't.
[+] [-] portman|15 years ago|reply
Sinofsky isn't listed, and just 2 weeks ago he reported 737,000 shares, which would make him #4 on that list. [1]
Ray Ozzie has just under 1 million shares, and again he's not listed. [2]
The way you assemble these kinds of tables is by mining the SEC filing Form 4, "Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership of Securities". But you have to include every Form 4 for your data to be at all accurate.
So already we can see that Elop is #9, and that's just by me guessing two people who seemed conspicuously absent. There could be dozens of others. And don't forget that non-executives don't have to report their shares. I would bet a few grands that there are senior developers who have been working at Microsoft for 15 or 20 years who own more than $3M in stock.
In fact, I just cast my first ever "flag" vote on HN. (With gusto, I might add.) This doesn't deserve the #1 slot.
[1] http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?...
[2] http://biz.yahoo.com/t/12/7827.html
[+] [-] kashif|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zpirate|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Xpirate|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xpirate|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|15 years ago|reply
See: http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2011/02/nokia_elop_buying_shares_...
Which includes:
Tallqvist told YLE that Elop will divest all of his Microsoft shares as soon as security exchange regulations and Nokia's own internal directives allow. Elop intends to purchase Nokia shares as soon as it is legally possible.
As an executive at MS who announced his role at Nokia while at MS, it was all but impossible to liquidate quickly, given all the disclosure that needs to happen to avoid insider trading issues.
There's no conspiracy or conflict of interest since all of his MS shares will be gone before any actual work product from the alliance has occurred.
[+] [-] hollerith|15 years ago|reply
As a general rule, whenever someone uses a phrase as awkward as "actual work product", they're trying to twist the truth.
Stock price relies on more than just reported earnings. The announcement that Nokia has bet the company on Windows Phone 7 affects MSFT's price now.
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bvi|15 years ago|reply
I think it's naive to say that he chose to go down the Microsoft route because he is one of its largest individual shareholders. It is equally as likely that Elop would have made his decision regardless of his $MSFT stock ownership. A little too much FUD for me in this case.
[+] [-] hsuresh|15 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stephen-elop/1/3a0/b31
[+] [-] lurch_mojoff|15 years ago|reply
The scrutiny in this case comes directly from the fact that Elop's actions at Nokia are very much Microsoft centric, and arguably Microsoft serving.
[+] [-] emilsedgh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angstrom|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tarvaina|15 years ago|reply
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-13/nokia-chief-elop-to...
[+] [-] saturdaysaint|15 years ago|reply
The board brought on Elop to do precisely what he did - any ire should be directed squarely at them.
Say what you will about RIMM, at least they aren't striking at the prospect of QNX replacing their OS.
[+] [-] bergie|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callumjones|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siika2000|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtw|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dewitt|15 years ago|reply
Not all shareholders are publicly reported — there are likely hundreds, even thousands, with larger individual stakes, both those still working Microsoft and not. Moreover, that list doesn't even necessarily report all of the holdings of each individual, many listed in public filings can and do own far larger amounts (by orders of magnitudes).
I'm not sure what reporting requirements dictated Elop be listed there to begin with, but regardless, the article is wrong.
HN desperately needs the ability to retroactively retract such silliness when it happens (which it does from time to time), because people tend to quote and repeat headlines so quickly these days that they create their own truth. (Six months from now, if someone says, "Isn't Elop the 7th biggest individual shareholder of Microsoft", you'd say, "Yeah, I remember hearing that, I think he is.")
Case in point:
http://www.google.com/search?q=7th+biggest+individual+shareh...
Sigh.
[+] [-] cincinnatus|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangrossman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reitzensteinm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] middus|15 years ago|reply
Should he have excluded going with MS as an option just because he worked there?
[+] [-] dexen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brucer|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joebananas|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pathik|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] random42|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digitalinfinity|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chalst|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hsuresh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JonoW|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indrax|15 years ago|reply
What would it mean if he switched nokia to windows while holding a lot of google stock?
[+] [-] ahrens|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mryall|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] encoderer|15 years ago|reply
Much ado has been made about him having $0 Nokia stock. This just means that he hasn't executed any of his Nokia options yet, and hasn't been awarded any stock as part of his bonus yet. Neither is suprising: He hasn't been with Nokia for a year yet and he certainly has a vesting schedule.
[+] [-] sambeau|15 years ago|reply