CEOs

Mergers and acquisitions, M&A, business development, strategic development, corporate development, there are lots of names for the business of acquiring companies. They all sound important, even exciting. But whoever said, "may you live in exciting times," didn't necessarily mean that to be a prophecy of good things to come.

On the contrary, if you're like most investors, employees or executives, it's more of a curse. You see, in the corporate world, exciting usually means risky. And there's probably nothing riskier or more prone to failure than merging with another company.

I can … Read more

Every morning, each one of us wakes up a ragged mess and eventually, presumably after cleaning up a bit, exits the house dressed in attire that expresses his or her inner feelings.

Don't believe me? It's true; ask a shrink. The way you dress is a window into the subconscious. Of course, it helps if you know how to interpret the data. Sometimes the conscious mind overrules the inner self, so what you get is the opposite of what the person is feeling. It's complicated.

Okay, enough psychobabble. The premise here is that the way you dress matters and it matters in the workplace. Over the course of my career, I've noticed a lot going on with clothes, but nobody talks about it. Case in point, people have been commenting on the way I dress for decades, and I have no idea why.

Way back in 1981 - when I was an engineer designing chips for Texas Instruments - my manager told me I might consider dressing differently if I wanted to get ahead. I was wearing torn overalls at the time. Hey, I was just an engineer ... and it was Texas!

Anyway, he did have a point. Years later I read Dress for Success and began taking this stuff a bit more seriously. When I became a sales executive calling on customers, I began wearing a jacket and tie or a suit.

However, when it comes to really working, i.e. in the office, I'm strictly a blue jeans, untucked shirt, and sneakers or other comfy shoes kind of guy. I guess that's what comforts my neurotic subconscious.

When I worked at microprocessor upstart Cyrix in the mid-90s, Jack Kemp - quarterback turned politician extraordinaire - sat on our board of directors. That didn't entirely make sense to me, but he was a great guy and really fun at dinner parties.… Read more

I realize that the advice I give CEOs may fall on deaf ears. Still, that's a lot of ears; they can't all be deaf. And if a board director, a staff member, a good friend or a gutsy employee was to forward this link, isn't a good CEO obligated to at least take a look? I know, I won't hold my breath.

Still, the CEOs of the future need to know this stuff. Now that's a thought.

Assuming somebody's getting something out of all this, today's unsolicited advice is about the business. Many technology CEOs are surprisingly short on what it really takes to build a profitable, growing company in today's competitive marketplace. This is the biggest challenge for any CEO of any company. It's not the kind of thing you learn in executive MBA school.

In many cases, and this is especially true in small- to mid-size technology companies, CEOs play to their strengths and ignore weak areas. It's human behavior. Unfortunately, they're not getting the guidance they need from their boards or others.

And that brings us to what is, without a doubt, the shortest version you'll ever see of what every CEO of every technology company needs to know about running the business, along with a few links for more info.… Read more

When most of us quit a job, we give two weeks notice, collect our final check and we're out the door. Maybe we have some stock options to exercise within 30 days, but that's about it. When we get fired it's even simpler - same thing except no notice.

In a prior post, we discussed strategies for negotiating an exit package - a sort of self-inflicted layoff. If you're lucky and a great negotiator, that might get you a few months of salary, stock option vesting, and extension of benefits, depending on your management level and longevity with the company.

So, when we exit a company through whichever door, we're talking a few thousand bucks if you're a regular Joe, maybe up to six figures if you're a VP who's been with the company a while.

CEO exit packages are similar in concept to those mere mortals might hope to negotiate, but that's where the similarity ends. The end result is more like hitting the lottery.… Read more

No man (or woman) is an island, but I think some CEOs behave as if they're God's gift to corporate America. And what do we do to discourage that perception? Not much, I'm afraid. You don't think they get way up on those pedestals all by themselves, do you?

Lest we forget, CEOs are hired by their boards to lead a staff of highly qualified individuals in managing an enterprise. Yes, they are ultimately responsible for corporate performance--for which they are typically well compensated--but by no means are they solely responsible.

In fact, most CEOs have little or no direct or line responsibility for operating or administrative functions; those are typically handled by other executive officers. Exceptions are either temporary or dysfunctional, in my opinion.

In any case, this post is not about culpability and I don't wish to confuse the issue with facts. Dysfunctional behavior runs rampant in the executive ranks. Rather than try to be a shrink, I thought I'd provide some much needed feedback and unsolicited, practical advice to help CEOs cope...also to help us cope with them.… Read more

CEO compensation. That's all you have to say to get some people jumping up and down, screaming, and sputtering like raving lunatics. Me, I'm not sure how I feel about executive pay. After all, I was an executive, even a CEO, however briefly. But don't hold that against me.

In any case, I'll try to come up with an objective position by the end of the post.

In the meantime, let's take a look at some CEOs of high-profile, publicly traded technology companies. To be sure, these folks have some things in common. They shoulder a great deal of responsibility and risk; they have really tough jobs; and like it or not, they make tons of dough.

Do shareholders always get their money's worth? Well, not exactly.

Let's start with Mark Hurd of Hewlett-Packard. In fiscal 2006, Mark's total compensation--including equity-based compensation--was at least $19 million. That's a lot of money, right? Let's reserve judgment for the moment.

HP's performance during that time frame was $92 billion in revenue, $6 billion in net income, and $2.18 earnings per share. The stock responded accordingly; shareholders were treated to a market cap gain of $28 billion. For every dollar earned, Hurd returned roughly $1,500 to shareholders. I'd say he earned his keep.… Read more

As reported, Dell recently concluded a year-long internal investigation into its accounting practices. As a result, the company will restate its financials for four fiscal years (2003 through 2006) plus the first quarter of fiscal 2007. The good news is that the cumulative decrease in net income will be between $50 and $150 million - peanuts compared with Dell's reported profit of $12 billion during the restatement period.

The bad news, however, is contained in a rather heavily wordsmithed paragraph of Dell's press release:

"The investigation identified evidence that certain adjustments appear to have been motivated by the objective of attaining financial targets. According to the investigation, these activities typically occurred at the close of a quarter. The investigation found evidence that, in that timeframe, account balances were reviewed, sometimes at the request or with the knowledge of senior executives, with the goal of seeking adjustments so that quarterly performance objectives could be met."

It appears that certain senior executives had a chronic case of end of quarter madness, a relatively common disease among executives of publicly traded companies.

Confirming what was evident from Dell's announcement, CFO Don Carty said in a conference call with investors, "We did find evidence of fraud." But neither Carty nor Michael Dell - who reclaimed the CEO role in January - would divulge the identities of the senior executives referenced in the company's release.… Read more

Rambus needs more controversy and scandal like the Internet needs more bloggers and porn. As mired in legal trouble as this company is, you've really got to do something egregious to get noticed.

According to a story by The Recorder, a California legal paper, the wife of Rambus CEO Harold Hughes did just that. Nancy Hughes anonymously posted 170 messages on a popular investor message board over a 10-month period. In her posts, clarissamehitable--alias Nancy Hughes--vigorously defended her embattled husband, and criticized current and former members of the company's management team.

Nancy's posts were so obviously those of a Rambus insider that they aroused not only the suspicion of other posters on the board, but company officials, as well. Rambus brought in outside legal counsel to head up an investigation, which ultimately turned up none other than Hughes' wife.

According to a company spokeswoman, Rambus' board of directors concluded that there was no wrongdoing on the part of either Hughes.

What's troubling is that Nancy was pegged as an insider for good reason. If some of her posts were not inside information, they certainly appear to come razor close to crossing the line. And there's evidence that someone may have removed some of her posts from the message board.

Full disclosure: I was an executive officer of Rambus from 2002 to 2003 and I am a shareholder. I have never posted on an investor message board and neither has my wife...as far as I know.… Read more

What do Bernie Ebbers, Walter Forbes, Martin Grass, Dennis Kozlowski, Sanjay Kumar, Ken Lay, Joe Nacchio, John Rigas, Jeff Skilling, and Sam Waksal all have in common?

They were all CEOs of prominent public companies, convicted of big-time corporate fraud and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. They were all also fabulously wealthy (we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars and up) when they committed their crimes.

Who among us hasn't asked themselves, what would I do with $100 million? You get all kinds of whimsical answers to that question, but one thing you never hear is, "I'm going to risk the money, my family's well-being, and my freedom to be a high-powered CEO and defraud thousands of shareholders."

That's because nobody thinks that way and these ten CEOs were no exception. Nevertheless, they risked their careers, families, reputation, wealth, power, everything. And for what? What motivates rich, high-powered CEOs to unnecessarily risk it all against all logic and ethical principals?

Maybe it isn't even about motivation. Perhaps there's something deeper going on here, something in their circuitry that's hard-wired for exceptional success followed by devastating disaster. Or is it just probability? Maybe x% of highly successful, super-wealthy CEOs of prominent public companies will turn out to be dysfunctional crooks.… Read more