|
|
|
|
|
by dalke
4487 days ago
|
|
Could you define "dead weight" in this context? Is it that STG and GTS were a net loss to the company, or is it that those groups weren't profitable enough to make the alleged $20/share goal? If IBM has decided to leave the hardware business as a long term goal, then is it fair to call the hardware people a "dead weight" if that part of the organization is still profitable? The term seems to imply that the people themselves are at fault. |
|
I do not know the income, off the top of my head, for STG and GTS, it's they made a profit, but revenue growth was negative. When you're trying to allocate capital for a business would you rather put your capital towards products with a 5% margin (hardware) or a 85% one (software)?
IBM has been pretty clear that they want to jettison the lower margin businesses in favor of higher margin ones. Maybe dead weight isn't the right term for these employees, but from a business perspective these low margin products are more or less dead weight.