Thread regarding IBM layoffs

@n5
note, vanguard blackrock and state street own shares of each other
effectively making them 1 shareholder

@e8
Vanguard Group Inc. is the largest individual shareholder of IBM, owning approximately 10.36% of the company's shares as of December 31, 2025. It holds 97.22 million shares, valued at around $24.08 billion.

While Vanguard is the single largest shareholder, no single entity owns a majority of IBM. The company is publicly traded, with ownership broadly distributed among institutional investors, retail investors, and company insiders.

Institutional investors collectively own 63.93% of IBM shares.
Retail investors hold 35.61%.
Company insiders (such as executives and board members) own 0.46%.
The top institutional shareholders include:

BlackRock, Inc. – 8.29%
State Street Global Advisors, Inc. – 5.86%
Geode Capital Management, LLC – 2.41%
These major shareholders influence IBM through voting rights and governance, but no one shareholder controls the company.

Ain't just RT no more... They all co-k su-kas!

IBM has a geriatric Board of Directors with an average age close to 70. Arvind has these people wheeled out of their nursing home, drooling all over themselves, so they can rubber stamp his decisions and sign off on the compensation package.

WTF does Gary Cohn even do? Has anyone seen this guy at an IBM office or client site over the last 3 years?

Robbie "Jesus In A Hoodie" Thomas. Next IBM CEO.

Why did he call the company car the "Clown Car"?
A: Because no matter how many employees he laid off, ten more seemed to jump out of it every morning.

@aj I don't think any Execs go with "NO compensation" during hard times. Maybe "no" or "reduced" PAY using your clarification. Even the most famous example I remember from B-School was Lee Iacocca at Chrysler and he worked for more than the $1 salary he took during their turnaround in the early Eighties . " Lee Iacocca worked for far more than $1, although he famously accepted a $1 annual salary at Chrysler between 1979 and 1980 to symbolize shared sacrifice during the company's financial crisis. His pay cut was symbolic; he still made millions during that period through stock options, bonuses, and deferred compensation. I think the point of the original post wasn't the merits of CEO compensation in free market Capitalism, but the RATE of year over year increase these Execs are getting compared to the job cuts, zero or nominal 1-2% GDP passed out to the rank & file.

...and Im sitting at 83% of my compa ratio being told there is not enough money in the budget this year to give me a meaningful raise despite my performance.

Executive compensation (NOT "pay"...there is a difference) is typically based on financial performance. Non-executives get paid a "fixed" salary no matter what happens to the company, but executives often go with reduced or even NO compensation if the company enters hard times.

So the fact that execs make more than regular joes is expected. But what is unusual here is that compensation is going up even as the company outlook goes down. Ask yourself why the execs are doing better. Are they being compensated more because the company is in trouble (hazard duty), or are they simply looting the cash registers among themselves?

You be the judge.