I never stated it had anything to do with revenue going up or down. Yes, it definitely has to do with where they booked the revenue. Booking some mainframe revenue in the cloud area makes perfect sense to me and seems to be where the filers of the lawsuit take umbrage.
The plaintiffs seem the think that the mainframe is old technology, (it isn’t) and can’t possibly be part of the IBM cloud. (It is) I doubt a few executives would control where revenue is booked. Likely the accounting team would do that. Perhaps with some executive input. Plus, the auditors would provide guidance if something looked unusual. Not really sure what the plaintiffs are arguing since IBM’s stock and dividends didn’t do anything unusual. The multiple hasn’t changed much and the dividend has been stable and consistent. Any payments to the executives are approved by the board and the board is voted on by shareholders. I’m betting they simply were unhappy with the lack of stock price appreciation. Watching MSFT, AMZN, and GOOGL sell for much higher multiples because of the cloud hype. Unless it is related to the Kyndryl split? But, doesn’t appear to be with what I read. I was employed at Phar Mor when they were exposed as the largest corporate fraud in US history. 1991. Surpassed since then by at least Enron. But Phar Mor had 2 sets of books and had hired executives from the auditors (Coopers & Lybrand) to make the coverup possible. Mickey Monus spent a decade in prison for that and Jeff Walley & Patrick Finn, 2 accountants were found guilty too. Finn did around 30 months and Walley got probation. I sat in many meetings with those guys. The fact they withdrew the case is troublesome. If they were confident of their original position, why withdraw it? Looks to me like grabbing at straws. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, January 30, 2023, 4:41 PM, Pommier, Rex <rpomm...@sfgmembers.com> wrote: Hi Bill, I understand the "basic claim" in the lawsuit differently from what you're saying below. While I agree that a mainframe cloud is essentially no different from any other cloud, actually not much different from the old timeshare from decades ago, I understand the basic claim completely different. I don't see the claim being based on wither or not IBM's revenue went up or down, I take it as IBM shifting their revenue from one stream to another, in order to deceive shareholders (and possibly customers) into what areas of their business are performing well and which are floundering. The main takeaway I get from this is based on these 2 paragraphs: <quote> "Defendants used steep discounting on the mainframe part of the ELA in return for the customer purchasing catalog software (i.e. Strategic Imperative Revenue), unneeded and unused by the customer," the lawsuit stated. IBM is also alleged to have shifted revenue from its non-strategic Global Business Services (GBS) segment to Watson, a Strategic Imperative in the CAMSS product set, to convince investors that the company was successfully expanding beyond its legacy business. </quote> IOW, the way I read it, the customer didn't want the "strategic" products but IBM basically discounted the mainframe product set enough to (almost?) give away the "strategic" software, which sits at the customer site unused, to make it look like the customer wanted and bought this product, and thus shifted revenue from "legacy" business to "strategic" business, when it didn't actually happen. IBM would have gotten the revenue in either case, but - according to the lawsuits - IBM was playing fast and loose with where the revenue was reported, because if the revenue was reported under "strategic" the execs got bigger bonuses as compared to if the revenue was reported under "legacy". . I'm not going to argue the merits of the lawsuits because none of us is close enough to know what's really happening, but if the lawsuits move forward and are proven in court, some big blue execs should be wearing orange. Rex -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 5:00 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: IBM does it again They dismissed the original lawsuit without prejudice. Which means they reserve the right to refile, often with new claims or dropped claims. Both being true in this case. The basic claim, that the mainframe is old technology and therefore can’t be part of “new” technology, the cloud, is ridiculous. Like saying a Tesla isn’t new technology because it’s a car. The IBM cloud isn’t all that different than non mainframe clouds. And why reinvent the wheel when MQ, DB2, CICS, & IMS can be used to access the data? It appears to me that the participants in the suit are unhappy that IBM stock didn’t perform like MSFT, AMZN, or Google. Of course IBM has performed better than those 3 in the last year or so. I’ve never invested in IBM but I did buy into earnings once and made a few bucks. Actually, you could have made a bundle in IBM in the last couple of years buying around 120 and selling around 140. It has been in that trough for awhile now. And collecting the dividend. Lastly, IBM’s revenue has been declining for quite a few years until recently. The latest quarter, just released, had the best revenue growth in years. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Thursday, January 26, 2023, 5:35 PM, Tom Brennan <t...@tombrennansoftware.com> wrote: Or maybe when the article said "similar" they were referring to this: "The new complaint expands upon the one filed last year while also omitting previous allegations that the supposed securities fraud allocated revenue for the purpose of maximizing executive bonus compensation." On 1/26/2023 1:37 PM, Bill Johnson wrote: > Pretty clear. > Due to the way complex securities litigation works, the firm representing the > largest group of investors – Ironworkers Local 580 Joint Fund – took over the > handling of the case, then in September, 2022, moved to have the case > voluntarily dismissed without prejudice [PDF], meaning the charges could be > refiled. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Thursday, January 26, 2023, 4:12 PM, Tom Brennan > <t...@tombrennansoftware.com> wrote: > > Then I wonder why they used the word "similar" in the article and not > "same". > > On 1/26/2023 12:31 PM, Bill Johnson wrote: >> Same lawsuit refiled. Did you read the entire article? >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> >> On Thursday, January 26, 2023, 3:19 PM, zMan <zedgarhoo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> IBM top brass accused again of using mainframes to prop up Watson, >> cloud sales >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/18/ib >> m_sued_securities_fraud/__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eLE0Fj!tWeYBVko5R2QTqw5ZaP7pj4 >> 6TMgx_c7SM8XPn_vKLDZooE9mPuSqgMOce3RCbiEXAK1WgG_P-hO22n5T6mPhWFYA8-nf >> ltWmrAke$ >> >> What has happened to the IBM we knew and loved?! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO >> IBM-MAIN >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO >> IBM-MAIN >> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
