5 ms·

More than 250x. Her total compensation during her tenure at Yahoo was http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-365-million-5-year-compensation-package-2015-

by cft 11y ago

More than 250x. Her total compensation during her tenure at Yahoo was http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-365-million-5-year-compensation-package-2015-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-365-million-5-y... This is probably 365x what an engineer makes there, she makes in a day what an engineer makes in a year. With this kind of compensation, the actual outcome of Yahoo's business is irrelevant to her. That and the fact that it is not her own business. This is an illustration of the modern problem of separation of real ownership from control. Henry Ford for example strived to buy out his investors and became close to being the sole proprietor of Ford Motor.

yeukhon 11y ago
> the actual outcome of Yahoo's business is irrelevant to her Maybe, but I doubt. An executive like her wouldn't settle just for a paycheck, success and image are way more important. Instead of becoming the CEO that saved Yahoo, her legacy is that she will become the last CEO of Yahoo (when the worst case happens) that didn't turn Yahoo around plus acquired a bunch of expensive startups. Oh yeah she did turn the culture around inside Yahoo more Google-like benefit, but history book usually tells the bad things first. In fact it doesn't take an executive role to understand. I wouldn't want to go to another job with little accomplishment in my previous job. I just feel shit if I do.
- ohazi 11y ago
  > An executive like her wouldn't settle just for a paycheck, success and image are way more important. > I wouldn't want to go to another job with little accomplishment in my previous job. I just feel shit if I do. Bullshit. Most people would be fine feeling a little shitty for a few years for THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. This theory that somehow executives are motivated "differently" is totally bonkers. They're just as selfish and short sighted and apathetic as you or me, but they're playing at the high-roller table with other people's money.
  - tmptmp 11y ago
    Very good and apt reply. I mean there wasn't much of a "push" for her to perform as compared to an engineer. She was already making way too much more. But so do many a politicians. They just successfully sell themselves to "foolish" willing buyers.
  - rdslw 11y ago
    There is no reason to use bullshit here. I think you're completely wrong, maybe you dont know what youre talking about (by not being at exec mulit m position). You judge compensation from your perspective. My argument is: you forgotten (financial) starting point of her. Jump to yahoo didnt increase her situation x7 (capital) and this is currently widely believed change which must happen to individual to have permanent happines increase because of financial change (inducing financial backed motivation). She for sure is aware of how it works. That being told your argument against that success and image is not important to her is wrong. It is much more important to her than money compensation.
  - gaius 11y ago
    Quite; consider that in terms of both jobs and shareholder value destroyed, Fiorina has a decent claim on the title of "worst CEO ever" but she did alright out of it herself and is now bragging about how her corporate experience makes her presidential material.
    - rvense 11y ago
      The part of me that loves satire was hoping for a joint Trump/Fiorina bill where they'd both be talking about applying their fantastic business experience in the White House.
  - geodel 11y ago
    This is excellent response. All this 'Greater calling' by most people at top of corporate ladder is bullshit. They have orders of magnitude more time and money to talk about issues irrelevant to business. This way they can ensure tragic/glorious profiles by hacks about their life and times.
  - 11y ago
- drauh 11y ago
  Have a look at the history of "failed" CEOs. Do they end up back at middle management? How does one measure success in industry? Simple answer: by the size of the check you receive. With $55 million, she could bloody retire and laugh her way to the bank. Who's shortsighted, here?
MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
This is certainly a factor. Family run businesses are, on average, twice as profitable as those run by salaried managers.
- cma 11y ago
  A family owned business is no longer family owned after a bankrupcy. A salaried-manager-run business is usually still salaried-manager-run after a bankruptcy.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Bankrupcy is not the only way to stop being family owned. Walmart and many other major companies used to be a family business. Overall, family's are more likely to think long term and extract money now instead of aiming for growth for growth's sake, both of which promote profitability.
    - dforrestwilson1 11y ago
      Your fundamental argument seems to be that the board was shortsighted, not necessarily Marissa. No argument here.
Touche 11y ago
This is why I laugh when people want to flock into the software engineering profession, or act like we are well paid. Software engineering is the watch maker of the 21st century. I can't think of any profession where the demands to compensation ratio is so out of whack. As an engineer you're expected to be exceptionally bright, exceptionally creative (we have to invent new things all of the time), exceptionally passionate, deal with stress (an off-by-one error can cost your company millions) all while living a very middle class life. I'm sure being a brain surgeon is much more stressful and takes longer to achieve, but hey, those people live in neighborhoods I can't afford to go into.
- dave_sullivan 11y ago
  > I'm sure being a brain surgeon is much more stressful and takes longer to achieve, but hey, those people live in neighborhoods I can't afford to go into. Most doctors and lawyers don't make lots of money in comparison to a reasonably well paid software engineer. There are tracks that will lead to bigger bucks (if lucky) where you essentially sell your soul for the chance to get there. Big law firms have "partner track", doctors and lawyers can start their own practice, and various areas in medicine can still be very lucrative (eg, plastic surgery). Those tracks are all super hard. The equivalent for software engineers is starting a company or seeking a high level position at a large, fast-growing company. I agree that software as it exists today will change: more people will come into it, wages will go down in many areas. Smart people that want to make more money will specialize (hopefully choosing the right specialization). As a comparison though, an independent consultant with a reasonably sought after technical specialty can make significantly more money, with less school and regulation, than lawyers or doctors at similar levels. If you start a successful software business (even a tiny ISV with real customers), you can make considerably more than doctors or lawyers, again with less school and regulation. I'm sticking with software!
  - vemy 11y ago
    Almost all doctors will make much more than the vast majority programmers. I think you are underestimating how much doctors earn.
dpweb 11y ago
There are cases where the CEO deserves many millions of dollars. They are supposed to move the business in ways that are growing very fast and profitable. There are all kinds of startups that Yahoo could have bought or invested in, all kinds of areas that have the potential to be wildly successful. Who would have thought Amazon, a retailer, would be the platform of the cloud computing world. It's the CEO job to see this, what not everyone else can see. That's what deserves the many millions of $.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Has Marissa Mayer achieved what you say is the job of a CEO, though?
- usrusr 11y ago
  Amazon is an interesting case. With their radical reinvestment strategy of quiet, organic growth, they are the absolute anti-Yahoo. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single high profile acquisition that Amazon did, whereas Yahoo has a reputation for being the place where the flickrs of the world go to die. Amazon contrasts this with being more like a old economy corporation with merely an internet front. They invest in boring brick-and-mortar logistics-factories, computing-factories and so on that no "true internet company" would touch with a long stick. Maybe Yahoo has long ago accepted that their only remaining shareholders must be in it for the exciting, flashy news headlines. In that case, they might feel compelled to go for an exceptionally expensive CEO only for the news value, just like very expensive watches are not bought despite their price but because of it. Marissa Mayer then would not have made it if she offered to do the job for half the price, not beating everybody else's CEO spending would have been out of character for Yahoo.

by cft 11y ago

yeukhon 11y ago

> the actual outcome of Yahoo's business is irrelevant to her Maybe, but I doubt. An executive like her wouldn't settle just for a paycheck, success and image are way more important. Instead of becoming the CEO that saved Yahoo, her legacy is that she will become the last CEO of Yahoo (when the worst case happens) that didn't turn Yahoo around plus acquired a bunch of expensive startups. Oh yeah she did turn the culture around inside Yahoo more Google-like benefit, but history book usually tells the bad things first. In fact it doesn't take an executive role to understand. I wouldn't want to go to another job with little accomplishment in my previous job. I just feel shit if I do.

ohazi 11y ago
> An executive like her wouldn't settle just for a paycheck, success and image are way more important. > I wouldn't want to go to another job with little accomplishment in my previous job. I just feel shit if I do. Bullshit. Most people would be fine feeling a little shitty for a few years for THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. This theory that somehow executives are motivated "differently" is totally bonkers. They're just as selfish and short sighted and apathetic as you or me, but they're playing at the high-roller table with other people's money.
- tmptmp 11y ago
  Very good and apt reply. I mean there wasn't much of a "push" for her to perform as compared to an engineer. She was already making way too much more. But so do many a politicians. They just successfully sell themselves to "foolish" willing buyers.
- rdslw 11y ago
  There is no reason to use bullshit here. I think you're completely wrong, maybe you dont know what youre talking about (by not being at exec mulit m position). You judge compensation from your perspective. My argument is: you forgotten (financial) starting point of her. Jump to yahoo didnt increase her situation x7 (capital) and this is currently widely believed change which must happen to individual to have permanent happines increase because of financial change (inducing financial backed motivation). She for sure is aware of how it works. That being told your argument against that success and image is not important to her is wrong. It is much more important to her than money compensation.
- gaius 11y ago
  Quite; consider that in terms of both jobs and shareholder value destroyed, Fiorina has a decent claim on the title of "worst CEO ever" but she did alright out of it herself and is now bragging about how her corporate experience makes her presidential material.
  - rvense 11y ago
    The part of me that loves satire was hoping for a joint Trump/Fiorina bill where they'd both be talking about applying their fantastic business experience in the White House.
- geodel 11y ago
  This is excellent response. All this 'Greater calling' by most people at top of corporate ladder is bullshit. They have orders of magnitude more time and money to talk about issues irrelevant to business. This way they can ensure tragic/glorious profiles by hacks about their life and times.
- 11y ago
drauh 11y ago
Have a look at the history of "failed" CEOs. Do they end up back at middle management? How does one measure success in industry? Simple answer: by the size of the check you receive. With $55 million, she could bloody retire and laugh her way to the bank. Who's shortsighted, here?

MrBuddyCasino 11y ago

This is certainly a factor. Family run businesses are, on average, twice as profitable as those run by salaried managers.

cma 11y ago
A family owned business is no longer family owned after a bankrupcy. A salaried-manager-run business is usually still salaried-manager-run after a bankruptcy.
- Retric 11y ago
  Bankrupcy is not the only way to stop being family owned. Walmart and many other major companies used to be a family business. Overall, family's are more likely to think long term and extract money now instead of aiming for growth for growth's sake, both of which promote profitability.
  - dforrestwilson1 11y ago
    Your fundamental argument seems to be that the board was shortsighted, not necessarily Marissa. No argument here.

Touche 11y ago

This is why I laugh when people want to flock into the software engineering profession, or act like we are well paid. Software engineering is the watch maker of the 21st century. I can't think of any profession where the demands to compensation ratio is so out of whack. As an engineer you're expected to be exceptionally bright, exceptionally creative (we have to invent new things all of the time), exceptionally passionate, deal with stress (an off-by-one error can cost your company millions) all while living a very middle class life. I'm sure being a brain surgeon is much more stressful and takes longer to achieve, but hey, those people live in neighborhoods I can't afford to go into.

dave_sullivan 11y ago
> I'm sure being a brain surgeon is much more stressful and takes longer to achieve, but hey, those people live in neighborhoods I can't afford to go into. Most doctors and lawyers don't make lots of money in comparison to a reasonably well paid software engineer. There are tracks that will lead to bigger bucks (if lucky) where you essentially sell your soul for the chance to get there. Big law firms have "partner track", doctors and lawyers can start their own practice, and various areas in medicine can still be very lucrative (eg, plastic surgery). Those tracks are all super hard. The equivalent for software engineers is starting a company or seeking a high level position at a large, fast-growing company. I agree that software as it exists today will change: more people will come into it, wages will go down in many areas. Smart people that want to make more money will specialize (hopefully choosing the right specialization). As a comparison though, an independent consultant with a reasonably sought after technical specialty can make significantly more money, with less school and regulation, than lawyers or doctors at similar levels. If you start a successful software business (even a tiny ISV with real customers), you can make considerably more than doctors or lawyers, again with less school and regulation. I'm sticking with software!
- vemy 11y ago
  Almost all doctors will make much more than the vast majority programmers. I think you are underestimating how much doctors earn.

dpweb 11y ago

There are cases where the CEO deserves many millions of dollars. They are supposed to move the business in ways that are growing very fast and profitable. There are all kinds of startups that Yahoo could have bought or invested in, all kinds of areas that have the potential to be wildly successful. Who would have thought Amazon, a retailer, would be the platform of the cloud computing world. It's the CEO job to see this, what not everyone else can see. That's what deserves the many millions of $.

chris_wot 11y ago
Has Marissa Mayer achieved what you say is the job of a CEO, though?
usrusr 11y ago
Amazon is an interesting case. With their radical reinvestment strategy of quiet, organic growth, they are the absolute anti-Yahoo. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single high profile acquisition that Amazon did, whereas Yahoo has a reputation for being the place where the flickrs of the world go to die. Amazon contrasts this with being more like a old economy corporation with merely an internet front. They invest in boring brick-and-mortar logistics-factories, computing-factories and so on that no "true internet company" would touch with a long stick. Maybe Yahoo has long ago accepted that their only remaining shareholders must be in it for the exciting, flashy news headlines. In that case, they might feel compelled to go for an exceptionally expensive CEO only for the news value, just like very expensive watches are not bought despite their price but because of it. Marissa Mayer then would not have made it if she offered to do the job for half the price, not beating everybody else's CEO spending would have been out of character for Yahoo.