4 ms·

I think I'm going to be sick. Compensation for executives should be directly tied to company performance. You want to be at the top, then you should take the ri

I think I'm going to be sick. Compensation for executives should be directly tied to company performance. You want to be at the top, then you should take the risk.

vorotato 10y ago
Company performance has improved since she got there, check out the stock.
- chki 10y ago
  If you read the complete article, it is explained why that is the case and why Meyer presumably is not the one who should get the credit.
  - an_account 10y ago
    Yes, but the comment he was replying to said it should be _directly_ tied to company performance. Normally that means stock price, which the compensation was tied to.
- dominotw 10y ago
  why are you littering every comment with the same comment response. Also, the stock has nothing to do with Mayer's performance.
- overcast 10y ago
  Right, because of Alibaba and Yahoo Japan. The company is down 2.4 billion without those two.
  - FroshKiller 10y ago
    And the day is dark but for the sun. What a useless thing to say!
    - overcast 10y ago
      The point here, is that her compensation should be based on changes she made in her tenure. Not what two other companies are doing, where she happened to be conveniently in the CEO role at the time they did.
    - MSM 10y ago
      Mayer had absolutely nothing to do with Alibaba or Yahoo Japan though. What she is directly in control of has been hemorrhaging money.
dangrossman 10y ago
Her compensation was directly tied to company performance. 96% of her compensation was in ownership share in the company. That ownership share is worth $117M because the stock went from $15 to $39 per share while she was the CEO. If the company had tanked instead, her compensation would be less. Considering the outlook for Yahoo!'s core business was so bleak at the time she was hired, who's to say this wasn't one of the better outcomes for the board that hired her? Yahoo! returning to its glory days as a tech giant was pretty unlikely.
- overcast 10y ago
  The stock prices are directly related to the awesome performance of Alibaba, and lesser Yahoo Japan, both of which they own stakes. Both which were investments prior to Mayer starting. Reading the article, without those two calculated in, the company is actually down $2.4 billion. Paying her salary for two years AFTER she leaves, including her health insurance, AND office space for her to find a new job. Is completely ludicrous.
  - dangrossman 10y ago
    Why is it ludicrous? Would someone have managed to better preserve the value of those investments than her? Would someone capable of doing that have been willing to take on the job for lesser compensation? Yes, the company is down $2.4 billion because the core Yahoo! business was spending $400MM/quarter more than it was taking in -- on the backs of those investments. After 4 years of trying to turn that around, they sold off that money pit for $5B cash, which is more than that $2.4 billion the company is down. Sounds like a pretty good outcome for YHOO's board and owners. Dealing with that board and owners, attempting to maximize the shareholder return on those investments you mentioned, was as large a part of her job as trying to maximize the return from the bleeding tech business. She spent much of late 2014 and early 2015 trying to spin off the investments into a separate company to minimize tax liability, ensuring Yahoo!'s shareholders get as much value as possible if Yahoo! eventually sells some of those shares for cash. You can't write off her stewardship of the value of the BABA and YJP holdings, and their contribution to YHOO, just because they were initially purchased before she took the job.
walshemj 10y ago
Would you take a job at a company in trouble and not want some compensation for the risk? I was asked to look at a role at Hibu (ex Yell) in the Uk and I told the recruiter id want a serious premium and some very good share options to even consider it.
FroshKiller 10y ago
If an executive has a solid plan for long-term benefit that will require three or four excruciatingly bad years to achieve, should the executive be compensated poorly in the lean years for sticking with the company to achieve the long-term goal? Because you're talking about a recipe for optimizing short-term gains at the expense of the company's prospects, and I doubt the work force of most companies would be very happy to have their futures handled that way.
- overcast 10y ago
  What exactly are you considering being compensated "poorly". ONLY a million instead of tens of millions? If an exec is confident enough to think they can turn a business around in four years, then they shouldn't get the massive payouts until they do so. She hasn't done so. Why do execs still get huge bonus/stock allocations for an under performing company? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/highest-paid-ceos-worst-performing-companies-research-a7156486.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/highest-pai...

I think I'm going to be sick. Compensation for executives should be directly tied to company performance. You want to be at the top, then you should take the risk.

vorotato 10y ago

Company performance has improved since she got there, check out the stock.

chki 10y ago
If you read the complete article, it is explained why that is the case and why Meyer presumably is not the one who should get the credit.
- an_account 10y ago
  Yes, but the comment he was replying to said it should be _directly_ tied to company performance. Normally that means stock price, which the compensation was tied to.
dominotw 10y ago
why are you littering every comment with the same comment response. Also, the stock has nothing to do with Mayer's performance.
overcast 10y ago
Right, because of Alibaba and Yahoo Japan. The company is down 2.4 billion without those two.
- FroshKiller 10y ago
  And the day is dark but for the sun. What a useless thing to say!
  - overcast 10y ago
    The point here, is that her compensation should be based on changes she made in her tenure. Not what two other companies are doing, where she happened to be conveniently in the CEO role at the time they did.
  - MSM 10y ago
    Mayer had absolutely nothing to do with Alibaba or Yahoo Japan though. What she is directly in control of has been hemorrhaging money.

dangrossman 10y ago

Her compensation was directly tied to company performance. 96% of her compensation was in ownership share in the company. That ownership share is worth $117M because the stock went from $15 to $39 per share while she was the CEO. If the company had tanked instead, her compensation would be less. Considering the outlook for Yahoo!'s core business was so bleak at the time she was hired, who's to say this wasn't one of the better outcomes for the board that hired her? Yahoo! returning to its glory days as a tech giant was pretty unlikely.

overcast 10y ago
The stock prices are directly related to the awesome performance of Alibaba, and lesser Yahoo Japan, both of which they own stakes. Both which were investments prior to Mayer starting. Reading the article, without those two calculated in, the company is actually down $2.4 billion. Paying her salary for two years AFTER she leaves, including her health insurance, AND office space for her to find a new job. Is completely ludicrous.
- dangrossman 10y ago
  Why is it ludicrous? Would someone have managed to better preserve the value of those investments than her? Would someone capable of doing that have been willing to take on the job for lesser compensation? Yes, the company is down $2.4 billion because the core Yahoo! business was spending $400MM/quarter more than it was taking in -- on the backs of those investments. After 4 years of trying to turn that around, they sold off that money pit for $5B cash, which is more than that $2.4 billion the company is down. Sounds like a pretty good outcome for YHOO's board and owners. Dealing with that board and owners, attempting to maximize the shareholder return on those investments you mentioned, was as large a part of her job as trying to maximize the return from the bleeding tech business. She spent much of late 2014 and early 2015 trying to spin off the investments into a separate company to minimize tax liability, ensuring Yahoo!'s shareholders get as much value as possible if Yahoo! eventually sells some of those shares for cash. You can't write off her stewardship of the value of the BABA and YJP holdings, and their contribution to YHOO, just because they were initially purchased before she took the job.

walshemj 10y ago

Would you take a job at a company in trouble and not want some compensation for the risk? I was asked to look at a role at Hibu (ex Yell) in the Uk and I told the recruiter id want a serious premium and some very good share options to even consider it.

FroshKiller 10y ago

If an executive has a solid plan for long-term benefit that will require three or four excruciatingly bad years to achieve, should the executive be compensated poorly in the lean years for sticking with the company to achieve the long-term goal? Because you're talking about a recipe for optimizing short-term gains at the expense of the company's prospects, and I doubt the work force of most companies would be very happy to have their futures handled that way.

overcast 10y ago
What exactly are you considering being compensated "poorly". ONLY a million instead of tens of millions? If an exec is confident enough to think they can turn a business around in four years, then they shouldn't get the massive payouts until they do so. She hasn't done so. Why do execs still get huge bonus/stock allocations for an under performing company? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/highest-paid-ceos-worst-performing-companies-research-a7156486.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/highest-pai...