4 ms·

When you get hired to save a dying company, you shouldn't be slammed for the stock doubling.

Redoubts 10y ago
> Despite generating roughly $5 billion in annual revenue and drawing 1 billion monthly users, Yahoo's core internet business is valued at less than zero by the public market. > Instead, most of its value is ascribed to its ownership stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan, which together outstrip the value of Yahoo's $35 billion market cap. http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-value-almost-entirely-tied-to-alibaba-stake-2016-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-value-almost-entirely-t...
subway 10y ago
When you fuck over your employees to do so, yes, yes you should be slammed.
- peeters 10y ago
  The reactions in this thread are bizarre to me. Is it a new revelation that CEOs are compensated to deliver the best return for shareholders, and not the employees? Why is Mayer being singled out when this is what pretty much every CEO in the history of capitalism has been hired to do?
  - jtmcmc 10y ago
    It's not new but executive compensation has over the past several decades spiraled increasingly higher and over the past 5-10 years this divide has become an increasing source of antagonism. This is just to many a new exemplary example of it.
  - andyjohnson0 10y ago
    Why is it in the best interests of shareholders for a company to pay the CEO for two years after they have left? When she's gone she can't possibly be delivering value to the shareholders.
    - Touche 10y ago
      Because that's what required to get the CEO you want.
    - mgkimsal 10y ago
      standard argument for extremely high ceo pay (and extreme perks) seems to be 'we have to offer this to attract the best people' and 'only a handful of people can do XYZ like this person can'. i think when these deals are made people are rarely thinking that someone will actually leave, triggering some of these more... outlandish aspects of the deal. perhaps the value is she could have possibly got $5 million per year for 2-3 years after leaving, so this is a net return of $8-$10 million to the company after she's gone?
    - geodel 10y ago
      She could deliver some value to hypothetical competitors which might harm Yahoo or its new owners. It is not that unusual, I have a friend at a company where anyone Sr Manager or above will get 1 year of salary in case of layoff with condition to not join the competitor.
  - saint_fiasco 10y ago
    The parent comment doesn't say Mayer should be slammed by shareholders. The people complaining about Mayer probably have more in common (and have more empathy towards) the employees than the shareholders, so they should show disapproval.
  - jazzyk 10y ago
    But she did not deliver. The stock price did well because of the BABA ownership, she had nothing to do with it. Looking at all the actual performance, Yahoo has been sliding in web search, page views, ad sales, spent a lot of money on failed acquisitions, etc. And she is only singled out because she chose to be high-profile.
lg 10y ago
you also shouldn't be credited for the investment decisions of a predecessor
shepardrtc 10y ago
In this particular thread, she's not being slammed for stock performance (although it seems questionable whether she had much effect either way), but rather the "perks" she negotiated for herself as the company got swallowed up by a bigger - and probably less benevolent - entity. What she did isn't illegal, nor is it particularly unexpected these days. But it is selfish and slightly grandiose. No one is questioning how much she was paid during her tenure, just this fluffy extra crap at the end that makes it seem like she was royalty. While it shouldn't be made illegal, it should be shamed to a degree. Because if not, then where does it end?

> Despite generating roughly $5 billion in annual revenue and drawing 1 billion monthly users, Yahoo's core internet business is valued at less than zero by the public market. > Instead, most of its value is ascribed to its ownership stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan, which together outstrip the value of Yahoo's $35 billion market cap. http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-value-almost-entirely-tied-to-alibaba-stake-2016-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-value-almost-entirely-t...

subway 10y ago

When you fuck over your employees to do so, yes, yes you should be slammed.

peeters 10y ago
The reactions in this thread are bizarre to me. Is it a new revelation that CEOs are compensated to deliver the best return for shareholders, and not the employees? Why is Mayer being singled out when this is what pretty much every CEO in the history of capitalism has been hired to do?
- jtmcmc 10y ago
  It's not new but executive compensation has over the past several decades spiraled increasingly higher and over the past 5-10 years this divide has become an increasing source of antagonism. This is just to many a new exemplary example of it.
- andyjohnson0 10y ago
  Why is it in the best interests of shareholders for a company to pay the CEO for two years after they have left? When she's gone she can't possibly be delivering value to the shareholders.
  - Touche 10y ago
    Because that's what required to get the CEO you want.
  - mgkimsal 10y ago
    standard argument for extremely high ceo pay (and extreme perks) seems to be 'we have to offer this to attract the best people' and 'only a handful of people can do XYZ like this person can'. i think when these deals are made people are rarely thinking that someone will actually leave, triggering some of these more... outlandish aspects of the deal. perhaps the value is she could have possibly got $5 million per year for 2-3 years after leaving, so this is a net return of $8-$10 million to the company after she's gone?
  - geodel 10y ago
    She could deliver some value to hypothetical competitors which might harm Yahoo or its new owners. It is not that unusual, I have a friend at a company where anyone Sr Manager or above will get 1 year of salary in case of layoff with condition to not join the competitor.
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  The parent comment doesn't say Mayer should be slammed by shareholders. The people complaining about Mayer probably have more in common (and have more empathy towards) the employees than the shareholders, so they should show disapproval.
- jazzyk 10y ago
  But she did not deliver. The stock price did well because of the BABA ownership, she had nothing to do with it. Looking at all the actual performance, Yahoo has been sliding in web search, page views, ad sales, spent a lot of money on failed acquisitions, etc. And she is only singled out because she chose to be high-profile.

lg 10y ago

you also shouldn't be credited for the investment decisions of a predecessor

shepardrtc 10y ago

In this particular thread, she's not being slammed for stock performance (although it seems questionable whether she had much effect either way), but rather the "perks" she negotiated for herself as the company got swallowed up by a bigger - and probably less benevolent - entity. What she did isn't illegal, nor is it particularly unexpected these days. But it is selfish and slightly grandiose. No one is questioning how much she was paid during her tenure, just this fluffy extra crap at the end that makes it seem like she was royalty. While it shouldn't be made illegal, it should be shamed to a degree. Because if not, then where does it end?