3 ms·
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 deliverin
by 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 agoBecause that's what required to get the CEO you want.
- mgkimsal 10y agostandard 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 agoShe 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.