6 ms·

Stocks only went up because of Alibaba, Marissa didn't have anything to do with the price of the stock.

run4yourlives2 9y ago
She's the CEO. You can explain it away but she is as subject to good fortune as much as she is bad. EDIT: Haters out in force I see. The share price was $16 when she started. It's now $48. It's irrelevant what she did or didn't do to get that. That's the fact, and that's what matters to her employers, the shareholders. Why shouldn't she be compensated for a 200% increase? The company's long term survival is a goal that may have never been shared by the actual owners.
- berberous 9y ago
  I don't think you understand how much the Alibaba shares that Yahoo held were worth (~$40 billion) and how little the rest of the business was worth (<$5 billion). This is not a normal situation, where your point would usually be correct. She had zero responsibility for running Alibaba. She ran a business that was worth less than $5 billion, but was compensated based on a stock price that primarily moved based on the run-up in the $40 billion worth of Alibaba stock Yahoo held (and such stock was acquired before she became CEO). Here's one of many Matt Levine pieces that explained the Yahoo/Alibaba situation, although it's now dated: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-28/yahoo-would-rather-not-pay-taxes-on-its-alibaba-shares https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-28/yahoo-wou...
  - run4yourlives2 9y ago
    And? Was Meyer not the CEO when this happened? I'm pretty sure she was. Just because she resorted to something other than organically growing the business to increase the value to her shareholders doesn't mean she's a failure. We're all assuming that her job was to "save" Yahoo. I don't think that was ever really on the table.
    - derefr 9y ago
      Your comment: > she resorted to something other than organically growing the business to increase the value to her shareholders Parent comment: > and such stock was acquired before she became CEO She didn't do "resort to" anything. Yahoo made that money from an action a previous CEO was ultimately responsible for. If you want to be really generous, you could praise her for not selling the stock—but if we're praising CEOs for every way they choose not to change the companies they come into, then my pet rock would make an awesome CEO indeed.
      - 1024core 9y ago
        > She didn't do "resort to" anything. You have to give her credit where it's due: she saved the Alibaba partnership from that total fuckup, Carol Bartz. CB was such a fuckup, that she's the sun to Marissa's candle. She insulted Jack Ma in front of his underlings when he came calling to Sunnyvale. She refused/forgot to put someone on BABA's board and totally ignored Ma. As a result, Ma said 'fuck you' and took Alipay out of the group without even telling Bartz. I wish more people looked at the period preceding Marissa (Bartz, Thompson) and they'd realize that Mayer was a Godsend compared to the cabal of clowns running Yahoo before her.
        derefr 9y ago
        Even if it's true that her management was better than previous management, I think everyone here is applying a standard where someone shouldn't get compensated for management that was provably worse than no management, because having no management is free. If the board of directors had just told everybody to go on without a CEO, the company would have done better financially than if they had installed Marissa.
        1024core 9y ago
        Hindsight is 20/20.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I believe berberous' point is that if Yahoo's primary achievement (in terms of share value) had nothing to do with her, they could have appointed a stump as CEO and saved $186M+.
  - stagbeetle 9y ago
    She was brought in to salvage the situation. By allowing those shares to accrue and not doing anything stupid at the wheel, she did her job. Whether or not it's fair or worth her comp, is irrelevant. The shareholders valued her work at a set amount and that's what she was paid. Unless you're taking an economic stance on the issue, wherein you believe shareholders are messing up future incentives and economic prosperity by recognizing and rewarding CEO's that do the bare minimum of "just don't fuck it up," or something similar, this debate is impractical.
  - thisisandyok 9y ago
    > Here's one of many Matt Levine pieces that explained the Yahoo/Alibaba situation, although it's now dated I hadn't been following Yahoo that closely, but was vaguely curious about the whole Alibaba angle, thanks for linking that article
- acchow 9y ago
  Haters out in force I see. The share price was $16 when she started. It's now $48. It's irrelevant what she did or didn't do to get that. False. More than 100% of that $32 increase in value was due to Yahoo's stake in Alibaba, especially due to its IPO. Yahoo itself ex-BABA lost value.
  - run4yourlives2 9y ago
    I fail to see how this is an issue, but even if I concede the point, she still brought the stock up and created an exit for shareholders. The goal of a resurgent Yahoo seems to only have been one shared by outside observers.
    - kesselvon 9y ago
      because she didn't do anything to increase the stock price? You could have an empty chair as CEO and it would be rose regardless. She made a lot of objectively bad decisions like Yahoo's stint in video, or the bogglingly expensive acquisition of Tumblr
- kesselvon 9y ago
  Stock price up: Give CEOs more Business sold for parts: Give CEOs more When does this ever end

She's the CEO. You can explain it away but she is as subject to good fortune as much as she is bad. EDIT: Haters out in force I see. The share price was $16 when she started. It's now $48. It's irrelevant what she did or didn't do to get that. That's the fact, and that's what matters to her employers, the shareholders. Why shouldn't she be compensated for a 200% increase? The company's long term survival is a goal that may have never been shared by the actual owners.

berberous 9y ago
I don't think you understand how much the Alibaba shares that Yahoo held were worth (~$40 billion) and how little the rest of the business was worth (<$5 billion). This is not a normal situation, where your point would usually be correct. She had zero responsibility for running Alibaba. She ran a business that was worth less than $5 billion, but was compensated based on a stock price that primarily moved based on the run-up in the $40 billion worth of Alibaba stock Yahoo held (and such stock was acquired before she became CEO). Here's one of many Matt Levine pieces that explained the Yahoo/Alibaba situation, although it's now dated: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-28/yahoo-would-rather-not-pay-taxes-on-its-alibaba-shares https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-28/yahoo-wou...
- run4yourlives2 9y ago
  And? Was Meyer not the CEO when this happened? I'm pretty sure she was. Just because she resorted to something other than organically growing the business to increase the value to her shareholders doesn't mean she's a failure. We're all assuming that her job was to "save" Yahoo. I don't think that was ever really on the table.
  - derefr 9y ago
    Your comment: > she resorted to something other than organically growing the business to increase the value to her shareholders Parent comment: > and such stock was acquired before she became CEO She didn't do "resort to" anything. Yahoo made that money from an action a previous CEO was ultimately responsible for. If you want to be really generous, you could praise her for not selling the stock—but if we're praising CEOs for every way they choose not to change the companies they come into, then my pet rock would make an awesome CEO indeed.
    - 1024core 9y ago
      > She didn't do "resort to" anything. You have to give her credit where it's due: she saved the Alibaba partnership from that total fuckup, Carol Bartz. CB was such a fuckup, that she's the sun to Marissa's candle. She insulted Jack Ma in front of his underlings when he came calling to Sunnyvale. She refused/forgot to put someone on BABA's board and totally ignored Ma. As a result, Ma said 'fuck you' and took Alipay out of the group without even telling Bartz. I wish more people looked at the period preceding Marissa (Bartz, Thompson) and they'd realize that Mayer was a Godsend compared to the cabal of clowns running Yahoo before her.
      - derefr 9y ago
        Even if it's true that her management was better than previous management, I think everyone here is applying a standard where someone shouldn't get compensated for management that was provably worse than no management, because having no management is free. If the board of directors had just told everybody to go on without a CEO, the company would have done better financially than if they had installed Marissa.
        1024core 9y ago
        Hindsight is 20/20.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I believe berberous' point is that if Yahoo's primary achievement (in terms of share value) had nothing to do with her, they could have appointed a stump as CEO and saved $186M+.
- stagbeetle 9y ago
  She was brought in to salvage the situation. By allowing those shares to accrue and not doing anything stupid at the wheel, she did her job. Whether or not it's fair or worth her comp, is irrelevant. The shareholders valued her work at a set amount and that's what she was paid. Unless you're taking an economic stance on the issue, wherein you believe shareholders are messing up future incentives and economic prosperity by recognizing and rewarding CEO's that do the bare minimum of "just don't fuck it up," or something similar, this debate is impractical.
- thisisandyok 9y ago
  > Here's one of many Matt Levine pieces that explained the Yahoo/Alibaba situation, although it's now dated I hadn't been following Yahoo that closely, but was vaguely curious about the whole Alibaba angle, thanks for linking that article
acchow 9y ago
Haters out in force I see. The share price was $16 when she started. It's now $48. It's irrelevant what she did or didn't do to get that. False. More than 100% of that $32 increase in value was due to Yahoo's stake in Alibaba, especially due to its IPO. Yahoo itself ex-BABA lost value.
- run4yourlives2 9y ago
  I fail to see how this is an issue, but even if I concede the point, she still brought the stock up and created an exit for shareholders. The goal of a resurgent Yahoo seems to only have been one shared by outside observers.
  - kesselvon 9y ago
    because she didn't do anything to increase the stock price? You could have an empty chair as CEO and it would be rose regardless. She made a lot of objectively bad decisions like Yahoo's stint in video, or the bogglingly expensive acquisition of Tumblr
kesselvon 9y ago
Stock price up: Give CEOs more Business sold for parts: Give CEOs more When does this ever end