4 ms·

She was given $30M in restricted stock to get her to walk away from being owed that much at Google. Then they gave her some incentives in stock options (valued

She was given $30M in restricted stock to get her to walk away from being owed that much at Google. Then they gave her some incentives in stock options (valued at $22M if yahoo stock increased by something like 8% a year for a decade), because otherwise why would she take the job? Instead Yahoo stock tripled and that created her $260M. Now she may not have had a lot to do with the stock increase, but she certainly didn't screw it up. Her compensation was mostly incentive based, which is what you want for a CEO. CEOs aren't going to be paid like an engineer. They probably are overpaid. But for shareholders, offering a tiny part of the upside from a stock increase is a small amount to pay when it the stock appreciates strongly. The bigger problem is when it doesn't.

verytrivial 9y ago
> But for shareholders, offering a tiny part of the upside from a stock increase is a small amount to pay when it the stock appreciates strongly. The bigger problem is when it doesn't. This is how most organised religions work.
humanrebar 9y ago
> offering a tiny part of the upside from a stock increase is a small amount to pay when it the stock appreciates strongly. A $2500 bonus ($250 million divided by 10k employees) is also a small amount to pay.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- porpoisemonkey 9y ago
  $250,000,000 divided by 10,000 people is $25,000 per person, not $2,500 per person.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Right you are! Point is that I've been reluctant to take certain kinds of jobs because the company seems unserious in different ways (building a good product, providing career opportunities, etc.). Paying more, in bonuses or salary, alleviates these concerns for me. There's a lot of talk about recruiting good CEOs through better pay. At least in some organizations, the ability to recruit engineering talent (or at least engineering leadership) is just as paramount.
wand3r 9y ago
> she may not have had to do with it Yahoo was; iirc a negative asset on the balance sheet and Japan and Alibaba were only drivers of actual value. Given how much Yahoo had to pay to entice her, in hindsight paying $1.00 for a carrot at stop and shop to be CEO of Yahoo would've had the same result until they went into sales negotiations
- 1024core 9y ago
  The thing is: she actually did help create some of that value. Before she got there, Carol Bartz was the chief. She had royally FUCKED UP the relationship with Alibaba. As a result, BABA refused to go public until it got back the shares from Yahoo; and, in fact, Jack Ma took Alipay out of the consortium in a fit of anger, without even consulting Bartz. In short: the relationship was in dire straits. Mayer comes in, smoothes things over, strokes Ma's ego and next thing you know, Yahoo gets to keep most of the shares, BABA goes public and Yahoo's value skyrockets. Mayer had absolutely everything to do with this. Edit: for more reading: https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/12/bartz-in-a-china-shop-has-yahoos-ceo-wrecked-the-valley%E2%80%99s-most-valuable-chinese-relationship/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/12/bartz-in-a-china-shop-has-...
  - gmarx 9y ago
    You don't know that a carrot couldn't have accomplished the same thing
    - rthomas6 9y ago
      Yes I do, because carrots can't talk.
- gmarx 9y ago
  That would have been a bold choice. I remember the guy who played Trapper John on MASH was talking on one of those stock pick shows back in the tech bubble days. He was mocking the idea that the CEO of GM should expect compensation to put him on par with the CEO of a company like Oracle or Microsoft. His point lacked the carrot but he essentially said anyone could be CEO of GM. The company runs itself.

verytrivial 9y ago

> But for shareholders, offering a tiny part of the upside from a stock increase is a small amount to pay when it the stock appreciates strongly. The bigger problem is when it doesn't. This is how most organised religions work.

humanrebar 9y ago

> offering a tiny part of the upside from a stock increase is a small amount to pay when it the stock appreciates strongly. A $2500 bonus ($250 million divided by 10k employees) is also a small amount to pay.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
porpoisemonkey 9y ago
$250,000,000 divided by 10,000 people is $25,000 per person, not $2,500 per person.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Right you are! Point is that I've been reluctant to take certain kinds of jobs because the company seems unserious in different ways (building a good product, providing career opportunities, etc.). Paying more, in bonuses or salary, alleviates these concerns for me. There's a lot of talk about recruiting good CEOs through better pay. At least in some organizations, the ability to recruit engineering talent (or at least engineering leadership) is just as paramount.

wand3r 9y ago

> she may not have had to do with it Yahoo was; iirc a negative asset on the balance sheet and Japan and Alibaba were only drivers of actual value. Given how much Yahoo had to pay to entice her, in hindsight paying $1.00 for a carrot at stop and shop to be CEO of Yahoo would've had the same result until they went into sales negotiations

1024core 9y ago
The thing is: she actually did help create some of that value. Before she got there, Carol Bartz was the chief. She had royally FUCKED UP the relationship with Alibaba. As a result, BABA refused to go public until it got back the shares from Yahoo; and, in fact, Jack Ma took Alipay out of the consortium in a fit of anger, without even consulting Bartz. In short: the relationship was in dire straits. Mayer comes in, smoothes things over, strokes Ma's ego and next thing you know, Yahoo gets to keep most of the shares, BABA goes public and Yahoo's value skyrockets. Mayer had absolutely everything to do with this. Edit: for more reading: https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/12/bartz-in-a-china-shop-has-yahoos-ceo-wrecked-the-valley%E2%80%99s-most-valuable-chinese-relationship/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/12/bartz-in-a-china-shop-has-...
- gmarx 9y ago
  You don't know that a carrot couldn't have accomplished the same thing
  - rthomas6 9y ago
    Yes I do, because carrots can't talk.
gmarx 9y ago
That would have been a bold choice. I remember the guy who played Trapper John on MASH was talking on one of those stock pick shows back in the tech bubble days. He was mocking the idea that the CEO of GM should expect compensation to put him on par with the CEO of a company like Oracle or Microsoft. His point lacked the carrot but he essentially said anyone could be CEO of GM. The company runs itself.