4 ms·

That's not the point. The point is, the corporation presumably has an executive compensation committee that should review and sign off on any award of this magn

That's not the point. The point is, the corporation presumably has an executive compensation committee that should review and sign off on any award of this magnitude (or frankly, probably awards 10x smaller than this). Those rules are in place for a reason, to keep the company's funds from being used as a private piggy bank. If Page thought Rubin deserved this bonus, he should have taken it to the compensation committee in advance of making the award. Of course, then there would be the risk that they would say no ...

dmix 8y ago
Process just for the sake of process doesn’t make it a useful function. You can usually spot a useless administrative process by the words ‘rubber stamp’ which was used in this article to describe the later approval by the board. In practice that idealistic oversight which such a process is supposed to bring about weren’t being followed by the board regardless. If they did it without also caring then I don’t see how the investors or public are better off for it, other than to check a checkbox. It’s certainly useful for finger pointing later on but that doesn’t mean Page would have acted differently had they went through the process. If they find it necessary to observe the process for ‘risk management’ then fine. But it has to still be done earnestly and to be relevant here it has to be clear this was the stopgap or protection layer needed in that situation, particularly for dealing with sexual assault allegations.
- URSpider94 8y ago
  Agree 100%. The comp committee should have smacked this back in Page’s face if they didn’t support it. What’s more likely (guessing here) is that they didn’t want to pick a fight with the company’s founder and potentially set themselves up for a legal fight with Rubin (Page, like all company officers, can legally bind the company to a contract regardless of approvals, so Rubin would probably have a case here if they tried to renege). Anyone else would have been fired for pulling this stunt. Firing the co-founder of Google for breaking the rules - well, I guess he called their bluff.
CalChris 8y ago
In exactly what universe is 100-200B in Market Cap not the point? Moreover, Larry and Sergei still own more than 50% of the voting rights of the company. So exactly what is the point of standing on ceremony?
- ckastner 8y ago
  > In exactly what universe is 100-200B in Market Cap not the point? In a universe where you forfeit compensation because of misconduct. As a more extreme example: say it is agreed that a trader gets to keep 10% of the profits they make for the company. The trader misappropriates funds but manages to make $1bn. Do you the trader is owed $100m bonus?

dmix 8y ago

Process just for the sake of process doesn’t make it a useful function. You can usually spot a useless administrative process by the words ‘rubber stamp’ which was used in this article to describe the later approval by the board. In practice that idealistic oversight which such a process is supposed to bring about weren’t being followed by the board regardless. If they did it without also caring then I don’t see how the investors or public are better off for it, other than to check a checkbox. It’s certainly useful for finger pointing later on but that doesn’t mean Page would have acted differently had they went through the process. If they find it necessary to observe the process for ‘risk management’ then fine. But it has to still be done earnestly and to be relevant here it has to be clear this was the stopgap or protection layer needed in that situation, particularly for dealing with sexual assault allegations.

URSpider94 8y ago
Agree 100%. The comp committee should have smacked this back in Page’s face if they didn’t support it. What’s more likely (guessing here) is that they didn’t want to pick a fight with the company’s founder and potentially set themselves up for a legal fight with Rubin (Page, like all company officers, can legally bind the company to a contract regardless of approvals, so Rubin would probably have a case here if they tried to renege). Anyone else would have been fired for pulling this stunt. Firing the co-founder of Google for breaking the rules - well, I guess he called their bluff.

CalChris 8y ago

In exactly what universe is 100-200B in Market Cap not the point? Moreover, Larry and Sergei still own more than 50% of the voting rights of the company. So exactly what is the point of standing on ceremony?

ckastner 8y ago
> In exactly what universe is 100-200B in Market Cap not the point? In a universe where you forfeit compensation because of misconduct. As a more extreme example: say it is agreed that a trader gets to keep 10% of the profits they make for the company. The trader misappropriates funds but manages to make $1bn. Do you the trader is owed $100m bonus?