3 ms·
I agree, but it's a lot easier for a Founder CEO with 22% ownership of the company to do. It's completely not comparable to a CEO hired with no initial equity
by pastor_bob 4y ago
I agree, but it's a lot easier for a Founder CEO with 22% ownership of the company to do.
It's completely not comparable to a CEO hired with no initial equity stake.
Just for illustration. The 10% stock price jump this message caused just earned him $500+ million
- jonathankoren 4y agoThat’s why you clawback the equity as well
- dahfizz 4y agoWhy? Because the CEO did his job and made the stock price go up?
- Kranar 4y agoThat would be counterproductive. The fact he made these measures is what made the stock price go up. The goal isn't to just punish someone for the sake of punishing them, the goal is to improve the value of the company, which the CEO just did by taking these steps.
- gwbrooks 4y ago"You" who? He's the largest shareholder both by share count and, even more so, via his super-voting shares. As another commenter noted, the layoffs made shareholders money. Assuming the board is largely made up of equity holders, a clawback would punish exactly the sort of behavior and performance they want. Equity confers different responsibilities, rights and, yes, paydays than labor. Acting like every hit the latter takes should somehow mean a haircut to the former ignores that.