7 ms·

They haven't released 2022 financials, but for 2021 base + bonus for Mr. Yuan was about $313,000 and he received ~8400 RSUs (about $670k at today's price), whic

They haven't released 2022 financials, but for 2021 base + bonus for Mr. Yuan was about $313,000 and he received ~8400 RSUs (about $670k at today's price), which fully vest on April 8. Additionally, it looks like he received an RSU grant of 612,000 shares on July 8, that vest quarterly over 4 years. So, for those keeping track, Mr. Yuan is giving up about $300k in cash, but still receiving about $13M in stock. That's a 2.3% level of "accountability".

nazka 4y ago
Wow ok.. Your comment should be on the first node all the way up. That’s really different from what I was imagining!
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  I feel like this is a weird comment. There has basically never been a CEO taking meaningful accountability for a company failing. Taking a reasonable chunk of one's wealth and giving it to fired employees is actually remarkable, even if it's not as large as it could be
  - nickff 4y ago
    Laying off employees is not 'the company failing'; he reports to investors, not employees. The employees have very little on the line with respect to the company.
    - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
      Damn, whoever made a comment has probably has never had a job that's genuinely engaged them (and certainly has never been unexpectedly laid off). What a sad reality most people's jobs are :(
      - lrvick 4y ago
        Working for someone else's company means you are a tool to generate profit. That does not mean you cannot enjoy it, and your team, and even make some friends. Still it is vital to understand the business itself is not a family. Companies that pretend to be families seek to build stockholm syndrome which will make you unwilling to look for a better deal for your talent. It also makes it hurt more when you are laid off and the illusion is broken. You only ever work for yourself. A single employer means you have a single client. It also means you only have one source of income. That is always risky, because work done for others is always temporary. Honestly full time employment is way way -more- risky than being an independent contractor with a few small predictable retainer contracts. Also key to remember is that no matter how rewarding and interesting the work is you will eventually lose access to that too unless you fought hard enough for it to be open source.
      - jholman 4y ago
        I've been unexpectedly laid off, and I've had at least one job that genuinely engaged me, and I think that laying off employees, or firing employees, or otherwise terminating employees, is not evidence that a company has failed, or that the CEO has failed, or any of those things. If you want a job where losing that job is tantamount to company failure, start your own business. When it fails (and statistically it probably will), your failure will also lead to your job loss. Congratulations. If you "have a job", you're accepting being a cog in a machine that's primarily not about you. I make that trade-off, as do most people, but don't mislead yourself about what's going on.
  - fijiaarone 4y ago
    They killed Ken Lay after destroying his company.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
It is all in the noise financially. Mr. Yuan owns 22% of the company. He owns 22% of the salary savings on the balance sheet.
- jonas21 4y ago
  In other words, he's lost $30B in the last ~2 years. Seems like a fair amount of accountability to me.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Yes, I agree that his ownership position gives him direct financial accountability for the performance of the company. He does well when it does well. That said, the swings tech stock over the last couple years have very little to do with his leadership. Yuan is not responsible for the tech bubble and its deflation. No human on the planet could have made zoom hold its peak stock price.
    - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
      Keep in mind that his income is probably not what he lives on. He probably gets loans with the stock. That 500 mill bump probably got him a large loan.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        He probably doesn't need more stock borrow against if he has billions of dollars of equity already and a seven digit annual compensation. His stock transfers and sales are public information so you can look that up if you want. A cursory search shows that he sold at least 50 million dollars worth, which should cover some daily expenses
- georgeg23 4y ago
  Given the stock went up 9% on this announcement, he just made $500M.
vsareto 4y ago
You could take all of his comp, then fire him, then bar him from any work for the next 5-10 years and he'd still probably be a millionaire. In terms of quality of life, he will never face the same situation. But at the end of the day, he won't work for nothing if you took all of his comp, so fair accountability is not really possible in this light.
Spooky23 4y ago
It’s symbolic. He built a juggernaut that went from nothing to industry leader in a few years. Just like Cisco did with WebEx, they can park the company for a few years and print billions until the next disruptor arrives.
- mvc 4y ago
  Indeed. Such a drag to share the spoils with the proles who built such a successful company.
  - bruce511 4y ago
    Ahh, that confluence where capitalism intersects with socialism. Did the workers build the company? Did the capital build the company by providing the pay to pay the workers? Did the workers take any risks? Or did they sign an employment contract, and get paid the same every month regardless of performance? Their only risk, that the contract will end, perhaps unexpectedly [1]? In the case of small private businesses (which of course the vast majority of businesses are) did the "Capitalist" worry about making payroll this month, get short paid when cash is short, try and predict the future, make tough decisions when things go wrong, and somehow be a human? Of course the socialists believe the capitalists should keep those people hired forever (or better yet, not hire them to begin with?) - ironically that's what the capitalists want as well. But life happens and hard decisions have to be made. [1] risk costs money. If you have one employer you are at risk. As much as you can, hedge this risk with liquid savings. This has been good advice for thousands of years. Most workers live so close to poverty that this is unattainable. However folks at (big tech whoever) have the means to do this AND get decent severance, so I'm not crying for them just yet.
    - mvc 4y ago
      You can bang on about risk all you want but Adam Neuman lost $40bn and still walked away with a billion of his own.

nazka 4y ago

Wow ok.. Your comment should be on the first node all the way up. That’s really different from what I was imagining!

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
I feel like this is a weird comment. There has basically never been a CEO taking meaningful accountability for a company failing. Taking a reasonable chunk of one's wealth and giving it to fired employees is actually remarkable, even if it's not as large as it could be
- nickff 4y ago
  Laying off employees is not 'the company failing'; he reports to investors, not employees. The employees have very little on the line with respect to the company.
  - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
    Damn, whoever made a comment has probably has never had a job that's genuinely engaged them (and certainly has never been unexpectedly laid off). What a sad reality most people's jobs are :(
    - lrvick 4y ago
      Working for someone else's company means you are a tool to generate profit. That does not mean you cannot enjoy it, and your team, and even make some friends. Still it is vital to understand the business itself is not a family. Companies that pretend to be families seek to build stockholm syndrome which will make you unwilling to look for a better deal for your talent. It also makes it hurt more when you are laid off and the illusion is broken. You only ever work for yourself. A single employer means you have a single client. It also means you only have one source of income. That is always risky, because work done for others is always temporary. Honestly full time employment is way way -more- risky than being an independent contractor with a few small predictable retainer contracts. Also key to remember is that no matter how rewarding and interesting the work is you will eventually lose access to that too unless you fought hard enough for it to be open source.
    - jholman 4y ago
      I've been unexpectedly laid off, and I've had at least one job that genuinely engaged me, and I think that laying off employees, or firing employees, or otherwise terminating employees, is not evidence that a company has failed, or that the CEO has failed, or any of those things. If you want a job where losing that job is tantamount to company failure, start your own business. When it fails (and statistically it probably will), your failure will also lead to your job loss. Congratulations. If you "have a job", you're accepting being a cog in a machine that's primarily not about you. I make that trade-off, as do most people, but don't mislead yourself about what's going on.
- fijiaarone 4y ago
  They killed Ken Lay after destroying his company.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

It is all in the noise financially. Mr. Yuan owns 22% of the company. He owns 22% of the salary savings on the balance sheet.

jonas21 4y ago
In other words, he's lost $30B in the last ~2 years. Seems like a fair amount of accountability to me.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Yes, I agree that his ownership position gives him direct financial accountability for the performance of the company. He does well when it does well. That said, the swings tech stock over the last couple years have very little to do with his leadership. Yuan is not responsible for the tech bubble and its deflation. No human on the planet could have made zoom hold its peak stock price.
  - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
    Keep in mind that his income is probably not what he lives on. He probably gets loans with the stock. That 500 mill bump probably got him a large loan.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      He probably doesn't need more stock borrow against if he has billions of dollars of equity already and a seven digit annual compensation. His stock transfers and sales are public information so you can look that up if you want. A cursory search shows that he sold at least 50 million dollars worth, which should cover some daily expenses
georgeg23 4y ago
Given the stock went up 9% on this announcement, he just made $500M.

vsareto 4y ago

You could take all of his comp, then fire him, then bar him from any work for the next 5-10 years and he'd still probably be a millionaire. In terms of quality of life, he will never face the same situation. But at the end of the day, he won't work for nothing if you took all of his comp, so fair accountability is not really possible in this light.

Spooky23 4y ago

It’s symbolic. He built a juggernaut that went from nothing to industry leader in a few years. Just like Cisco did with WebEx, they can park the company for a few years and print billions until the next disruptor arrives.

mvc 4y ago
Indeed. Such a drag to share the spoils with the proles who built such a successful company.
- bruce511 4y ago
  Ahh, that confluence where capitalism intersects with socialism. Did the workers build the company? Did the capital build the company by providing the pay to pay the workers? Did the workers take any risks? Or did they sign an employment contract, and get paid the same every month regardless of performance? Their only risk, that the contract will end, perhaps unexpectedly [1]? In the case of small private businesses (which of course the vast majority of businesses are) did the "Capitalist" worry about making payroll this month, get short paid when cash is short, try and predict the future, make tough decisions when things go wrong, and somehow be a human? Of course the socialists believe the capitalists should keep those people hired forever (or better yet, not hire them to begin with?) - ironically that's what the capitalists want as well. But life happens and hard decisions have to be made. [1] risk costs money. If you have one employer you are at risk. As much as you can, hedge this risk with liquid savings. This has been good advice for thousands of years. Most workers live so close to poverty that this is unattainable. However folks at (big tech whoever) have the means to do this AND get decent severance, so I'm not crying for them just yet.
  - mvc 4y ago
    You can bang on about risk all you want but Adam Neuman lost $40bn and still walked away with a billion of his own.