3 ms·
> There's no other person out there who would do the job for $100M? I'd be willing to do a terrible job at it for only $10M/yr. That's not what the shareholder
by sokoloff 4y ago
> There's no other person out there who would do the job for $100M?
I'd be willing to do a terrible job at it for only $10M/yr. That's not what the shareholders want; they want Sundar to keep doing what is, from the shareholders' point of view, a quite respectable job, seeing the shares grow from $34 when he become CEO to $112 now for a CAGR of around 17%.
- oh_sigh 4y agoSure, I don't mean anyone willing to take the job, I mean anyone the board might reasonably select who has a good chance of success. Surely those people are out there. In that same time frame that Sundar was CEO and GOOG stock is up 240%, META is up 160%, NFLX is up 220%, AMZN is up 325%, AAPL is up 500%, and MSFT is up 600%. Surely these giant tech companies didn't all get lucky and get the only 5 people who could get great growth numbers from the stock market.
- sokoloff 4y agoShareholders want to avoid CEOs who will give them the returns of IBM, Cisco, VMWare, HP, or Groupon. It's not about the idea that only these specific 5 people could have generated those returns. But when they are generating those returns, there's ample support from the board and shareholders to pay them handsomely to generate returns like the list of companies you gave and not the list that I gave here.
- listenallyall 4y agoA zero-raise policy, if its reasonably long-term, is likely to leave you stuck with the type of employees at IBM and the others. Maybe not the CEO but the rest.