4 ms·
They’re talking about market cap. It just disappears :)
by bbor 3y ago
They’re talking about market cap. It just disappears :)
- AlbertCory 3y agoYes, I know it's market cap. The question is, what's the (perceived) advantage of a temporary addition to it?
- bbor 3y agoApologies for correcting you then! I’ll let them answer, but it seems there’s a fairly obvious one: the shareholders can sell their stock for more money than they paid for it. Or do other rich people liabilities-financial-instrument wizardry to take advantage of a bigger NW on paper. But could be off base! If nothing else, sundar specifically gets huge bonuses based on the performance of GOOG - I think his 2y bonus this year was something ridiculous like $230,000,000.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoWas it $230M cash? Or $230M worth of GOOG with stipulations on when he can sell it? Edit: it does not look like there are stipulations on when he can sell it, but he was compensated GOOG, not USD, and it was specifically formulated to be based on GOOG’s stock price performance compared to SP100: ~Page 49 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000130817923000736/lgoog2023_def14a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000130817923... It was also a triennial bonus, spanning some period of 2019 to 2022. Does anyone think they can come up with a better compensation formula? If so, what would it be?
- bbor 3y agoI know this won’t be appreciated on here, but I figure it should be pointed out that there exists another way. My alternate compensation formula is simple: a 100% marginal tax rate above, say, $5M/y, with corresponding laws to make sure it’s not easily dodged through non-taxable compensation. Does society really need ceos who earn many hundreds of millions? Do we care if all those people “leave the country” as the typical refrain goes? I personally say no. Let google suffer the incompetence of someone only earning a paltry 75x the average individual income in CA
- YellOh 3y agoI mean, I think outright saying that you don't care if extremely successful, powerful people leave the country (taking their skill, experience, and creations with them) is not a particularly strong rhetorical move. I quite like being in a wealthy developed nation with an abundance of well-paid jobs.
- bbor 3y agoI’m not really trying to argue politics on here, just stating an alternate view. In my opinion, google is not successful because it has a genius ceo who is more productive than a huge team of engineers. What I can say for 100% absolute certain is that they have no creations to take with them
- AlbertCory 3y agoThanks for outing yourself.
- bbor 3y agoAs… having an opinion? Not earning hundreds of millions of dollars?
- AlbertCory 3y agoas in being an extreme left-winger who's out of place in a (mostly) capitalistic society.
- bbor 3y agoThanks for the clarification, friend! I don’t think I’m an extreme left-winger (new fav term I’m gonna put that on my LinkedIn), and I don’t mind being “out of place” in a society that I think is immoral. I’m also extremely anti-fascist, anti-monarchist, anti-authoritarian, anti-censorship, anti-discrimination, etc etc etc, and living in a country that embraced one or more of those things wouldn’t change my mind just so I could fit in. I imagine you’re much the same :)
- freddie_mercury 3y agoI don't know this specific example but I've been in many C-level discussions where similar things happen. There is rarely a belief that it will be temporary. There is usually a lot of confidence (even if misguided) that there will be sufficient follow through to quickly justify the addition. In my experience people over-attribute to malice or cynicism what is usually just crossing the very thin line between entrepreneurial confidence and self-delusion.