13 ms·
Spotify CFO cashes in £7.2M in shares after value surges on news of job cuts
- rogerkirkness 3y agoWhy do so many tech executives seem to make the actual worst decisions possible when it comes to symbolic leadership?
- RankingMember 3y agoinherent selfishness
- kibwen 3y agoThe executive class isn't there to provide leadership, they're there to extract value.
- Veuxdo 3y agoKeep in mind they don't write articles about executives cashing in stock in unexceptional times.
- adamjc 3y agoThat's the point.
- blibble 3y agonot smart enough to realise that the transactions are public and it may end up in the press completely destroying their reputation in the process
- klysm 3y ago7.2 million dollars doesn’t hurt
- mimikatz 3y agoExecutives aren't able to time their sales of stock to events and they shouldn't be able to as it would lead to more manipulation. It is likely the sale of stock was planned ahead of the layoff announcement timing.
- triceratops 3y agoAs was pointed out in this comments section, they are able to time events to their scheduled sales of stock.
- code_runner 3y agothe only time this really makes sense (in my head at least) is selling prior to something that KNOW will tank you stock and make your shares worthless. If you just hold... sure you're making a decision to not sell, but other than looking VERY VERY bad to employees on the timing of things... the stock went up, he sold.... now if he sold a boatload of stock before a horrific earnings report... thats another story
- izacus 3y agoBecause at no point in recent history has any one of them suffered any kind of consequences of being utter avatar of greed and sociopathy. Why bother when they'll even be defended like in this very thread?
- stets 3y agoI mean -- do you want him to sell when the price is low?
- visarga 3y agoyes, but he probably caused the price to rise for his own benefit
- jmilloy 3y agoThe rise in price is a signal that investors think this was a benefit to the company as a whole.
- bradjohnson 3y agoThe rise in price really just means that people think they can cash out even higher. If it was already overvalued, it would still jump because people expect stocks to pump during layoffs. We should stop acting like this reflects a large increase in the inherent value of Spotify, it's just another speculative market. Tech is particularly bad for this.
- stets 3y agoIf he had the power to raise the price on-demand, he'd do so all of the time since he owns stock and might even have performance bonuses tied to stock price. I highly doubt layoffs are execs sitting in a room scheming to make money but more likely they are trying to keep the company alive.
- bradjohnson 3y ago> If he had the power to raise the price on-demand, he'd do so all of the time I can also light my couch on fire to warm the living room but that doesn't mean I should. Short term jumps are fairly predictable if you're calling the shots. Doesn't mean that you can do them indefinitely or without cost.
- galleywest200 3y ago
- ulfw 3y agoOf course he does. Now why would anyone want to work for these guys at Spotify (should they ever hire again)?
- gumballindie 3y agoTo pay their bills. Such is the system that small businesses cant survive, and people are forced to work in large enterprises funded by massive amounts of venture funds. Without competition said enterprises can do whatever to employees. Those elected to ensure balance are rewarded well for their ignorance. A bit like in communism where people could only work in large enterprises while small business owners have been wiped out. Instead we should have hundreds of Spotify alternatives each focused on varying genres. Competition would solve not just working conditions but also artist pay and end user pricing.
- drcongo 3y ago[flagged]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoCompared to the alternatives? No.
- RankingMember 3y agounfettered capitalism, definitely
- FredPret 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- izacus 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoYou can't attack another user like this on HN, no matter how wrong they are or you feel they are. We have to ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: could you please stop posting flamewar comments generally? We've had to ask you this repeatedly over the years, and your account is still doing it - e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38529405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38529405 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38528691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38528691. I don't want to ban you, but if you keep posting like this, we won't have much choice—so if you'd please stop, that would be good.
- RankingMember 3y agoYou say all this as though we didn't get to capitalism by iterating. What, are we supposed to stop iterating now because we're more comfortable than we were before?
- rereasonable 3y ago[flagged]
- chpatrick 3y agoSpotify is a for-profit enterprise and if laying people off is the right financial choice then he's doing his job well. He can sell his shares when he feels like it.
- COGlory 3y agoOf course he can. Still makes him an asshole.
- jstummbillig 3y agoCapitalism, where you are happy to profiteer while it works for you, and people are assholes, when it doesn't.
- chpatrick 3y agoDoes it? Should Spotify keep employing people if it's not in their business interest? It sucks if you're fired but they went to work for a publicly traded company that drove the income from streaming music to almost zero for musicians, not a charity.
- Ekaros 3y agoAlso clearly the buyers of these shares think it was right decision. As otherwise they would not be buying at this price.
- kurthr 3y agoIt's not like the CFO has any more information than they do.
- wodenokoto 3y agoWell, he had to sell them _after_ the fact. But it does sound like his opinion on the cut downs is different than the market.
- 3y ago
- candiddevmike 3y agoIsn't this considered insider trading? You'd think there should be a blackout period around any kind of layoff, similar to how they do with earnings.
- idontpost 3y ago[dead]
- webkike 3y agoHow is it insider trading? He sold the stock after the material became public knowledge. He didn't have any insider information
- code51 3y agoHe always has insider information when he's the CFO, don't you think?
- webkike 3y agoAnd if that information that is unknown drives the stock price down, _then_ he is insider trading
- freeplay 3y agoBut he has the power to create the material...
- webkike 3y agoSo? That doesn't make this insider trading
- cedws 3y ago>He sold the stock after the material became public knowledge. Are there rules about how long you need to wait after the news goes public to sell? Otherwise, it still seems kind of unfair because you could sell 100 milliseconds later before the market can react.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- artursapek 3y agoSpotify jumped 8%, it's not like he doubled his money.
- lgkk 3y agoIt’s kind of weird to see people want to work at big corporations but then act surprised or salty about layoffs. It’s nothing personal. You’re a line number even if you’re some leet coder. It’s a business, and it’s a strategy game of utilizing resources. You might have 400k TC but you’re not god you’re a resource. If you think these things aren’t fair or suck, then you should try to move out of the leet coder path and get on the capital owner or business operator side. Sorry but it’s kind of annoying to see people making 200k plus not get this.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- forward1 3y agoI used to have this attitude in my early 30s when I first made >500k. I thought I was indestructable, irreplacable and had an ego to match it. What a humbling experience it was to be laid off, in fact I think it was one of the best things to have happened to me. My relationship to work and business is much healthier now. I just smile at the silly games tech employers and their staff play.
- _boffin_ 3y agoHow did your perspective change and what changed moving forward?
- forward1 3y agoI told the CISO he was an idiot who didn't understand security (in front of many peers), because we disagreed on implementation. Soon after I was fired for "violating company policy". I realized being right is not the most important thing in the world, certainly not more important than being employed. The other lesson was to never involve myself in office politics again: it is irrelevant and ultimately lowers your standing in an organization.
- glimshe 3y ago
- rco8786 3y agoAs always, these sales happen on a predetermined schedule for executives. This has nothing to do with the layoffs.
- klyrs 3y agoJust because he executed within a legal trading window doesn't mean he didn't make the decision to trade. It absolutely has everything with the stock going up right after the layoffs.
- rco8786 3y ago> doesn't mean he didn't make the decision to trade That is not how 10b5 works. His trades are set in advance. He made zero decisions about this trade.
- yunohn 3y agoYes, so if he sells regularly and is in charge of decisions that affect the price - what difference does your justification make?
- maxehmookau 3y agoSure, lots of people saying it's totally legal and "capitalism gonna capital", which is fair. Except imagine the absolute kicking morale will take as a result of this. I'm sure it was bad enough, internally, when 17% of staff were made redundant. (I'm sure their internal channels are pretty salty and uncomfortable right now.) I'm sure there was plenty of anger internally at the C-levels. PR school would tell them to keep quiet and wait for the storm to pass; _not_ look to be publicly, personally, profiting from it to the tune of many millions of dollars. Poor morale leads to greater attrition of those your company needs to hold on to, especially at an inflection point such as this. It leads to it being harder to hire in the future (and more expensive.) It's up to the CFO to decide if that's worth it. It may be in the short-term; but long-term it's a much tricker equation.
- trgn 3y ago> absolute kicking morale will take I've seen it swing both ways. Group psychology is weird.
- natalewalter 3y ago[dead]
- i13e 3y agoInstead of speaking about his right to do this or not, I think this conversation should be about the rise in C-suite executive compensation and Jack Welch style business decisions. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/11/07/was-jack-welch-the-greatest-ceo-of-his-day-or-the-worst https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/11/07/was-jack-welch... https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
- born2meme 3y ago[flagged]
- tenacious_tuna 3y agoI think it's reasonable for people to be frustrated that laying people off (lost value/income/security for many) consistently translates into big payoffs (more money) for fewer others (CEOs, shareholders). It feels like a moral inversion.
- born2meme 3y agoOf course it’s reasonable - they wouldn’t play on your emotions and outrage otherwise. That isn’t newsworthy. And this isn’t the place to vent about a “moral inversion.” Make a new forum where you have 2 minutes of hate every day and eventually you’ll realize how programmed you are to be frustrated at things you have no power over and how much of a rage-cycle the so called “news” industry have put you in.
- gamblor956 3y agoFor comparison, that's enough to have saved almost all of the jobs that were cut... 1500 lives were ruined so this guy could add some zeroes to his bank account. (For all those commenting on 10b5 sales: note that the layoffs were timed to match the scheduled sales so that the executives could reap the windfall from the increased stock prices resulting from the layoffs. This has been a strategy for at least a decade now and is drawing increasing scrutiny because it's basically an endrun around insider trading rules.)
- halfblindsalt 3y agoThe takes in this thread are incredibly poor. They’re poorly informed, they are often contradictory, they are frequently some weird antiwork spillover or something? Bizarre. Basically, if you are interested in actually understanding this, don’t look to the top comments here. Wow.
- RevEng 3y agoThey've reached market saturation, are not profitable, continually fail to find ways to become profitable, and yet they have a nearly $40 billion market cap. Any concept of valuation is meaningless these days.
- ulfw 3y agoAnd now he's fired. What a shit show. https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/7/23992712/spotify-cfo-paul-vogel-leaving-layoffs https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/7/23992712/spotify-cfo-paul...