7 ms·

The issue here is not whether or not he's qualified for the CEO spot. It's whether he has been signing off on SEC filings that he knows contain falsehoods. In p

The issue here is not whether or not he's qualified for the CEO spot. It's whether he has been signing off on SEC filings that he knows contain falsehoods. In particular, there's information in the proxy statements that shareholders are supposed to use as the basis of their voting and their support for executive compensation. If he's lying about this, how are shareholders supposed to trust the rest of the SEC filings he signs off on as CEO? (Also, if it's ok for him to lie on his resume and keep his job, does that mean anyone applying to Yahoo should feel free to do so?) From the proxy statement: "Mr. Thompson has served as our Chief Executive Officer and President and as a member of our Board since January 2012. Mr. Thompson served as President of PayPal, a division of eBay, Inc., an internet auction and shopping company, from January 2008 until January 2012. [clipped prior jobs out] Mr. Thompson holds a Bachelor’s degree in accounting and computer science from Stonehill College. Mr. Thompson was selected as a director nominee principally because, as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and President, he has in-depth knowledge of the Company’s operations, strategy, financial condition and competitive position. In addition, Mr. Thompson has a deep understanding of global online businesses, experience in transforming business models to deliver growth and increased value, and experience in integrating customer experience with innovative technology. Mr. Thompson also possesses strong organizational and operational skills." http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312512191515/d319086dprec14a.htm#toc319086_5 http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/00011931251219151...

MartinCron 14y ago
Lying on your resume should get you fired. Lying on SEC filings should get you imprisoned.
- jrockway 14y ago
  Lying on SEC filings should get you imprisoned. This costs me a lot of money, and I don't want to give free money to people just because they are dishonest. Ban the guy from being the CEO or a board member of a publicly traded company for 10 years. Inexpensive and an appropriate punishment for the crime. Let's reserve prison for people that absolutely cannot integrate with normal society.
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    All you'll be doing then is turning him into a high-priced industry consultant or public speaker. Not that prison always prevents that (See: Michael Milken) but it at least puts the brakes on it for a few years.
    - egor83 14y ago
      More than that, I believe. That would also create a good incentive to avoid lies for the rest of executives.
      - pavel_lishin 14y ago
        Haven't there been studies proving that a prison sentence is a poor deterrent? I mean, on the face of it, the fact that there are still prisons full of criminals sort of points in that general direction. (At the very least, it shows that people do a poor job of comparing risk of prison vs. reward of wrongdoing.)
        egor83 14y ago
        I was referring to "ban the guy from being the CEO for 10 years", not prison sentence. As for prison effectiveness - that's a huge question that I'm just not qualified enough to discuss. I think US is a bit too zealous in this regard, but I'm really not ready to advise here.
    - newbie12 14y ago
      Milken is an interesting case. He literally created the market for high yield ("junk") bonds, and a lot of the charges the feds threw at him were because creating a new market meant breaking stupid regulations about yields and such.
      - tomkarlo 14y ago
        Regardless of whether they're stupid or not, they're still regulations. Unless he was breaking the laws as a form of civil disobedience, he was still basically a guy breaking the rules to make more money.
csallen 14y ago
> If he's lying about this, how are shareholders supposed to trust the rest of the SEC filings he signs off on as CEO? I'm not sure how I feel about statements like this. On the one hand, yes, you probably do not want such a brazen liar leading your company. But on the other hand, we as a society tend to believe in a dangerously inaccurate theory of character. Namely, that people are either inherently moral or they aren't. Liars or truth-tellers. Good or evil. In reality, life isn't so simple. Studies have shown that when people are faced with moral dilemmas, situational factors play a larger role than "character". Obviously we all know people who are relatively upstanding. But when it comes down to it, it's not that difficult to put them into a situation where they'll be willing to lie, cheat, or steal. You just need the right combination environmental factors, and they don't even have to be that extreme. It's basic stuff like incentives (which in the CEO world includes million dollar bonuses), chances of getting caught, harshness of punishment, etc. Long-story short, if we really care about improving behavior, we should stop looking for signals of "trustworthiness". Instead, we should just assume that everyone is capable of lying, whether they've been caught lying before or not. And we should engineer a system that removes incentives for cheating + makes it more difficult to do so.
- AJ007 14y ago
  Most good leaders are liars. Some are blatant, like this guy. Others are on hazier "grey area" things, things that will be true if the leader and those below him are indeed successful. That said, lying on something this simple should be a fire-able offense. It is a misrepresentation of the facts of what investors are paying for. It isn't an promise that was not kept or an area that is grey and up for interpretation. Perhaps if no one in the history of Yahoo has been fired for lying about credentials, then he could get a pass. Does that sound like a likely reality? I find this whole thing personally interesting, because I had my own in and out experience with owning some Yahoo shares. I thought long and hard about their CEOs. It was clear to me that Carol Bartz was incompetent. When she left and there was no instant replacement, I realized the board had no idea what they were doing either and I sold all of my shares. At the same time I thought, what type of person would agree to become the CEO of Yahoo? Certainly, all the deep talent capable of working there are smart enough to have a job at Google, Facebook, or any number of very promising start ups. Now I have my answer: a blatant lair.
paulsutter 14y ago
Dan Loeb's letter doesnt say he lied on his resume, does it say that somewhere else? I feel like Im missing something. He himself prepares his resume, while some flunkie is writing his bio in documents. The former would prove he was a party to fabrication, the latter would need additional information.

MartinCron 14y ago

Lying on your resume should get you fired. Lying on SEC filings should get you imprisoned.

jrockway 14y ago
Lying on SEC filings should get you imprisoned. This costs me a lot of money, and I don't want to give free money to people just because they are dishonest. Ban the guy from being the CEO or a board member of a publicly traded company for 10 years. Inexpensive and an appropriate punishment for the crime. Let's reserve prison for people that absolutely cannot integrate with normal society.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  All you'll be doing then is turning him into a high-priced industry consultant or public speaker. Not that prison always prevents that (See: Michael Milken) but it at least puts the brakes on it for a few years.
  - egor83 14y ago
    More than that, I believe. That would also create a good incentive to avoid lies for the rest of executives.
    - pavel_lishin 14y ago
      Haven't there been studies proving that a prison sentence is a poor deterrent? I mean, on the face of it, the fact that there are still prisons full of criminals sort of points in that general direction. (At the very least, it shows that people do a poor job of comparing risk of prison vs. reward of wrongdoing.)
      - egor83 14y ago
        I was referring to "ban the guy from being the CEO for 10 years", not prison sentence. As for prison effectiveness - that's a huge question that I'm just not qualified enough to discuss. I think US is a bit too zealous in this regard, but I'm really not ready to advise here.
  - newbie12 14y ago
    Milken is an interesting case. He literally created the market for high yield ("junk") bonds, and a lot of the charges the feds threw at him were because creating a new market meant breaking stupid regulations about yields and such.
    - tomkarlo 14y ago
      Regardless of whether they're stupid or not, they're still regulations. Unless he was breaking the laws as a form of civil disobedience, he was still basically a guy breaking the rules to make more money.

csallen 14y ago

> If he's lying about this, how are shareholders supposed to trust the rest of the SEC filings he signs off on as CEO? I'm not sure how I feel about statements like this. On the one hand, yes, you probably do not want such a brazen liar leading your company. But on the other hand, we as a society tend to believe in a dangerously inaccurate theory of character. Namely, that people are either inherently moral or they aren't. Liars or truth-tellers. Good or evil. In reality, life isn't so simple. Studies have shown that when people are faced with moral dilemmas, situational factors play a larger role than "character". Obviously we all know people who are relatively upstanding. But when it comes down to it, it's not that difficult to put them into a situation where they'll be willing to lie, cheat, or steal. You just need the right combination environmental factors, and they don't even have to be that extreme. It's basic stuff like incentives (which in the CEO world includes million dollar bonuses), chances of getting caught, harshness of punishment, etc. Long-story short, if we really care about improving behavior, we should stop looking for signals of "trustworthiness". Instead, we should just assume that everyone is capable of lying, whether they've been caught lying before or not. And we should engineer a system that removes incentives for cheating + makes it more difficult to do so.

AJ007 14y ago
Most good leaders are liars. Some are blatant, like this guy. Others are on hazier "grey area" things, things that will be true if the leader and those below him are indeed successful. That said, lying on something this simple should be a fire-able offense. It is a misrepresentation of the facts of what investors are paying for. It isn't an promise that was not kept or an area that is grey and up for interpretation. Perhaps if no one in the history of Yahoo has been fired for lying about credentials, then he could get a pass. Does that sound like a likely reality? I find this whole thing personally interesting, because I had my own in and out experience with owning some Yahoo shares. I thought long and hard about their CEOs. It was clear to me that Carol Bartz was incompetent. When she left and there was no instant replacement, I realized the board had no idea what they were doing either and I sold all of my shares. At the same time I thought, what type of person would agree to become the CEO of Yahoo? Certainly, all the deep talent capable of working there are smart enough to have a job at Google, Facebook, or any number of very promising start ups. Now I have my answer: a blatant lair.

paulsutter 14y ago

Dan Loeb's letter doesnt say he lied on his resume, does it say that somewhere else? I feel like Im missing something. He himself prepares his resume, while some flunkie is writing his bio in documents. The former would prove he was a party to fabrication, the latter would need additional information.