5 ms·

Do you realize that for the first N years of Nvidia, he probably made less than minimum wage, AND had immense responsibilities on his back to try to get the com

by dheera 2y ago

Do you realize that for the first N years of Nvidia, he probably made less than minimum wage, AND had immense responsibilities on his back to try to get the company to profitability? That's the risk. He's getting a 30M paycheck today only because he built a trillion dollar company from nothing and sacrificed the job opportunities he could have had at other companies for three decades.

mnau 2y ago
Past is irrelevant. He too the risk and got handsomely rewarded for incredible success as he should. But that is his stock he kept from founding the company. Not today. He should of course still be CEO of Nvidia and get the money(stock awards), because unlike others, Nvidia execution is excellent (see market cap) and has been for decades, but that is not really any risk for him personally.
- dheera 2y ago
  What do you have against him? I say give him the 30 million dollar package because he's the only guy I can think of that has hope of turning NVDA into a a 10 trillion dollar company in a few years and I can't think of any other CEO that would do better than him. And sure, maybe at that point his comp will be 300 million, that's fine, my NVDA stock will 10X as well and I'll be more than happy.
- ozgrakkurt 2y ago
  He deserves massive incentive because he is basically nvidia. There is no other person the shareholders would want to see as the CEO. Company is hugely successful so they have to pay him a lot of money to keep him, works the same if you are a wanted employee, maybe not quite the same amount of leverage though. Agreed it is not about the risk
freilanzer 2y ago
Do you realise that CEOs don't all start at a company from day 1 and instead get hired and immediately have a huge salary? According to Wikipedia: As of 2024, Huang has been Nvidia's chief executive for over three decades, a tenure described by The Wall Street Journal as "almost unheard of in fast-moving Silicon Valley".[14] He owns 3.6% of Nvidia's stock, which went public in 1999.[5] He earned US$24.6 million as CEO in 2007, ranking him as the 61st highest paid U.S. CEO by Forbes.[5] This should tell you all you need to know.
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  >CEOs don't all start at a company from day 1 and instead get hired and immediately have a huge salary? With 20/20 hindsight which seems like the better path now? >This should tell you all you need to know.
  - sgammon 2y ago
    Man what? Is this some sort of gotcha? I honestly do not understand. Is your point that hindsight grants better insight into decision making? Or
    - fuzzfactor 2y ago
      Well, when you put up the CEO of Nvidia as an outstanding example, I agree. >hindsight grants better insight into decision making That may be true but that's not the point. You can't compare a company started when Nvidia did, against anything recent without involving a fair bit of hindsight. And you can only see how it really turns out by waiting until now :)
      - sgammon 2y ago
        I remain confused by your argument, and unconvinced that you are making a point
        fuzzfactor 2y ago
        I think it's a good example of when you have the culture where you "just hire a new CEO", you limit the upside more often than not. Compared to a groomed candidate who has been there for years, or better yet a technically capable founder if it's a technology company. Outside hiring can be what makes a CEO more like a "ceremonial" position or something, where if the "best of the best" is truly needed, there's still a lingering flavor that it's like hiring the very best interior decorator or landscaping gardener. It may be the best, and appearances have never been more outstanding, but tastes can change so there's an inherent perception of a temporary era stemming from this kind of thing. A company like Boeing is going to be at its best when the top person has truly known how to build aircraft their entire life. OTOH, a candidate CEO from a completely different industry, especially an experienced financial manipulator, could have already reached such a stratospheric salary history that it dwarfs anything achieved by anyone technically qualified. It costs a lot more than reasonable to recruit this kind of inflated ego or CV, and it wasn't always supposed to be forever. With the kind of multiple they are paying the hired CEO compared to the technically qualified leader, they expect that same multiple of financial performance to be achieved starting from that point forward, probably when they need it most or many wouldn't do it. With a bonanza like that they can justify paying the CEO exorbitantly, and they can be expected to retire in only a few years when things can be re-evaluated. When people blindly think it's actually worth it, that's where their thinking goes wrong. This can be very persuasive to shareholders who don't know anything about building aircraft themselves. Once all the Jack Welch wannabes pounced on this it's never been the same. Hence an employee-owned company that builds aircraft, if they do decide to hire a non-aircraft-experienced CEO (even just for the expected short-term), at least that decision is being made exclusively by "aircraft-building" shareholders. That may be even more confusing, I've been watching this dumpster fire unfold for decades due to some kind of underlying senselessness, and this is one of the things least sensible that's not well recognized any more. I'm not surprised Boeing was brought up but I wasn't expecting it when I pulled this article out of its coffin without a comment, where it had been immediately buried before it had a chance to trigger anybody else, capitalist or not. I didn't submit the article but it's interesting to see how much it blew up and where it went. I figured if I did comment I would be adding something about an employee-owned company founded by a wizard scientist whom I had met before he founded it. It was iffy at first but now they can't be stopped, he's long retired but the company is now stronger than alternatives even though they have always had the disadvantage of competing when they are mere entrepreneurs in a capitalist-dominated market which they can never be expected to realistically dominate, just participate in. I really don't even think every company should be employee-owned, for one thing there might not be as much of a thriving capitalist market to participate in. As that would be approached though, a worthwhile substitute might be a market where capital does not dominate, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on that. I'm with you 100% on retiring after the first quarter too :) If I had a strong point to make I probably would have made the initial comment, but I guess I felt it was enough to just vouch for the naked submission and let it stand on its own. And within an hour it went through the roof, sheesh, who knew? Once again, nobody's fault but mine ;)

by dheera 2y ago

mnau 2y ago

Past is irrelevant. He too the risk and got handsomely rewarded for incredible success as he should. But that is his stock he kept from founding the company. Not today. He should of course still be CEO of Nvidia and get the money(stock awards), because unlike others, Nvidia execution is excellent (see market cap) and has been for decades, but that is not really any risk for him personally.

dheera 2y ago
What do you have against him? I say give him the 30 million dollar package because he's the only guy I can think of that has hope of turning NVDA into a a 10 trillion dollar company in a few years and I can't think of any other CEO that would do better than him. And sure, maybe at that point his comp will be 300 million, that's fine, my NVDA stock will 10X as well and I'll be more than happy.
ozgrakkurt 2y ago
He deserves massive incentive because he is basically nvidia. There is no other person the shareholders would want to see as the CEO. Company is hugely successful so they have to pay him a lot of money to keep him, works the same if you are a wanted employee, maybe not quite the same amount of leverage though. Agreed it is not about the risk

freilanzer 2y ago

Do you realise that CEOs don't all start at a company from day 1 and instead get hired and immediately have a huge salary? According to Wikipedia: As of 2024, Huang has been Nvidia's chief executive for over three decades, a tenure described by The Wall Street Journal as "almost unheard of in fast-moving Silicon Valley".[14] He owns 3.6% of Nvidia's stock, which went public in 1999.[5] He earned US$24.6 million as CEO in 2007, ranking him as the 61st highest paid U.S. CEO by Forbes.[5] This should tell you all you need to know.

fuzzfactor 2y ago
>CEOs don't all start at a company from day 1 and instead get hired and immediately have a huge salary? With 20/20 hindsight which seems like the better path now? >This should tell you all you need to know.
- sgammon 2y ago
  Man what? Is this some sort of gotcha? I honestly do not understand. Is your point that hindsight grants better insight into decision making? Or
  - fuzzfactor 2y ago
    Well, when you put up the CEO of Nvidia as an outstanding example, I agree. >hindsight grants better insight into decision making That may be true but that's not the point. You can't compare a company started when Nvidia did, against anything recent without involving a fair bit of hindsight. And you can only see how it really turns out by waiting until now :)
    - sgammon 2y ago
      I remain confused by your argument, and unconvinced that you are making a point
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        I think it's a good example of when you have the culture where you "just hire a new CEO", you limit the upside more often than not. Compared to a groomed candidate who has been there for years, or better yet a technically capable founder if it's a technology company. Outside hiring can be what makes a CEO more like a "ceremonial" position or something, where if the "best of the best" is truly needed, there's still a lingering flavor that it's like hiring the very best interior decorator or landscaping gardener. It may be the best, and appearances have never been more outstanding, but tastes can change so there's an inherent perception of a temporary era stemming from this kind of thing. A company like Boeing is going to be at its best when the top person has truly known how to build aircraft their entire life. OTOH, a candidate CEO from a completely different industry, especially an experienced financial manipulator, could have already reached such a stratospheric salary history that it dwarfs anything achieved by anyone technically qualified. It costs a lot more than reasonable to recruit this kind of inflated ego or CV, and it wasn't always supposed to be forever. With the kind of multiple they are paying the hired CEO compared to the technically qualified leader, they expect that same multiple of financial performance to be achieved starting from that point forward, probably when they need it most or many wouldn't do it. With a bonanza like that they can justify paying the CEO exorbitantly, and they can be expected to retire in only a few years when things can be re-evaluated. When people blindly think it's actually worth it, that's where their thinking goes wrong. This can be very persuasive to shareholders who don't know anything about building aircraft themselves. Once all the Jack Welch wannabes pounced on this it's never been the same. Hence an employee-owned company that builds aircraft, if they do decide to hire a non-aircraft-experienced CEO (even just for the expected short-term), at least that decision is being made exclusively by "aircraft-building" shareholders. That may be even more confusing, I've been watching this dumpster fire unfold for decades due to some kind of underlying senselessness, and this is one of the things least sensible that's not well recognized any more. I'm not surprised Boeing was brought up but I wasn't expecting it when I pulled this article out of its coffin without a comment, where it had been immediately buried before it had a chance to trigger anybody else, capitalist or not. I didn't submit the article but it's interesting to see how much it blew up and where it went. I figured if I did comment I would be adding something about an employee-owned company founded by a wizard scientist whom I had met before he founded it. It was iffy at first but now they can't be stopped, he's long retired but the company is now stronger than alternatives even though they have always had the disadvantage of competing when they are mere entrepreneurs in a capitalist-dominated market which they can never be expected to realistically dominate, just participate in. I really don't even think every company should be employee-owned, for one thing there might not be as much of a thriving capitalist market to participate in. As that would be approached though, a worthwhile substitute might be a market where capital does not dominate, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on that. I'm with you 100% on retiring after the first quarter too :) If I had a strong point to make I probably would have made the initial comment, but I guess I felt it was enough to just vouch for the naked submission and let it stand on its own. And within an hour it went through the roof, sheesh, who knew? Once again, nobody's fault but mine ;)