3 ms·

I'm a little naive about these things. HNews, how is this possible and why would a company accept such terms? Also, are good executives really worth the money,

I'm a little naive about these things. HNews, how is this possible and why would a company accept such terms? Also, are good executives really worth the money, or is this something that's just become accepted practice and companies have no recourse but to follow along? I know a lot of high-performance people, but I've never known anyone I'd give $60M for 15 months of work.

saraid216 13y ago
My hunch is "accepted practice". Would quality executives work for a company that refused to provide that? I dunno. Perhaps. Are there executives who'd willingly work for less money in order to undercut their competition in the labor market? Probably, but are there enough to affect anything? Less likely. All guesswork. But it seems plausible to me.
kamaal 13y ago
>>Also, are good executives really worth the money I wouldn't hire these executives to do anything, let alone run a company. Most of them only get into a company because of their network. And once they come in, they have a gang of sycophants built up to assist them through their loot. They last 2-3 years any where they go. After which that 'you cant fool all the people all the time' thing kicks in and they are fired. But what's the point any way? there are enough idiots who will be ready to hire them again and they have a big enough network to help them out. >>or is this something that's just become accepted practice I attended a start up conference here in Bangalore. A exec of a big company was invited to speak. His full talk was BS, of course. But he repeatedly emphasized start up's were missing 'expert exec leadership' and VC's weren't paying up enough to ensure such leadership came on board. In short his whole talk was cribbing about how start ups were asking them to perform to get payed and were not just paying them while they wish to sleep on their jobs. >>I've never known anyone I'd give $60M for 15 months of work. Any one who is that capable is likely making doing his own work. And never this way.
pbreit 13y ago
Clearly the guy is a good negotiator. And I'm not sure if you're serious regarding "$60m for 15 months of work". The idea was that he would work at Yahoo for a much longer time.
- brazzy 13y ago
  If that was the idea, why the hell would they agree to a contract that lets him keep all of it after working for them only a fraction of the planned time?
  - pbreit 13y ago
    I'm sure you can figure out both the cynical and the correct answers.
riffraff 13y ago
previous to the (failed) swiss referendum to limit top executive pays by law I saw an interview from the proponents. The statement that caught my attention was: "we tend to believe that executive positions are a free market where good wages goes to those that merit them, but it's not, it's a collusive system in which offer and demand is played by the same guys. I give you this board place now, then you leave, you'll get me a board position later in your next company and so on." I don't know if this is effectively true, but it does ring a bell.
adventured 13y ago
It's because Mayer is an institutional executive, in the Steve Ballmer or Tim Armstrong model. She likes to surround herself with yes-people, and those that are from the same system that she comes from. The things she is going to accomplish while at Yahoo are: 1) burning through the Alibaba money; 2) riding the stock market bubble until it crashes, temporarily making her look good; 3) not boosting sales or profits much at all if at all And a few years from now (I'd peg it at three or less at this point), that'll be that, and she will be done at Yahoo.
vidarh 13y ago
It arguably became accepted practice after the compensation of top execs in publicly listed companies became public knowledge, after which said compensation skyrocketed as these execs suddenly had a drastically better bargaining position. Whether they're worth it or not is another matter. But clearly boards tends to think they are.

saraid216 13y ago

My hunch is "accepted practice". Would quality executives work for a company that refused to provide that? I dunno. Perhaps. Are there executives who'd willingly work for less money in order to undercut their competition in the labor market? Probably, but are there enough to affect anything? Less likely. All guesswork. But it seems plausible to me.

kamaal 13y ago

>>Also, are good executives really worth the money I wouldn't hire these executives to do anything, let alone run a company. Most of them only get into a company because of their network. And once they come in, they have a gang of sycophants built up to assist them through their loot. They last 2-3 years any where they go. After which that 'you cant fool all the people all the time' thing kicks in and they are fired. But what's the point any way? there are enough idiots who will be ready to hire them again and they have a big enough network to help them out. >>or is this something that's just become accepted practice I attended a start up conference here in Bangalore. A exec of a big company was invited to speak. His full talk was BS, of course. But he repeatedly emphasized start up's were missing 'expert exec leadership' and VC's weren't paying up enough to ensure such leadership came on board. In short his whole talk was cribbing about how start ups were asking them to perform to get payed and were not just paying them while they wish to sleep on their jobs. >>I've never known anyone I'd give $60M for 15 months of work. Any one who is that capable is likely making doing his own work. And never this way.

pbreit 13y ago

Clearly the guy is a good negotiator. And I'm not sure if you're serious regarding "$60m for 15 months of work". The idea was that he would work at Yahoo for a much longer time.

brazzy 13y ago
If that was the idea, why the hell would they agree to a contract that lets him keep all of it after working for them only a fraction of the planned time?
- pbreit 13y ago
  I'm sure you can figure out both the cynical and the correct answers.

riffraff 13y ago

previous to the (failed) swiss referendum to limit top executive pays by law I saw an interview from the proponents. The statement that caught my attention was: "we tend to believe that executive positions are a free market where good wages goes to those that merit them, but it's not, it's a collusive system in which offer and demand is played by the same guys. I give you this board place now, then you leave, you'll get me a board position later in your next company and so on." I don't know if this is effectively true, but it does ring a bell.

adventured 13y ago

It's because Mayer is an institutional executive, in the Steve Ballmer or Tim Armstrong model. She likes to surround herself with yes-people, and those that are from the same system that she comes from. The things she is going to accomplish while at Yahoo are: 1) burning through the Alibaba money; 2) riding the stock market bubble until it crashes, temporarily making her look good; 3) not boosting sales or profits much at all if at all And a few years from now (I'd peg it at three or less at this point), that'll be that, and she will be done at Yahoo.

vidarh 13y ago

It arguably became accepted practice after the compensation of top execs in publicly listed companies became public knowledge, after which said compensation skyrocketed as these execs suddenly had a drastically better bargaining position. Whether they're worth it or not is another matter. But clearly boards tends to think they are.