5 ms·

Honest question, could somebody please explain why a big corporation like Yahoo, doesn't have some kind of cliff and progresive compensation? It's the Article a

by omegant 13y ago

Honest question, could somebody please explain why a big corporation like Yahoo, doesn't have some kind of cliff and progresive compensation? It's the Article accurate?

anonu 13y ago
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312514146035/d710905dpre14a.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/0001193125141... Page 83 of the preliminary filing shows that exact number. Its accurate!
smackfu 13y ago
From the SEC filing linked below, this compensation was primarily because Yahoo gave him a large number of RSUs upon joining to make up for compensation he was giving up by leaving Google. Otherwise he would have lost money by taking the new job. Those "make-whole" RSUs then vested early upon termination, which is good negotiating, but not surprising. He also got performance options, which were granted upon termination because he met the performance goals of the stock price.
hga 13y ago
In addition to the other good answers as I write this, there's the general principle that a troubled company like Yahoo has to pay extra to attract top talent. And based on all that I've heard, even more to work for a CEO like Marissa Meyer.
- omegant 13y ago
  I agree that you have to pay more for top talet, but I don't understand how it's not vested. He is not aligned in getting results beyond a year this way. The moment the stock rises he can make himself fired and cashout. Could you please explain a bit what do they say about Marissa?
  - hga 13y ago
    For a company like Yahoo top talent is a seller's market. They have to vest the compensation if they want to have a chance at getting the talent in the first place. Note that for example there's serious danger of reputational damage; someone who joins such a company at such a high level is in danger of getting their career derailed or worse. As for the CEO, we can stick to straight observables: a number of people joined the company under the condition they'd work off-site, often in roles where that's just fine like customer support (easy metrics), and plenty of them were nowhere near a Yahoo office. One day she declares that if you don't start working in a Yahoo office, you'll lose your job. As e.g. Maggie Lange at Gawker puts it: "Mayer famously took her position at Yahoo while six months pregnant and had her baby last fall. However, unlike other Yahoo employees, she is able to bring her child to work to the nursery she paid to have built in her office." (http://gawker.com/5987043/yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-installed-a-nursery-in-her-office http://gawker.com/5987043/yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-installed-...) That's just the most notorious I can remember, there are as I recall a number of others.
chollida1 13y ago
This happens fairly often with C level execs, and generally with anyone who gets big bonuses that are restricted over time, specifically hedge fund employees is the area I'm familiar with. If you want to hire them away, its common for you to have to make up the loss they would take from walking away from the restricted portion of their bonus. I've seen payouts to traders and technologists of up to 3 million, 50+ million is, well, that's a lot of money to make up:)

by omegant 13y ago

Honest question, could somebody please explain why a big corporation like Yahoo, doesn't have some kind of cliff and progresive compensation? It's the Article accurate?

anonu 13y ago

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312514146035/d710905dpre14a.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/0001193125141... Page 83 of the preliminary filing shows that exact number. Its accurate!

smackfu 13y ago

From the SEC filing linked below, this compensation was primarily because Yahoo gave him a large number of RSUs upon joining to make up for compensation he was giving up by leaving Google. Otherwise he would have lost money by taking the new job. Those "make-whole" RSUs then vested early upon termination, which is good negotiating, but not surprising. He also got performance options, which were granted upon termination because he met the performance goals of the stock price.

hga 13y ago

In addition to the other good answers as I write this, there's the general principle that a troubled company like Yahoo has to pay extra to attract top talent. And based on all that I've heard, even more to work for a CEO like Marissa Meyer.

omegant 13y ago
I agree that you have to pay more for top talet, but I don't understand how it's not vested. He is not aligned in getting results beyond a year this way. The moment the stock rises he can make himself fired and cashout. Could you please explain a bit what do they say about Marissa?
- hga 13y ago
  For a company like Yahoo top talent is a seller's market. They have to vest the compensation if they want to have a chance at getting the talent in the first place. Note that for example there's serious danger of reputational damage; someone who joins such a company at such a high level is in danger of getting their career derailed or worse. As for the CEO, we can stick to straight observables: a number of people joined the company under the condition they'd work off-site, often in roles where that's just fine like customer support (easy metrics), and plenty of them were nowhere near a Yahoo office. One day she declares that if you don't start working in a Yahoo office, you'll lose your job. As e.g. Maggie Lange at Gawker puts it: "Mayer famously took her position at Yahoo while six months pregnant and had her baby last fall. However, unlike other Yahoo employees, she is able to bring her child to work to the nursery she paid to have built in her office." (http://gawker.com/5987043/yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-installed-a-nursery-in-her-office http://gawker.com/5987043/yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-installed-...) That's just the most notorious I can remember, there are as I recall a number of others.

chollida1 13y ago

This happens fairly often with C level execs, and generally with anyone who gets big bonuses that are restricted over time, specifically hedge fund employees is the area I'm familiar with. If you want to hire them away, its common for you to have to make up the loss they would take from walking away from the restricted portion of their bonus. I've seen payouts to traders and technologists of up to 3 million, 50+ million is, well, that's a lot of money to make up:)