Words fail me...
When Yahoo! boss Marissa Mayer leaves the merged Verizon-AOL-Yahoo! behemoth, as is expected soon, she'll walk away with stocks and cash today worth $186m. In paperwork submitted to America's financial watchdog on Monday, Yahoo! revealed that its CEO, who presided over its plunge into obscurity, owns 4,492,286 shares of stock …
The only way to explain this is either a brilliant self-serving negotiator, on one hand, or some frantic profligate populating a contract with clauses that give away wealth on the other. Had to be. But neither alone seems likely something from this universe, and to attribute it to some combination of the two is equally alien.
I would have been happy to drive Yahoo into the ground for a mere $50 million. I wouldn't even have made them pay my COBRA health insurance premiums.
To any multinational-corp board members reading this, please know that my offer still stands. If your goal is to preside over the collapse of a company (once-proud or otherwise), please contact me. I'll guarantee to do the job for HALF the price of a "name-brand" CEO such as Mayer or Apotheker.
You're missing the point. She didn't merely preside over the collapse of the company. She did that and then persuaded some other schmuck to pay nearly 5 billion for the rubble. If you are a Yahoo shareholder, she has earned her cut of those profits.
Of course, if you are a Verizon shareholder then you ought to be asking how much your execs are getting paid. (Hint: If it is positive then it's waaay too much.)
Indeed. What's the point of Yahoo? Serious(ly). However, moving on, there are few more nauseating sights in the corporate world than big cheeses making a complete horlicks of everything, and still walking away with all the money. That sort of thing used to lead to revolutions.
I keep this graph handy on page 23 of the linked-to PDF, for when some idiot tries to explain why CEOs deserve all the money they're paid:
"Similarly to the previous tests, companies with CEOs who were paid above the median over the 10-year period significantly underperformed those companies where cumulative CEO summary pay was below their peer group median"
That doesn't surprise me. If we assume that execs have no effect on company performance at all, but their pay rises and falls with performance but plus a several-year time-lag, you'll get exactly that effect and none of it means anything.
WTF did she bring to the picture such that she deserved to own more of that company than all but TWO other people? That's an asinine figure for any CEO who wasn't also a founder of the company, although maybe that just goes to show how little faith anyone else had in Yahoo (i.e. that no one else footed enough money to own more of the company than she did).
I really think executives who want to make "bold" decisions should do so out of their own benefits. When she decided to buy Tumblr, some of that should have come out of her stake in the company. If it payed-off, she'd reap the rewards, if it fell flat (like it did), she'd learn not to do stupid sh*t like that again.
As a tangent to what the article is about and knowing that The Register a news site specialising in IT, Privacy Infosec & Science etc..., has Mayer given permission for the above photo to be used as it appears to show her Date of Birth and while this may be a stock photo would this really suffice to cover your backsides?
"...and get another nice paying gig ..."
except she no longer needs another gig, EVER. As long as she can keep her living expenses reasonable (actually even unreasonable, just not NFL player crazy spending), she and her family are set for life, all the way to her grandkids' lives, and possibly beyond that with nobody "working" again. Hats off to her for accomplishing that trick while putting the last torpedoes into the USS Yahoo! of which she was captain.
This post has been deleted by its author
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021