Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo's Marissa Mayer In Line For $55M Severance If Fired Within A Year Of Sale (nytimes.com)
whoever57 writes: A Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing on Friday revealed that Yahoo's board has agreed to a $55 million severance package for Marissa Mayer if she loses her job within a year of a sale. That's a lot of money for a chief executive who hasn't been able to keep Yahoo's stock from falling. In 2015, the value of Yahoo's stock fell by 33%. Worth noting: most of the money from the severance package is composed of restricted stock units and options -- there's only $3 million in cold hard cash. Also, Yahoo revealed Mayer received a significant pay cut last year. Her "reported pay" was $36 million, but her "realized pay" is closer to $14 million.
She shouldn't get jack shit! Tossed out on her ass. She upended many people's lives by discontinuing the work from home option. She only cares about Marissa Mayer.
And therein lies the problem. Yahoo! isn't relevant any longer. I don't even know the last time I even thought of it.
Shh.
That's a lot of money, full stop. Nothing else needed to be said after that. Where can I get a job like that? I mean since the price of labor is going down and all... This is PROOF that ability and hard work has exactly jack shit to do with compensation or the Majick Fairytale Free Market.
C|N>K
Does she have to train her replacement?
What's that in MALE failed CEO dollars? 71 mil?
That would be adequate for all the damage she did. But CEOs these days cannot fail anymore, no matter how stupid and destructive. They just get a few ten millions less in compensation, but still get indecently rich.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This is one of those things that in one hundred years time people will look at with a similar kind of horror that most of us feel about the matter-of-fact slavery state of affairs in 19th century America. The system is ridiculous - those who decide the CEO's compensation package are, by and large, the members of the board. And who are the members of the board? By and large, CEOs of other companies. Shareholders have something to say, of course, but unless you own a sizeable chunk of a company, you might just as well ignore the whole thing. At any rate, if your chunk is big enough, you will have a seat on the board.
Behold the robber barons of the 21st century.
But CEOs these days cannot fail anymore, no matter how stupid and destructive.
I got laid off along with 2,000+ employees from a Fortune 500 company several years ago. As for the CEO, he got 60% raise for having a lousy fiscal year. Rumor had it that he needed a new yacht to keep up with his peers, which is why these golden parachutes keep going up in value over the years.
A TV pundit recently observed that each CEO of Yahoo has walked away with significant compensation after a short term, yet the stockholders have gotten nada in the form of dividends. And they may not get much when it's eventually sold off, or will get nothing if it goes bankrupt (which is less likely.)
Ironically, I rely on Yahoo's "Finance" section for much of my own stock-picking: its "Key Statistics" page is by far my favorite one-page stock statistic summary. Here are some highlights (read: lowlights) for YHOO itself:
Profit Margin (ttm): -87.74%
Return on Assets (ttm): -0.16%
Return on Equity (ttm): -12.82%
Trailing Annual Dividend Yield3: N/A
This paints a picture of a company that is losing money (negative profit margin), hasn't managed its assets well (negative return on assets and return on equity), and doesn't treat stockholders well (see ROA and ROE, together with no dividend.) Next, throw in a history of expensive golden parachutes to short-term CEOs and you've got a stock that no one (IMHO) should ever own.
Sadly, those of us who have part of our money in S&P 500 funds have a few bucks that get to go along on this horrifying ride.
Has anyone done a careful study to determine if high CEO compensation results in better company performance? The issue of correlation will have to account for the desire of greedy candidates for a CEO job to get on board with a company that is or will generate a lot of cash and profit so as to make a multi-million dollar pay package look justified.
Anecdote: Many years ago*, I read a story about a small California oil company that had been driven into bankruptcy. The CEO had walked (or been canned) and a bankruptcy court judge assigned. As is customary, the judge appointed an interim manager to oversee the company through what was probably going to be a dissolution. But the company was such a basket case (and the potential pay so low), the only person he could find was a friend of his who was a janitor. The janitor proceeded to go through company records, find underperforming assets to sell, reorganize the core organization and bring the company out of the bankruptcy process as a profitable business. All for what was no more than a few times his janitor's salary.
*This predates the birth of the Internet by some years, so I'm having trouble searching for a story on-line. IIRC, it was written up in the WSJ.
Have gnu, will travel.
Naw. Failed female CEOs run for Governor or Vice President.
Make her earn her pay cleaning toilets. Eliminate her personal daycare and require her to report 7am every day.
She'll quit the next day.
Q.E.D.
I took GPs comment about a magic free market as I will explain.
There is not a "free market" by any stretch of the imagination. We have Fascism, not "Free Market". Businesses spend billions of dollars putting in politicians that pass laws benefiting them. "Regulator" positions and top level executives are a revolving door, ensuring that businesses control regulation in addition to politics. Corruption is rampant, and average people are shat upon.
Mayer's Golden Parachute for running a company downhill, and Yahoo's requirement to pay her more money than most families can make in a lifetime just to go away, is an example of corruption and a system which is morally bankrupt.
Before you say it, Socialism is inherently fascist and won't fix the problems. Capitalism can correct fascism, after numerous heads get lopped off.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The exodus has started from Yahoo Groups. They have not made their horrible interface worse in the past couple of weeks however there is every expectation that they will be discontinued or destroyed shortly.
I wonder what will happen to the email services they provide to ISPs like AT&T which already work poorly or not at all.
Used to be only failed male CEOs could run for governor or president.
Didn't she run against Jerry Brown for Governor at the same time Carly ran against Boxer?
You're thinking of Meg Whitman, formerly of eBay and currently at HP.
For all the people talking about how she's tanked the stock...She came in while the stock was at 15 and a half, and today the stock is at 36 and a half. OK, big surprise, she wasn't able to turn the company into the next Google. But the market cap has climbed from $14 Billion to $34 Billion under watch. I don't think you can call her an abject failure. An abject failure would be losing her shareholders value. Like maybe she sold Yahoo's investments that are the core of its modern business, in order to fund one of her relatively minor pet projects that didn't work out.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
She was hired to be the CEO. And CEOs severance packages, in big companies, are usually within that range. This is the job to have in the industry, where incompetence is not seen as a failure, but rather a "failed try". Not so many jobs carry that amount of "tolerance", but yet there are some: football/base ball/tennis/.... player who doesn't perform as expected (and yet is (pre) paid a lot), an expensive actor/actress who plays badly, ...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...