Slashdot Mirror
Marissa Mayer Will Make $186 Million on Yahoo's Sale To Verizon (cnbc.com)
Vindu Goel, reporting for the NYTimes: Yahoo shareholders will vote June 8 on whether to sell the company's internet businesses to Verizon Communications for $4.48 billion. A yes vote, which is widely expected, would end Marissa Mayer's largely unsuccessful five-year effort to restore the internet pioneer to greatness. But Ms. Mayer, the company's chief executive, will be well compensated for her failure. Her Yahoo stock, stock options and restricted stock units are worth a total of $186 million, based on Monday's stock price of $48.15, according to data filed on Monday in the documents sent to shareholders about the Verizon deal. That compensation, which will be fully vested at the time of the shareholder vote, does not include her salary and bonuses over the past five years, or the value of other stock that Ms. Mayer has already sold. All told, her time at Yahoo will have netted her well over $200 million, according to calculations based on company filings.
Nothing like being a part of the ruling class.
...to Ruin your company so badly its being fire-saled to Verizon before it tanks completely? Am I understanding this correctly? LoL
Ms. Mayer is clearly an excellent strategist and negotiator. It's too bad that Yahoo shareholders didn't benefit from her talents.
If I had a vagina I could make millions in Silicon Valley.
Instead I just sit here naked in my mom's basement suffering through virtual beratings by SJW's all day. Where's the fairness in life?
If it is what it cost to make yahoo disappear, fine.
all the way to the bank!
Gnaaahahahahaanninininnhhhhhgnnaangaaaa hhhgggnn !!!
Looks like the diversity hire didn't work out so well. At least she'll be doing something for reducing the average gender pay gap.
I just hope that with $185M in the bank she decides to retire. Either that or takes over as Chairwoman of Oracle
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
I guess it's time to change the password for my Yahoo! Mail and sbglobal.net (DSL) email addresses. Do I get a Verizon email address?
Why was such an incompetent person made a manager?
Was the Yahoo Board of Directors Bored of Directing?
In other news Barack Obama will be paid $400K for one speech. Which is what his annual salary used to be, while in office.
I wonder, who was more ruinous to the enterprise they were charged with running...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Once you're there, you made it. They pay you millions to delegate work, mega millions to go away, and you can always sit on other company boards with your CEO friends and make even more money.
When is the CEO bubble going to burst?
Did they really run it that bad? I seems to remember that when she took over, the assets now sold for 4.8 billion, had a negative value. So maybe they did something right.
Remember: They are not selling the "Alibaba" shares.
Can anyone remember the value of Yahoo, without the Alibaba shares when she took over? I do think that the value she is selling for, is in fact larger then the initial value when she took over, but I could be wrong.
It's important to know, I have a toddler.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
The implication of this article is that Mayer made out like a bandit while doing a bad job. But the numbers say that she didn't do a bad job. That surprised me, because my perception was the opposite, but the last time this came up, I did the numbers, here.
Under Mayer's tenure, Yahoo! generated a 21% annual growth rate in market value, beating Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle, as well as the NASDAQ, S&P 500 and Dow Jones. I should point out that those companies also pay dividends, but they're all in the 1-2% range, so the dividend payouts don't change the results.
Now, you can argue that some other CEO would have done better, or that the main reason for Yahoo!'s success under her tenure was the decision to invest in Alibaba, made by her predecessor, but speculation about what someone else might have done is unproductive, and she decided to stay with that investment. The bottom line is that CEOs are supposed to generate value for shareholders, and market-beating value was generated, from a company that was clearly moribund before she was hired.
You can also argue about whether any CEO is worth the millions they get, but if you judge against other CEOs she earned her money.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Why was such an incompetent person made a manager?
Was the Yahoo Board of Directors Bored of Directing?
Because she is a woman and thought it would be a good idea with more female CEOs.
Instead of looking at competency they look at gender.
He turned down the Microsoft bid, 10x the Verizon purchase price many years ago. Way to go, Jerry! Quite possibly the worst CEO of all time.
She's like the Construction Worker who operates the big wrecking ball... being paid to destroy buildings.
Only in her case, she wasn't really supposed to demolish the company, and she got paid more than if the construction worker was hired to demolish an entire small town.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
On the positive side for shareholders, she sold off the company for an increased share value. However, the cost was the destruction of the company.
This seems to me to be missing the point. However, if the shareholders are happy for this short term win, then who am I to argue.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
I could have f**ked Yahoo into the ground, and I'd have gladly have done it for half of that. Where's the shareholder value in paying her double my rate?!?
Here is a list of Yahoo-held assets to block on your firewall.
If you do not block these then you are an enabler of this type of corruption and abuse and are no better than Mayer.
Corporate raiding. It's...profitable?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'll take 1/1000th of that and suck at the job. It sure is good to know the right people in order to get gigs like hers.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Point of Order: It's *not* a reward for failure. It's a consolation prize for not winning the bigger reward and accepting very high probability of a publicly-destroyed career, lots of humiliation and public hate. The payment is to entice someone that already has rising pay and career prospects to knowingly take on "mission impossible" like beating Google with the full knowledge it will likely destroy their career and reputation.
The many posts I've seen here validate that the risk to reputation was indeed, a real one.
Marissa was a disaster, but frankly, so was the project she took on. I'm sure that many people besides me thought they could have done better against Google, but those are untested, ego-inflating opinions of little value.
Like man! She did what Eric "der" Schmidt wanted all along.
Bets on that she will land at Alphabet, back to Google, within 12 months -- maybe 6.
I know what you're saying. But the big question is, why did the Yahoo Board of Directors make such a HUGE mistake.
A few of the Marissa Meyer stories, over several years. Major problems were reported almost 5 years ago:
The Truth About Marissa Mayer: She Has Two Contrasting Reputations (Jul. 17, 2012) Quote: "She used to make people line up outside of her office, sit on couches and sign up with office hours with her. Then everybody had to publicly sit outside her office and she would see people in five minute increments. She would make VPs at Google wait for her. It's like you've got to be kidding."
Yahoo! CEO Mayer Is Delusional and Must Go - RealMoney.com (Oct. 21, 2015)
Marissa Mayer: A Case Study In Poor Leadership - Forbes (Nov. 20, 2015) Five reasons people don't like Yahoo's Marissa Mayer (Oct. 7, 2016)
Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer led illegal purge of male employees, lawsuit charges (Oct. 6, 2016)
How was Marissa Mayer viewed within Google? - Quora
What made Marissa Mayer an incompetent CEO? - Quora
Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Thoroughly Failed on Promise to Not Screw Up Tumblr (Jun. 16 2016)
The implication of this article is that Mayer made out like a bandit while doing a bad job. But the numbers say that she didn't do a bad job. That surprised me, because my perception was the opposite, but the last time this came up, I did the numbers here.
Under Mayer's tenure, Yahoo! generated a 21% annual growth rate in market value, beating Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle, as well as the NASDAQ, S&P 500 and Dow Jones. I should point out that those companies also pay dividends, but they're all in the 1-2% range, so the dividend payouts don't change the results.
Now, you can argue that some other CEO would have done better, or that the main reason for Yahoo!'s success under her tenure was the decision to invest in Alibaba, made by her predecessor, but speculation about what someone else might have done is unproductive, and she decided to stay with that investment. The bottom line is that CEOs are supposed to generate value for shareholders, and market-beating value was generated, from a company that was clearly moribund before she was hired.
You can also argue about whether any CEO is worth the millions they get, but if you judge against other CEOs she earned her money.
Real corporate governance would start with CEO compensation. Since they are paid such astronomical sums it would make sense to review and revise compensation. Unfortunately, the board of directors are typically made up of other CEOs and cronies that real reform will not happen.
Peter suggests that "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties"and that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence."
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
If you have a hacked system.
Shame they didn't hire me. I could have drained all the IP and talent from that place for a fraction of the cost.
From Snowden we know Yahoo is one of nine companies that betrayed us to the NSA. (Here they are in order of how much profits they earn, if anyone is curious: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Youtube, Skype, AOL, Paltalk. )
It seems there was always particularly bad news about Yahoo. For instance:
-When the NSA wants to read a Yahoo user's email, it "reimburses yahoo for their time" by sliding them a little kickback, which works out to $30-$40 per account according to a leaked pricelist.
-GCHQ has a bulk collection program dealing with yahoo webcam users. They take snapshots of anyone using it for their facial recognition database. These are innocent users who are completely unsuspected of terrorism or any crime. The scope is in the millions and the snapshots frequently involve the user's nudity. When the news broke yahoo claimed to be unaware and outraged.
Because of this, I'm thrilled to see Yahoo die. Lets hope Verizon does nothing with it and allows it to vanish.
Nice work when you can get it!
I would do it for $5M. Want to bid?
Pretending she could easily have done better does not prove anything.
She was hired with fanfare, as if she would walk on water and send Yahoo stock back into the stratosphere. That is the song and dance for 99% of new CEOs put in such positions. Was she supposed to run with a different script?
I do not think it is fair to say she did a bad job, unless you really believe it would be easy for the Board to hire someone else who would have done substantially better. Most CEOs in similar situations do no better, after all. Yahoo was not an easy company to save.
It's all about share-holder value. Even hers. She found a buyer and saved coin. So she made ~$200 mil. Good for her.
To me Yahoo! always seemed doomed. The Microsoft bid ~8 years ago shed Yahoo in a bad light - a company struggling to stay on top against Google and Bing. At the time I wondered why MS would want Yahoo - didn't seem like a good fit. Yahoo was buying search results and not making them (or being paid to send requests to MS) - Search as a Service? okay - the engine isn't the special sauce, but the data is (who searched for what).
She did the best with what she had. We can all argue whether Verizon is going to be a good fit. But Time-Warner bought AOL bought Netscape ( Netscape who? yeah that was only the biggest thing on the web). But was it TW the bad steward? AOL? the mix? Or did Netscape implode and buzzards bought the carcase? (I think they imploded having no product). Could Yahoo really have been turned around - or does it need a corp overlord like Verizon to make it happen. Is Yahoo really a standalone company or a bunch of product subdivisions.
This is where I think Yahoo was headed. AOL like it, and Compuserve, and that Apple thing (yeah - remember Apple had one too - can't remember the name). Things come and go. Maybe Verizon can find a home for it - the name Yahoo! might be worth something (someday).
Like Circuit City !!!
"But Ms. Mayer, the company's chief executive, will be well compensated for her failure"
A quick look at the stock price of Yahoo over the last five years shows that the value of the company has just about tripled. If you're only looking at the things us tech folks hate (and I agree that there's plenty to dislike), then you're failing at properly evaluating her as a CEO.
Just another day in Paradise
My guess is that something like 35% to 40%, if not more, is the sum of Federal and State income taxes. This will depend on how she disposes of this largess as long term or short term income. Many would like to reduce Federal taxes on businesses to something like 12% to 15%, so one way to get some of that back is to heavily tax the income of those paid these huge sums.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
You might as well say "Frankly, you should be thanking her!"
Stop fellating her. She was one of many who ruined Yahoo.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft offered 30+ billion for yahoo, and it sold for 4 billion.
"durrp but i did a point and clicky on a graph and it told me im an asshole"
this entire thread reeks of Marissa Mayer's unwashed pussy hole
Clinton Foundation was an influence-peddling scam. It was receiving money, when Clinton was a Secretary of State and seemed a shoe-in to become President. It closed down its international wing after she lost the elections.
Had it been really a charitable organization, it would have instead flourished, when the proprietors finally left the distractions of politics and could concentrate on the sincere charity work. But no, the most charitable thing you can say about this charity is that it is "at crossroads" now that they have no influence left to peddle.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Destroying companies for ridiculous compensation sure does work up an appetite. She's a poster child for everything wrong with American business today. https://qz.com/741056/the-stun...
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/... https://jordannix.files.wordpr... https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_... http://ibankcoin.com/activists... http://i.imgur.com/TZUj9c6.jpg http://static3.businessinsider... http://dbagus.com/wp-content/u...