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.
all the way to the bank!
Gnaaahahahahaanninininnhhhhhgnnaangaaaa hhhgggnn !!!
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?
Judging by her personal outcome in this situation, she appears to me to be extremely talented and competent individual.
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?
What a great fucking reason if ever there was one to permanently block yahoo.com and all related domains on my firewall, as every person who cares about society should do.
There are incessant attacks from Russia & Ukraine, and there is this grubby scheming "capitalism" which is equal or worse. Block it all.
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.
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.
Why was such an incompetent person made a manager?
According to "I'm Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee Number 59" by Douglas Edwards, she had a reputation for getting things done at Google. Success at one company doesn't always translate into success at different company. Maybe better luck next time.
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?!?
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.
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.
"Getting things done" seems to be the only measure for success in modern western companies. Doesn't matter how well those things are done, just that they are and quickly.
It depends on how things get done. When I get things done, I make sure they're done right the first time. Other people may try to get things done by gaming the numbers. I had a supervisor who did that and he rode the company all the way into bankruptcy before he got fired.
Cite?
Shame they didn't hire me. I could have drained all the IP and talent from that place for a fraction of the cost.
The stock price went from $15 to $48 so she couldn't have screwed up that much.
The woman part? She looks pretty hot to me and I'm right on those things about 29 out of 30 times...I don't like to talk about the times I've been mistaken.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He's also the one who invested in Alibaba in the first place though.
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...