Marissa Mayer Will Make $186 Million on Yahoo’s Sale to Verizon

Ducman69 said:
Of course there is, or everyone would do it. Unless there is a very unusual market vacuum thanks to a new emerging technology (which only one in a million will successfully tap), telling someone to just "become their own CEO" is like telling someone complaining that football stadium ticket prices are too high should just build their own stadium and create a competing football league to the NFL... yeah, I'll get right on that! *facepalm*

All I'm saying is that just as the monkey has a right to throw a fit, because it is unfair, so too do people have a right to be pissy about our broken system where the lucky few that played politics right to rub elbows with the right people have compensation completely divorced from their contribution to the company's product, and are massively rewarded just for trying, whether they succeed or fail.
Click to expand...

Wait, hang on, you throw a fit because you didn't try? I'm totally on board with the complete divorce of reality from average wages and C wages. But, there's literally nothing stopping you from going after it too. And creating a company in the USA is a LOT easier than creating a competing NFL league. You're not even in the same universe with that analogy. My friend consultant has his own LLC. Took literally nothing to set up. Go from there. And yes, I'm aware the system has some serious issues. But this is not a binary viewpoint. You can go after your own wealth in our system that contains serious issues. When did everything become so and/or around here anyway?
 
heatlesssun said:
Trump has done a lot more for my stock positions than Mayer but I'm not going to be defending him anytime soon. So I don't get the connection.
Click to expand...
Well I wouldn't either, but I think it's a bit soon to attribute the market to Trump.

1. He's been in office for just over 3 months, so little he's done has any real effect
2. 3 Months is just a fluctuation and it could easily go down in 6 months....honestly, I've found the market generally overpriced for the last 7-8 months, though there are always companies at good prices (ex Gilead, or up until January Skyworks)

Now if he actually cuts corporate taxes, that will drive the market higher, though It's unclear what the high deficits will cause long term.

The reality is when the market thought Clinton was going to win late last summer, the market went up. When it got less certain it traded down and sideways. Had Clinton won, it would have gone up too, because the economy was good then and it's good now (though back then Republicans said it wasn't good and now Democrats are probably saying the same).
 
Gweenz said:
Using stock price as a metric for company health is a joke. Stock price only reflects speculation of what the (largely clueless) general population of investors views that portion of the company to be worth. Under her watch 1.5B (more, likely) of her customers accounts were hacked. Yahoo as a company is an empty shell of what it used to be. But this is capitalism, who cares, the product is the stock, right?
Click to expand...

Once again, Silicon Valley is accurate...

 
Shotglass01 said:
Wait, hang on, you throw a fit because you didn't try? I'm totally on board with the complete divorce of reality from average wages and C wages. But, there's literally nothing stopping you from going after it too. And creating a company in the USA is a LOT easier than creating a competing NFL league. You're not even in the same universe with that analogy. My friend consultant has his own LLC. Took literally nothing to set up. Go from there. And yes, I'm aware the system has some serious issues. But this is not a binary viewpoint. You can go after your own wealth in our system that contains serious issues. When did everything become so and/or around here anyway?
Click to expand...
You can't be serious. So you are telling me that if you wanted to create a competitor to Youtube or Comcast or Verizon Wireless, all you need is to snap your suspenders, buckle down, and put in some hard work?

Massive capital, existing wealth, powerful connections (the real purpose of Ivy League schools), and often luck are generally needed to enter that fraternity, as even in the off-chance that you have a revolutionary idea, to implement it will likely require an investor or VC that will end up with a controlling stake or some big company will just copy it with a slight alteration combined with massive marketing and run you out of business.

That's like telling everyone they should just win the lottery, because it worked for that one guy so everyone can do the same thing... no, 99.9% of people, no matter how much time and effort they invest, cannot become fortune 500 CEOs even if they are equally qualified, and no its NOT OK that there's a quid pro quo network of elites that form networks to lavish themselves in ridiculous sums of money once in the club (see how many of the richest people are members of other boards). Why do you think Chelsea Clinton is making $400K salary straight out of school with no work experience whatsoever? Because of her awesome public speaking, good looks, or charm?

Generals should make more than majors who should make more than captains who should make more than privates, no argument there. But the pay grade shouldn't be to the point that one general makes more than 100 captains combined... that's stupid. I promise you there would be no shortage of talented and motivated people to fill CEO positions and put in the hard work if the salary was $1 million a year.
 
Ducman69 said:
Generals should make more than majors who should make more than captains who should make more than privates, no argument there. But the pay grade shouldn't be to the point that one general makes more than 100 captains combined... that's stupid. I promise you there would be no shortage of talented and motivated people to fill CEO positions and put in the hard work if the salary was $1 million a year.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

For your other rabbles, see Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, possibly 10% of the 'contestants' on Shark Tank, and on and on. These are all new money developments. And, I agree, 99.9% of people, no matter what they do, couldn't become a fortune 500 CEO. They could become a fortune 2000 or 5000. Facebook started on a campus, and Dell began at a house. So to tell me it's not possible, is just saying we're going to have to disagree. You'll have a mountain more evidence of failures, I'm aware, but it patently is possible to do.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
In before the haters come in with "No one should be paid that much"
Click to expand...
I look at it from the opposite point of view; where's the value? Why would a company want to dedicate that kind of resources to one persons pay? There cant be any good return on investment there. It's not that she shouldnt be paid that much, it's that there's no way she's worth that much. If you design the first car that runs on AA batteries and gets 1000 miles and your company explodes into a trillion dollar networth, hey take 50% of it, it's yours, you earned it, and without you the company wouldnt exist. I doubt you can say the same about Marissa.
 
heatlesssun said:
Trump has done a lot more for my stock positions than Mayer but I'm not going to be defending him anytime soon. So I don't get the connection.
Click to expand...

The connection is that you support and endorse the system that is in place. You make money on it regardless of the long term ramifications ie helping to create a giant bubble that when it bursts will leave a good number of investors, or worse the taxpayers, holding a bag of shit. Do you really need me to get into precident here? We don't have to go back far.

This system is supported by 80's-business-think CEOs who only care about stock price and not products or services or making customers happy. They gobble up smaller companies and pick the bones, selling off assets. How many lives are crushed in the grind? Who cares, making money, right?
 
Gweenz said:
This system is supported by 80's-business-think CEOs who only care about stock price and not products or services or making customers happy. They gobble up smaller companies and pick the bones, selling off assets. How many lives are crushed in the grind? Who cares, making money, right?
Click to expand...

Didn't the US just elect one of those 80's-business-think CEOs as POTUS? And people how mentioned were some fake news spreaders. Honestly, I have no idea what people want. They hate government, they hate business, they seem to hate everything. Sure there's plenty I don't like about the system but ultimately people must not hate it too much. Cause we got one of those 80's CEOs as President now.
 
There seems to be way more complaining about perceived envy than actual envy here.
 
c_porter said:
You don't even know what you're complaining about. The S&P is the S&P 500.
Click to expand...

While your post has a slight bit of truth to it, it's still the same company: Standard & Poor's, and just because they've spread themselves out (into several separate but still interconnected financial entities) since the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007/2008 they're still the same foundation firm that was still somewhat responsible for the crisis in the long run by continually rating completely useless CDOs/mortgage backed securities as highly trusted AAA/BBB when they were nothing of the sort just so they'd continue to get business from banks and other financial organizations.

It's a rather complex mess the financial sector made of things but the paper trail is there and Standard & Poor's continually high ratings of absolute worthless shit had a big part in how things fell apart.
 
Yahoo and Meyer are in a contract with each other. There is nothing wrong with the stipulation of the golden parachute. Sure, I wish my next position would offer me a handsome severance, but I'm a cog in a wheel. They needed someone at the helm and Meyer was one of a couple who would jump off her comfortable ship onto a sinking one. Analogies aside, she should have had her payments docked for that little security breach that she was aware of for years, but it's life. She can move on and Verizon can eat the cost and raise my phone bill in the coming years.
 
TheSoldier said:
Yahoo and Meyer are in a contract with each other. There is nothing wrong with the stipulation of the golden parachute. Sure, I wish my next position would offer me a handsome severance, but I'm a cog in a wheel. They needed someone at the helm and Meyer was one of a couple who would jump off her comfortable ship onto a sinking one. Analogies aside, she should have had her payments docked for that little security breach that she was aware of for years, but it's life. She can move on and Verizon can eat the cost and raise my phone bill in the coming years.
Click to expand...
Of course there is something wrong with it, as that is money that isnt going to the families of other hard working employees at the company. And while she may have network contacts being in "the club", i can assure you there are thouands of very motivated, smart, and talented people that can do her job at least as well as she can. Its a broken system, and yes you should be mad.

She isnt superhuman, and is just a person in an administrative role that many others could have filled if given the opportunity.
 
Executive compensation and stock prices seem to be based something other than reality and has been for a while. Not going to change anytime soon, non story really.
 
ceopay2graf.jpg



Until we legislate some sort of CEO to average worker pay ratio, this is going to continue. Overpaid Board of Director members will just keep voting in vastly overpaid CEO's to keep the whole gravy train rolling.
 
Creig said:
Until we legislate some sort of CEO to average worker pay ratio, this is going to continue. Overpaid Board of Director members will just keep voting in vastly overpaid CEO's to keep the whole gravy train rolling.
Click to expand...
Never understood that system:

Board member: "Hey, I vote everyone on the board should each get $20 million stock option bonuses this year, even though we laid off 500 employees because we said we had no money. The idea is to incentivize us to work hard, because nobody is going to work hard for only 5 million a year base pay."
CEO: "I'm not so sure this is a good idea."
Board: "Well, the CEO would get $100 million, obviously. We should take turns on who gets to be CEO though to be fair."
Everyone: "Its unanimous! Fuck the plebs!"
 
c_porter said:
You don't even know what you're complaining about. The S&P is the S&P 500.
Click to expand...

It's the same company? Or are you saying their bond rating division is rotten to the core, and the "500" division is above all reproach? They are rotten from the top down.
 
Creig said:
If CEO's from the 1960's could happily survive on only 20x their average worker's salary, why do todays CEO's need 300x to 400x?
Click to expand...

Why does anyone need anything? If CEO's make so much money and you want a cut of it, go become a CEO. I mean, if its not hard and all you need is the right social connections, go get you some.
 
I don't see a problem here:

1. How much a company pays to that one employee is their own damn business. Complaining about it is like watching someone drinking beer and you complain the beer is shit. Sure, they get paid an obscene amount, perhaps completely inproportional to their apparent work done, but you were never part of that company in the first place.

2. It's not taxpayer's money.
 
Monkey God said:
Why does anyone need anything? If CEO's make so much money and you want a cut of it, go become a CEO. I mean, if its not hard and all you need is the right social connections, go get you some.
Click to expand...
Nice deflection away from my question.
 
vegeta535 said:
Good for her. Take the money and run. Fuck the haters. Almost no one would turn down that kind of money.
Click to expand...
You're right, I wouldn't turn down 186 million for leaving after less than optimal performance. I guess the difference is I would think "Wow, this system is completely broken and I just happen to be an outrageous beneficiary of it" rather than "Hooray, what a great system! I get rewarded beyond imagination while the average working person sees their wages stagnate. How great for society!"
 
Monkey God said:
Why does anyone need anything? If CEO's make so much money and you want a cut of it, go become a CEO. I mean, if its not hard and all you need is the right social connections, go get you some.
Click to expand...
I think it depends on whether you're looking at this from a macro or micro perspective. If you look at it purely at face value, you're right. The company earned the money and set the rules for how the CEO is compensated, the end. No problem there.

From a larger view, you may take into account how average employee wages have stagnated at the same time CEO pay has gotten astronomical. The rich influence our politics and policies now far more than the average person. Most of our congress is composed of millionaires. We have less regulation than ever so businesses can prosper. It all paints a picture of how the rich are running everything, often at the cost of everyone else. The act of one CEO stepping down for poor performance, but being rewarded more than hundreds of Americans will earn in their entire lives for her mistake can be seen as a symptom of a much larger problem.
 
Gweenz said:
It's the same company? Or are you saying their bond rating division is rotten to the core, and the "500" division is above all reproach? They are rotten from the top down.
Click to expand...
How is the S&P 500 corrupt (or rotten)?
 
Monkey God said:
I answered your question - you just didn't like it. The answer is unless you are a major shareholder of said company is "none of your business."
Click to expand...

All you regurgitated was, "Why does anyone need anything? If CEO's make so much money and you want a cut of it, go become a CEO. I mean, if its not hard and all you need is the right social connections, go get you some." Which is not an answer.

And it most certainly is my business. It's the business of everybody who actually works for a living. There is only so much money to go around. The more that the CEOs and Board of Director's hoard the less there is for everybody else who works for the company. You know, the people who actually make the products or provide the service that actually keeps the company in business. I'm pretty sure that the Marissa Mayer's of the world could survive just fine on 5 or 6 million dollars a year. There is no need for them to be paid in the hundreds of millions of dollars. They aren't 300x smarter than their average employee and definitely don't work 300x harder. So there is no justification for them to be paid 300x as much. The difference between 6 million and 186 million could have been spread throughout the company for the benefit of all, not just one.
 
Monkey God said:
I answered your question - you just didn't like it. The answer is unless you are a major shareholder of said company is "none of your business."
Click to expand...
Actually that's not correct. If you're a shareholder it's your business. If you've got to be a major shareholder, then essentially it's only the business of institutional investors.
 
Creig said:
And it most certainly is my business. It's the business of everybody who actually works for a living. There is only so much money to go around. The more that the CEOs and Board of Director's hoard the less there is for everybody else who works for the company. You know, the people who actually make the products or provide the service that actually keeps the company in business. I'm pretty sure that the Marissa Mayer's of the world could survive just fine on 5 or 6 million dollars a year. There is no need for them to be paid in the hundreds of millions of dollars. They aren't 300x smarter than their average employee and definitely don't work 300x harder. So there is no justification for them to be paid 300x as much. The difference between 6 million and 186 million could have been spread throughout the company for the benefit of all, not just one.
Click to expand...

The justification for it is that the system currently in place allows for it. That's it. It literally is freedom in action. And, no I don't believe it's very good to have that much wealth concentrated in so few hands, and yet, still, because of it, there's nothing holding you back from trying to get your brass ring. Aside from that, I'm seeing CEO pay so off the charts and a bunch of companies, not substantially worth that much, getting bought out for millions or sometimes billions of dollars. I think there's a super-economy happening. But instead of buying bread and milk like we do, companies contemplate buying out other companies. It's cheaper than litigation and you get all the benefit of patent portfolios, customer bases, and specific knowledge. I've never seen so many companies with so much unchecked power.
 
Gweenz said:
It's the same company? Or are you saying their bond rating division is rotten to the core, and the "500" division is above all reproach? They are rotten from the top down.
Click to expand...
I'm saying your complaints about S&P's bond rating practices are a complete nonsequiter and nonsensical in the context of the post you were replying to. You don't even have to do business with S&P to invest in the S&P 500. Hence, I say you're just complaining about financial stuff you don't understand, but someone told you to be mad about it for political reasons, so here we are.

The S&P is an index that 1) outperforms the overall market and 2) is the most brain-dead way to invest money and beat the market. If you do a bunch of work and only do as well as the S&P 500, you may as well have invested in the S&P 500 and done something else with your time. Ergo, it's a standard for performance measurement. These things are simply true, whether or not you like S&P. InorganicMatter pointed out that Yahoo beat the S&P 500 because it's the standard metric for performance. He could have easily said they beat the total market, but obviously he has some idea what is going on so he didn't.
 
I don't care at all. It's not my money, and never would or should be.
 
Creig said:
And it most certainly is my business. It's the business of everybody who actually works for a living. There is only so much money to go around. The more that the CEOs and Board of Director's hoard the less there is for everybody else who works for the company. You know, the people who actually make the products or provide the service that actually keeps the company in business. I'm pretty sure that the Marissa Mayer's of the world could survive just fine on 5 or 6 million dollars a year. There is no need for them to be paid in the hundreds of millions of dollars. They aren't 300x smarter than their average employee and definitely don't work 300x harder. So there is no justification for them to be paid 300x as much. The difference between 6 million and 186 million could have been spread throughout the company for the benefit of all, not just one.
Click to expand...

It's not your money, therefore not your fucking business. Get over it.

There is only so much money to go around.
Click to expand...

You obviously have no idea how the Federal reserve works.
 
Look at her previous positions before landing at Yahoo. She was not qualified in any way, shape, or form for a CEO position.
 
Monkey God said:
It's not your money, therefore not your fucking business. Get over it.
Click to expand...
How do you know I'm not a shareholder or employee of Yahoo or some other company with similarly overpaid executives? That makes it my business.

Monkey God said:
You obviously have no idea how the Federal reserve works.
Click to expand...
I was obviously referring to the amount of money available to individual companies, not the Federal Reserve. Just say the word if you need me to explain the difference to you. You sound confused.
 
Creig said:
How do you know I'm not a shareholder or employee of Yahoo or some other company with similarly overpaid executives? That makes it my business.


I was obviously referring to the amount of money available to individual companies, not the Federal Reserve. Just say the word if you need me to explain the difference to you. You sound confused.
Click to expand...
If you're a shareholder, you're happy that you quadrupled your money in 5 years, which is more than happened under her predecessor(s).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top