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

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Yahoo’s soon-to-be-ex-CEO will be demonstrating how failure can be highly rewarding when she exits her fledgling company nearly $200 million richer. Luckily for Marissa, investments in more successful companies such as Alibaba drove up stock prices over her tenure, resulting in a big payout. Verizon is expected to officially acquire Yahoo in June after shareholders make their votes.

…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.
 
InorganicMatter said:
She's not being "paid" that much. $186 million of that is vesting of her stock options, not salary or bonuses.
Click to expand...
Yes but haters will still find a reason to hate and ignore that logic and reply with "She shouldn't have been given all that stock. That's just a gross payout for bad performance." I don't agree with them, but that's besides the point.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Yes but haters will still find a reason to hate and ignore that logic and reply with "She shouldn't have been given all that stock"
Click to expand...

Well the idea is to put some skin in the game for company performance and ultimately the outcome was a plus in terms of market value before she got there. But the optics off selling of an internet pioneer aren't the best.
 
lilbabycat said:
It grew at the same rate the market itself did. It more or less stagnated.
Click to expand...

The value of the company grew and so did her options. I don't think too many people look at this as any great success. But it's how the deal worked out.
 
I never got all the hate for Mayer, did she save Yahoo? No, but that ship was always going to go down, and all the previous CEOs did most of the damage. She gave it a shot, and it didn't work out. The fact she was able to sell Yahoo for anything should be considered a win...
 
Shmee said:
I never got all the hate for Mayer, did she save Yahoo? No, but that ship was always going to go down, and all the previous CEOs did most of the damage. She gave it a shot, and it didn't work out. The fact she was able to sell Yahoo for anything should be considered a win...
Click to expand...

I think this is the consensus view. Jerry Yang screwed up by not taking the Microsoft deal. And Microsoft won for once on that one.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
In before the haters come in with "No one should be paid that much"
Click to expand...
Haters? That's a fact. I'm a rootin tootin Trump lovin' capitalist, but some things are broken as hell, and this is one of them. People should be paid roughly in proportion to their contribution, and here we have a woman that ran a company into the ground and is rewarded with a golden parachute for the effort. And she'll continue to use her contacts to make herself even wealthier in the next company that gets sold out.

To put this in perspective, a brain surgeon "only" makes $600K a year, and Marissa Mayer is no brain surgeon.
 
Ducman69 said:
People should be paid roughly in proportion to their contribution, and here we have a woman that ran a company into the ground and is rewarded with a golden parachute for the effort.
Click to expand...

She didn't run it into the ground, she wasn't able to save it and it was already in SERIOUS trouble before she took over. She received options and the value of the company rose during her tenure.
 
heatlesssun said:
She didn't run it into the ground, she wasn't able to save it and it was already in SERIOUS trouble before she took over. She received options and the value of the company rose during her tenure.
Click to expand...
Lets say she put in 80 hour weeks (unlikely)... $200 million in a year? For at least failing to do the job, however impossible, she was hired for? C'mon now. $200K would be plenty. $200 million is a "fuck you" to the rest of the hard working world that bust their ass around the clock, contribute plenty to the product the company offers, and get a pittance for their time.

Smart talented people SHOULD make bank, but not like this, not when you fail, and not that much.
 
heatlesssun said:
She didn't run it into the ground, she wasn't able to save it and it was already in SERIOUS trouble before she took over. She received options and the value of the company rose during her tenure.
Click to expand...
Ok you're right.
She didn't run it into the ground, she just circled the drain for years getting ever closer to the bottom.
She didn't do her job which was to rehabilitate the company and save it.
 
RAutrey said:
Envy is a bitch. I love how everyone seems to think they have the right to define ceiling plate height.
Click to expand...
"Fairness" is human nature, and even monkey experiments show its a trait that even other intelligent primates posses:


I never understand how some people think that "fairness" is a bad thing. Its f'ed up, and no people should NOT be equal, because people aren't equally talented or work equally hard (so rewarding them the same for unequal work would be unfair too), but all that money that is being shoved by the barrel full up her ass is money that would have gone to the employees working for her that are likely carrying all those rocks and working the late hours under the whip that she cracks while out golfing and "networking" on company dime at fine restaurants with clients.

So its not that she's making more than the average person that's an issue, is that she has arguably not succeeded in her task, and yet is being rewarded beyond any realm of fairness compared to the labor of her employees. If you can't define a dollar amount that you believe is unfair (say she was rewarded $1.5 billion) and would piss you off, then IMO there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning and logic.
 
Ducman69 said:
Lets say she put in 80 hour weeks (unlikely)... $200 million in a year? For at least failing to do the job, however impossible, she was hired for? C'mon now. $200K would be plenty. $200 million is a "fuck you" to the rest of the hard working world that bust their ass around the clock, contribute plenty to the product the company offers, and get a pittance for their time.

Smart talented people SHOULD make bank, but not like this, not when you fail, and not that much.
Click to expand...

Hypergreatthing said:
Ok you're right.
She didn't run it into the ground, she just circled the drain for years getting ever closer to the bottom.
She didn't do her job which was to rehabilitate the company and save it.
Click to expand...

The company was worth more than when she got there. I'm not saying she was successful but this compensation is a direct result of company valuation based on the contract she signed. Ok, maybe the contract was bad or she wasn't successful but that was the deal. Turning around Yahoo was a long shot at best and everyone new it. Of course there's always things that could be done differently or better but I don't think there was much that could have saved Yahoo in 2012 to today.
 
Ducman69 said:
"Fairness" is human nature, and even monkey experiments show its a trait that even other intelligent primates posses:


I never understand how some people think that "fairness" is a bad thing. Its f'ed up, and no people should NOT be equal, because people aren't equally talented or work equally hard (so rewarding them the same for unequal work would be unfair too), but all that money that is being shoved by the barrel full up her ass is money that would have gone to the employees working for her that are likely carrying all those rocks and working the late hours under the whip that she cracks while out golfing and "networking" on company dime at fine restaurants with clients.

So its not that she's making more than the average person that's an issue, is that she has arguably not succeeded in her task, and yet is being rewarded beyond any realm of fairness compared to the labor of her employees. If you can't define a dollar amount that you believe is unfair (say she was rewarded $1.5 billion) and would piss you off, then IMO there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning and logic.
Click to expand...

The world is not a fair place. If you try and play fair you will get crushed. It sucks but that's how it is and always been. It will never change. You can stand on your high horse but given the opportunity most people will step on someone to get to top. People can deine it all they want they cant truly determine what they would do given th chance. It is human nature after all.
 
Madoc said:
Someone mentioned envy... am I envious over someone getting $200 mill for leading a company into failure? You bet I am. I want to fail and get paid, too!
Click to expand...

Where are you going to find anyone with the experience to lead a large company saying "Even if the company is worth more now than when you leave or the company gets sold, you don't get your stock options."
 
Ducman69 said:
"Fairness" is human nature, and even monkey experiments show its a trait that even other intelligent primates posses:

I never understand how some people think that "fairness" is a bad thing. Its f'ed up, and no people should NOT be equal, because people aren't equally talented or work equally hard (so rewarding them the same for unequal work would be unfair too), but all that money that is being shoved by the barrel full up her ass is money that would have gone to the employees working for her that are likely carrying all those rocks and working the late hours under the whip that she cracks while out golfing and "networking" on company dime at fine restaurants with clients.

So its not that she's making more than the average person that's an issue, is that she has arguably not succeeded in her task, and yet is being rewarded beyond any realm of fairness compared to the labor of her employees. If you can't define a dollar amount that you believe is unfair (say she was rewarded $1.5 billion) and would piss you off, then IMO there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning and logic.
Click to expand...

I really don't completely disagree with what you're saying, but there's virtually nothing stopping you from creating a Silicon Valley startup, growing it big, and dumping it off when the fad fades. Plenty of cash going around, nothing stopping you from going to get some of it.
 
heatlesssun said:
The company was worth more than when she got there. I'm not saying she was successful but this compensation is a direct result of company valuation based on the contract she signed. Ok, maybe the contract was bad or she wasn't successful but that was the deal. Turning around Yahoo was a long shot at best and everyone new it. Of course there's always things that could be done differently or better but I don't think there was much that could have saved Yahoo in 2012 to today.
Click to expand...

I guess the problem I have is that value seems completely arbitrary to me. Is Yahoo worth more? On it's stock price, yes. As far as it's actual contribution? Personally, I don't think so. I mean, many of us have been at companies, where the company was basing it's success off of it's stock price, rather than it's physical successes. I guess I'm not a big fan of these paper values of companies potentially being worth billions, and VCs and the stock display that, rather than the actual finances of a company which can be negative.
 
Nytegard said:
I guess the problem I have is that value seems completely arbitrary to me. Is Yahoo worth more? On it's stock price, yes. As far as it's actual contribution? Personally, I don't think so. I mean, many of us have been at companies, where the company was basing it's success off of it's stock price, rather than it's physical successes. I guess I'm not a big fan of these paper values of companies potentially being worth billions, and VCs and the stock display that, rather than the actual finances of a company which can be negative.
Click to expand...

You are correct, valuation is much of an art than a science but it's still an objective measure. You can't say to someone "I'll compensate you based on some nebulous definition based on 'actual contribution'. That's no better than market valuation.
 
Madoc said:
Someone mentioned envy... am I envious over someone getting $200 mill for leading a company into failure? You bet I am. I want to fail and get paid, too!
Click to expand...

Gotta fail harder and better than others! ;)
 
The stunning collapse of Yahoo’s valuation

Marissa Mayer took over as CEO in 2012. Over the next few years, she poured $2.1 billion into acquiring more than 50 startups, but was unable to reverse the slide in Yahoo’s revenue, or stem its loss of talent. By early 2015, what remained of Yahoo’s value was entirely tied up in its Alibaba stake. Its core businesses of search, display, and mobile ads were deemed essentially worthless.
Click to expand...

What is Marissa Mayer's Net Worth?

Marissa Mayer currently has a net worth of an estimated:

$293,390,134

Marissa Mayer's net worth increased by $606,354 on 4/25/2017
Click to expand...

What is Marissa Mayer's Laugh Worth?? PRICELESS!!
 
InorganicMatter said:
I don't think so... The S&P has grown about 70% since 2012, and she's grown Yahoo about 200% in that same period.
Click to expand...

She only grew it by covering up huge security breaches and god only knows what other shady shit she did. So while I understand how this payout is happening I don't think it was earned in any way shape or form.
 
Ducman69 said:
Lets say she put in 80 hour weeks (unlikely)... $200 million in a year? For at least failing to do the job, however impossible, she was hired for? C'mon now. $200K would be plenty. $200 million is a "fuck you" to the rest of the hard working world that bust their ass around the clock, contribute plenty to the product the company offers, and get a pittance for their time.

Smart talented people SHOULD make bank, but not like this, not when you fail, and not that much.
Click to expand...
200k? A CFO from a company with 1000 employees can make 200k+. She would never leave google for that. And let's be honest, she may not have done what she wanted, but the stock has outperformed Google and if I owned Yahoo, I'd be pretty thrilled that in 5 years my investment more than doubled.

That said, I'm with you on CEOs making too much, but it is what it is.

edit:added 's' to CEO
 
Last edited:
Man, I should've specialized at beating dead horses for big corps/governments. Look at all these experts. They always fail but get rich in the process.
 
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?
 
InorganicMatter said:
I don't think so... The S&P has grown about 70% since 2012, and she's grown Yahoo about 200% in that same period.
Click to expand...

The same S&P that was a ratings shop and helped crash the economy in 2008? Why would you trust anything they have to say?
 
Shotglass01 said:
I really don't completely disagree with what you're saying, but there's virtually nothing stopping you from creating a Silicon Valley startup, growing it big, and dumping it off when the fad fades. Plenty of cash going around, nothing stopping you from going to get some of it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
This is weird. I could've sworn the last thread about Mayer had her getting hammered by the posters here...its the exact opposite this thread - and she's cashing out even more!
 
MrTryfe said:
This is weird. I could've sworn the last thread about Mayer had her getting hammered by the posters here...its the exact opposite this thread - and she's cashing out even more!
Click to expand...

They're heavily invested in the stock market. Of course they're going to defend her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top