Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

CEO leaves, stock market value drops ~$6.5B

One interpretation is that senior leadership (e.g. CEO) matters a lot. But it flies against the idea that CEOs are overpaid. From a quick search, it looks like his total stock comp was ~$52m which was a bargain considering his departure cost the company billions. Perhaps he would not have left if he had a higher pay, more in line with the value the market ascribes to him.

However I imagine those that are upset about CEO pay will find this unconvincing. Is there any other way to interpret this?

View on HN

> However I imagine those that are upset about CEO pay will find this unconvincing. Is there any other way to interpret this?

Judging by your recent comments, you seem to have an axe to grind with people who are "upset about CEO pay" and I don't think it's possible to convince you to look any things from any other angle.

A CEO abruptly resigning is read by the market as a signal. Unless you think this person is ~$6.5B more valuable than any potential replacement, the full quantity of the loss cannot be ascribed to the value he provides as an employee.

>it looks like his total stock comp was ~$52m which was a bargain considering his departure cost the company billions.

this same things can happen with any employee at any company and does not bolster your argument.

a $10/hr worker flipping burgers can take actions that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. burger king foot lettuce guy probably cost the company millions.

i could cause millions of dollars in damage this afternoon (i am not paid millions).

I don't think the CEO sabotaged anything or created legal liability causing the $6b drop. I think you're stretching here.

the point is that the amount of money you make is not really tied to the amount of many you can cause the company to lose (on purpose, by accident, by departure, etc.).

or, in other words, looking at the 6B loss and working backwards to say that the CEO was underpaid at 52MM is nonsensical

I think it's a pretty clear counterfactual. Someone works there company is worth X. If he doesn't work there, what would the company be worth? Note that the role itself doesn't go away, it will get replaced, but the difference in market value is his worth to the company compared to a median CEO.

It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business. It's not a moral worth, it's just a market value as perceived by the market. In other words, a rational investor would gladly pay the CEO $1b for him not to leave and save $6b in market cap. So by definition he must be worth at least that much.

>It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business.

there's many explanations as to why the stock dropped the amount it did. one of the least likely was that desai's leadership is worth billions of dollars. it has nothing to do with "icky".

a rational investor would not want desai to receive a ~20x raise to stay, either. i have no idea why you think they would.

This was sudden very large drop, coincided exactly with announcement CEO would be leaving.

MongoDB reaffirmed both Q3 and full-year FY2027 guidance this morning.

There was no revenue warning, earnings revision, or deterioration disclosed alongside Desai’s departure.

There was no major analyst downgrade today driving the move. In fact, Citizens maintained its Buy rating and $519 target.

There's literally no other reason I can reasonably think of for the large stock drop apart from his departure. So I think you're stretching here. You just can't admit what's obvious because you likely think it's morally icky to suggest someone can be worth that much.

Also you have to consider that Zuck is probably paying him 9 figures to leave. So another person validating that he really is worth that much

His departure causing a drop does not mean he was worth that drop. Investors think his departure signals internal issues and are trading based off that.

>You just can't admit what's obvious because you likely think it's morally icky to suggest someone can be worth that much.

you keep saying this, but you have literally no idea who i am or what my morals are. perhaps you should not speak so confidently about things you know nothing about.

i dont find anything "icky", i just disagree with you.

>Also you have to consider that Zuck is probably paying him 9 figures to leave. So another person validating that he really is worth that much

you can't make up a random number then use that made up number as "validation" for your point.

One has to imagine that the op is a ceo himself. They are just not engaging with any of these arguments in good faith - strawmanning and then attacking personally

Dude if you bought this morning on the news you would have made well over 10% back today. This smells more of a massive algorithmic sell off

if "CEO Resignes" SELL SELL SELL

Somehow missed this until now. Interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_foot_lettuce

Leaving a company != Taking actions.

If a Burger Flipper leaves the company, it costs them exactly the amount of Burgers they fell short of making (to meet the demand) till they find the replacement burger flipper and they are exactly paid that much.

Anyone can burn/bomb a company and cause millions in damages. Doesn't mean they are worth that much

>Anyone can burn/bomb a company and cause millions in damages. Doesn't mean they are worth that much

yes, that's my point.

and it absolutely extends to unexpectedly leaving. there have been plenty of times in my career that simply leaving without notice would have cost my company many times my salary.

mongodb ceo is not worth 6 billion dollars.

Another reading is this: CEOs don't quit without notice [1], it's bad form and bad for both the company and for the reputation of the person leaving. Regardless of the value he as an individual was providing it speaks to substantial disfunction in the overall leadership of the company and a major lack of confidence from the person who presumably had the best idea of how the company was doing on the whole. The market suddenly learning those things resulted in a substantial market correction. It doesn't really matter whether he was a particularly good or bad CEO; the situation would indicate something is majorly wrong in either case.

1: Obviously exceptions will exist for unexpected major life events, etc.

You made the assumption that it was fairly valued before and the loss was a "true" loss.

But possible it could have been over-valued before, unbeknownst to low-information external investors. After all, right now it as a PE of 450+. (Google PE is 17, Meta PE is 27, Tesla PE is 330)

The stock dropping on CEO departure had nothing to do with his personal performance, and everything to do with the information that he revealed on the way out. Why would the CEO leave a rising and successful company on the verge of innovation?

And thus tying it back to pay - people should be paid based on their output and their personal performance, not based on simply serving as a signal which any warm body can do. That said, I don't think truly amazing CEOs are overpaid, e.g. steve jobs of old.

How much of the drop do you think is due to the bearish nature of ceo departure? One would have to assume that if the company was going to go gangbusters the ceo would stay.

In short: is it this particular CEO who is that valuable? Should I pay 100m to some Joe off the street since I know they will stay put?

Zuck probably outbid him. He walked away from $30m unvested. If they paid him more, he likely would have stayed and the stock wouldn't drop $6b

CEOs leave all the time. Average tenure has dropped over the years suggesting a fierce competition for senior talent

30m unvested at what price? If you think it’s going to 2x, then it’s worth 60m. Maybe zuck paid an unrealistic multiple - 20x, but out side of that still a bearish signal

Just because the market reacts to a piece of information to the tune of 6B, doesn't mean the guy is providing 6b of value. It's just a piece of information and the market reacts to what it may or may not mean. Any other goober with an MBA in that role who quits with no notice may induce the same market reaction, even if they were a shit ceo.

If you think his departure won't impact the company, it looks like you're smarter than other investors and you get to buy MongoDB at a 25% discount. Also there's a job opening at the top spot, although you may be better suited as an investor with this kind of insight.

departure could also mean, private information about MongoDB problems that is not public, so I would not invest in MongoDB

Yeah this op keeps skipping this point… like this is everyone’s argument boiled down and he just keeps saying well market says he’s valuable. No, market says his departure is indicative of real price being XXm lower than previous, it could have little to do with his value directly

Trading algorithms at big shops read headline "CEO of company leaves for greener AI pastures"

Make adjustments based on ML

Actual analysis of this person's value to company not weighted as highly

Er, I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at, but the stop market drop was not because of his value-add to the company, it was because of the signal it sends by the CEO quitting.

So… I guess you could make an argument that that merits higher pay, but it'd be saying it's due to his blackmail power.

> However I imagine those that are upset about CEO pay will find this unconvincing. Is there any other way to interpret this?

I would argue that at most he's a signal about company value that people reacted to. Maybe the company lost 6 billion dollars in underlying value, but it wasn't from the CEO change itself.

>Is there any other way to interpret this?

One would be "the market processing the new information that MongoDB's legal department doesn't know how to draft contracts".

ole Zuck just buying what he wants - for any price, cause that is what the richest in the world can do? Also using the market cap / paper valuation isn't aligned with 'actual value' imo.

How much closer can you get to “actual value” than a long standing publicly trades business with deep liquidity?

> Is there any other way to interpret this?

Sure: Destructive actions have a lower bar than constructive ones.

My company doesn't pay me millions, but I were motivated to do so, I could probably cost my company millions. Similar principle here: regardless of whether the CEO is any good, simply by virtue of their position they can tank the stock by making wild moves that undermine confidence.

Imagine a generic human blob CEO with minimal VORP[0], you could swap him out with anyone else in the organisation and get the same results. But if he gets on twitter and announces, "This company is trash and I'm leaving this trash fire," he's going to cost them millions.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player

Reply on news.ycombinator.com