Yahoo's COO Walks Out With $20M Stock Bonus, Plus $40M For 15 Months' Work

"In order to start this new company, I'll need to leave my current job. which pays very well and where I've spent years moving up the org chart. This new company is very risky. We might not hit our performance targets. So... I'll need a golden parachute, ya know, just in case I can't cut it."

I don't need to tell you what the VC's logical response would be. Too bad that logic doesn't apply to "top management".

The only key asset that still gave Yahoo significant leverage was its war chest and rather than let it dwindle she decided to invest it in a number of bold steps to achieve a dramatic shift in corporate culture.

While some of these steps are indeed turning out to have been mistakes I find I hard to argue, keeping Occam's razor in mind, that her actions did not keep the best interest of the shareholders in mind, especially given Yahoo's performance on the market.

Doesn't seem outrageous put like that, or have I completely misunderstood?

All guesswork. But it seems plausible to me.

I wouldn't hire these executives to do anything, let alone run a company. Most of them only get into a company because of their network. And once they come in, they have a gang of sycophants built up to assist them through their loot. They last 2-3 years any where they go. After which that 'you cant fool all the people all the time' thing kicks in and they are fired. But what's the point any way? there are enough idiots who will be ready to hire them again and they have a big enough network to help them out.

>>or is this something that's just become accepted practice

I attended a start up conference here in Bangalore. A exec of a big company was invited to speak. His full talk was BS, of course. But he repeatedly emphasized start up's were missing 'expert exec leadership' and VC's weren't paying up enough to ensure such leadership came on board. In short his whole talk was cribbing about how start ups were asking them to perform to get payed and were not just paying them while they wish to sleep on their jobs.

>>I've never known anyone I'd give $60M for 15 months of work.

Any one who is that capable is likely making doing his own work. And never this way.

The statement that caught my attention was:

"we tend to believe that executive positions are a free market where good wages goes to those that merit them, but it's not, it's a collusive system in which offer and demand is played by the same guys. I give you this board place now, then you leave, you'll get me a board position later in your next company and so on."

I don't know if this is effectively true, but it does ring a bell.

The things she is going to accomplish while at Yahoo are: 1) burning through the Alibaba money; 2) riding the stock market bubble until it crashes, temporarily making her look good; 3) not boosting sales or profits much at all if at all

And a few years from now (I'd peg it at three or less at this point), that'll be that, and she will be done at Yahoo.

Whether they're worth it or not is another matter. But clearly boards tends to think they are.

She's from, like, Google, which makes her ultra effective.

For some reason. Apparently.