121–130 of 357 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a huge difference, If Google stock underperforms, he is not getting that compensation unlike salaried folks.
Stock fluctuations are irrelevant with this amount... stock could tank 20% and here's still getting $175M
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$1mm/year is such a drop in the bucket for a company making $100,00mm/year it almost doesn’t matter. It’s not about the marginal benefits of paying the same guy just a tiny bit more anyhow, it’s about paying that guy enough that he doesn’t just decide to retire, or run a competing company, or start his own. Imagine if you think some guy is the most qualified person in the world to run your company, even if they only…
Right, I understand the justifications for CEO pay. I am just saying that I absolutely do not believe that for large public companies he is 1% better than the second choice.
The other early employees and insiders got layered with outside middle management as Google grew.
Since Google is basically controlled by the founders still there are actually very few people left who are qualified on paper to run the company, already work at Google, and have the trust of founders. Now I’m not saying that means nobody could do better than Sundar, but I do think the founders earnestly believe he is 1% better than any second choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, it's an accounting artifact, NOT what he actually makes per year -- as the rest of the sentence might clue the reader into: > which marked a staggering 3,474% increase from the previous year For whatever reason, Google pays their CEO using a "triennial" stock award. It vests over 3 years. So just to be accurate, his yearly compensation is more like $75 MM. Still obviously a lot of money for anyone, but n…
> So just to be accurate, his yearly compensation is more like $75 MM. But do you know he doesn't get a new "3 year vesting stock award" every year? It seems like he was paid 3% less the year before. That's normally the approach with vesting schedules like this, to stagger them, so there's never a "good time point" for him to leave.
> Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai was awarded compensation worth more than $225 million in 2022 I know this has been discussed here and 225MM is like the salary of 1000 employees making 200K for only one year, it is stock which is volatoile, that the salary of a CEO is impossible to measure, bla bla bla. But holy guacamole, whatever is the angle I look at it 225MM pear year does not make any f_ing sense to me and it is si…
I worked for a guy a decade ago who spent 8-10 years building a company to sell it for $300-400 million and he hasn't worked a day since. Owns a 30k acre ranch that a bunch of friends/family live on. Learjets. Villas in the islands, things like that. I can't think of one thing he hasn't done or is limited financially in doing. Last time I saw him he had a $120k watch on, some type of Hublot big bang. And Pichai gets…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, I understand the justifications for CEO pay. I am just saying that I absolutely do not believe that for large public companies he is 1% better than the second choice.
Google as it grew basically had two tiers of outcomes for insiders. The inner circle of insiders like Sundar and Susan had Google grow “under” them so they stayed near the top. A lot of this inner circle has either retired or left, isn’t fit to run the company (some of the purely technical folks) because of their skills, or was forced out because they did bad controversial things (there’s a joke that Sundar won by de…
The founders believe he is 1% better, but what do the markets believe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are running something worth over $1 trillion that makes hundreds of billions of dollars per year it makes sense though, right? You can argue even a mediocre CEO could do ok, and I’d agree, but at the same time you could easily justify paying huge amounts of money to get a CEO who will only perform better by 1%/year. To me it’s really the size of the big tech companies that’s mind boggling. The fact companies t…
>If you are running something worth over $1 trillion that makes hundreds of billions of dollars per year it makes sense though, right? But he isn't running it. He has legal control over it, but in terms of sweat equity he only gets 24 hours in the day like everyone else and you can't tell me he somehow converts that to 1000x the labor of an average, capable, willing, working employee.
It’s not about the time it takes him to make these decisions so much as the quality of his decisions having potentially massive $ impacts on the company’s performance.
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai was awarded compensation worth more than $225 million in 2022, which marked a staggering 3,474% increase from the previous year, making him the nation’s highest-paid CEO, according to Equilar data. There’s a whole rabbit hole to go down, but CEO compensation is not well defined. In this case it’s likely that Pichai was granted options with a multiyear vesting schedule, plus perhaps performa…
I disagree. Yes we should think about option grants differently, but not that differently. At the end of the day I don't think anyone would say Sundar has been that much better than his replacement level CEO. Certainly not better enough to deserve 225 million in equity. The stock is up 10% this year, still below 2021 levels.
Did his pay actually increase? We don’t know.
Maybe I’m an odd duck, but I expect journalists to journalist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stock buybacks used to be illegal. Lots of ways to use policy to encourage long-term shareholder value if boards and corporate bylaws won’t.
Stock BuyBacks have nothing to do with long or short-term vision.
> Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai was awarded compensation worth more than $225 million in 2022 I know this has been discussed here and 225MM is like the salary of 1000 employees making 200K for only one year, it is stock which is volatoile, that the salary of a CEO is impossible to measure, bla bla bla. But holy guacamole, whatever is the angle I look at it 225MM pear year does not make any f_ing sense to me and it is si…
If you are running something worth over $1 trillion that makes hundreds of billions of dollars per year it makes sense though, right? You can argue even a mediocre CEO could do ok, and I’d agree, but at the same time you could easily justify paying huge amounts of money to get a CEO who will only perform better by 1%/year. To me it’s really the size of the big tech companies that’s mind boggling. The fact companies t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked for a guy a decade ago who spent 8-10 years building a company to sell it for $300-400 million and he hasn't worked a day since. Owns a 30k acre ranch that a bunch of friends/family live on. Learjets. Villas in the islands, things like that. I can't think of one thing he hasn't done or is limited financially in doing. Last time I saw him he had a $120k watch on, some type of Hublot big bang. And Pichai gets…
Why is that trash? I would love to drive and shoot a real tank as a civilian.