Hacker News Reader

Comment by Irishsteve | Hacker News Reader

Quote from MM -

"When I learned in September 2016 that a large number of our user database files had been stolen, I worked with the team to disclose the incident to users, regulators, and government agencies. "However, I am the CEO of the company and since this incident happened during my tenure, I have agreed to forgo my annual bonus and my annual equity grant this year and have expressed my desire that my bonus be redistributed to our company's hardworking employees, who contributed so much to Yahoo's success in 2016."

So does that mean no one pushed it up the chain

View on HN

From this quote it seems like she didn't so much lose her bonus as voluntarily declined it.

That's what I would say in her position also.

Yes, and all executives who resign after a scandle do so voluntarily. No one ever resigns because the people above them offered it as a mutually-beneficial alternative to getting fired. I'll totally accept her motivations at face value.

I don't see it the way you do.

I never heard of an executive being pushed to earn less money the way executives are pushed to resign.

Usually is quite the opposite, companies pay resigning executives a wealth sum as it is in the best interest of the company that the burned executive leave as soon as possible and with no intentions to harm the company after leaving. The board usually couldnt care less about the money a leaving executive gets.

An executive leaving money on the table (and distributing among other employees) is extremely rare and I think your cynism have no logical thinking support here.

They don't pay them a wealthy sum when their actions lowered Verizon's buying price by billions. If you crunch the numbers, there is a 0% chance Marissa did this 100% voluntarily with no pressure on her.

> when their actions lowered Verizon's buying price by billions.

You mean 0.35 billion?

It is common enough that it has a name...claw back provision.

It's risen in popularity since the subprime mortgage crisis. Used more often to claw back bonuses for fraud, but used for lackluster performance as well.

Voluntarily forgoing your bonus versus an embarrassing board decision isn't that odd.

>"No one ever resigns because the people above them offered it as a mutually-beneficial alternative to getting fired. "

When C level executives are involved in a scandal, this is exactly what happens. The folks above them "ask" for their resignation. The subtext is that it is mandatory. Resigning keeps them from the disgrace of being fired and also often allows them to keep certain things like bonuses, pensions etc.

In case you didnt realize, [s]he was being sarcastic.

Ha, I did not realize that. My sarcasm filter failed me :)

Cheers.

Cheers!

Please don't do this here.

If you have something to say, say it.

In a forum with participants from a plurality of nations, and various states of wakefulness, sarcasm is going to be missed by someone.

Additionally, it doesn't add anything to the conversation that several sibling comments haven't already stated in a clearer fashion.

When you agree to forgo something, you do so because someone else asked you to do it. Otherwise you would say you offered to forgo and they accepted.

excellent parsing of words :)

That is a pretty good demonstration of a fluency in business speak.

Business speak in the upper echelons.

Any resource recommendations for someone to learn business speak such as this?

When she said "I have agreed to forgo" it means she was "asked" to forgo her bonus -- presumably on the threat of being fired, otherwise.

Shouldn't you always have a breach? That way you get some of MM's bonus.

The employees directly responsible probably won't have a bonus.

Anyone note the "I expressed my DESIRE that it be distributed among hardworking employees?" To me that sounds pretty empty. How about actually making it happen, Ms. Meyer? It would be a lot more palatable if she said she's distributed her bonus among YAHOO employees, full stop.

The CEOs salary and bonus is negotiated by the board. What happened here is the board decided to not pay her, and she asked them to distribute it to the employees instead. It's not her pay to do anything with anymore.

In corporations, the CEO reports to the board of directors. She can't redistribute compensation that has been docked from her.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com