this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
1336 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59578 readers
2932 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Because you're exchanging stock worth $193 million for an equivalent amount of dollars, there's technically no profit or loss involved in the transaction. In the same manner, when paying stock as a compensation, you secure services valued at $193 million for an amount of shares worth the same: the transaction is entirely equal. So you don't make or lose any money by paying in stock.

Of course, the trick is that the value of the CEO's work for one year can be whatever he says. If your claim is that they could have gotten more value out of the stock had they sold it in the IPO, I think you are absolutely correct in that regard.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 8 months ago

The same argument can be had for paying in cash. Yet I still have to pay tax.

In fact I should get money back, because the services I provide to the company outweigh the cost of my wages (otherwise they wouldn't pay me). I'm making a damn loss over here!

[–] maniclucky@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

My brain despises econ and I always struggle with it. But that first paragraph smells like "MBAs cooked up a justification for why they don't pay taxes that doesn't actually make any sense".

The second bit makes me wonder "why don't we have some authority on evaluating the worth of CEOs?". Insert joke here about that worth being 0. And then I remember that the CEOs are the ones that would have to pay the government to make that rule.