I wish I understood why so many options are granted in the first place. If they offered 10,000 fewer options, would performance be any worse? Wouldn't a lot of people be vying for that same position and couldn't the company use that to drive down compensation? Couldn't a company in fact, trade on the idea that the extra power and prestige offsets the need for additional stock compensation? And how much of the stock price change can be reduced to a CEO's impact anyways? If it can't be reduced, then why care so much as to overcompensate for their impact in the first place?
opportune|2 years ago
This will sound insane but $200mm at Google scale is not even that much. All in, it’s about the cost of having another 200 SWE org or increasing earnings by like 1%. If it’s enough to keep him happy it’s easily worth it
Quarrelsome|2 years ago
but is it really? How do we accurately measure CEO performance? We can barely measure developer productivity in any sort of meaningful fashion. Blowing $200m on what is effectively a faith based assessment seems a bit questionable.
rubicon33|2 years ago
bushbaba|2 years ago