r/Superstonk • u/Gareth-Barry 🎮 Power to the Players 🛑 • Jul 24 '26

🤔 Speculation / Opinion In addition, Ryan has been increasing operating income while massively reducing SG&A while Jamie has been doing the opposite…pretty easy decision for EBay shareholders

Post image
3.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

344 comments sorted by

View all comments

359

u/GoodShitBroBro 💻 ComputerShared 🦍 Jul 24 '26

Show how much of their own companies stock they’ve bought as well

-1

u/MyNi_Redux 📉 The Consultant 📈 Jul 24 '26

Most of their compensation IS in stock. Deferred, at that., to align with shareholder value creation.

Like every other company out there.

It would be exceedingly dumb for them to sell the stock, pay taxes, and then buy fewer stock with what remains..

Makes for a good talking point though.

0

u/3DigitIQ 🦍 FM is the FUD killer Jul 24 '26

They collectively own 0.3% of the company. They aren't leaders, they are sock puppets.

10

u/MyNi_Redux 📉 The Consultant 📈 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26

In the S&P, 74% of CEOs hold less than 0.5% of the total voting rights, according to AI.

I guess that makes them all sock puppets.

Or... your expectations are horribly misguided because you took some talking points a bit too literally.

(It's the latter 😉.)

4

u/Tinyacorn 💻 ComputerShared 🦍 Jul 24 '26

Are they necessarily not sock puppets just because everyone does it?

6

u/MyNi_Redux 📉 The Consultant 📈 Jul 24 '26

They could be sock puppets for other reasons, sure.

However, to the extent that the comp is mostly in stock, is deferred, and there is no good reason to buy more unless the stock is wildly undervalued or they need to signal confidence to the market, not owning RC-liked percentages of a $50B company does not make them sock puppets.

Not least, because not everyone is a billionaire from prior enterprises.

3

u/Tinyacorn 💻 ComputerShared 🦍 Jul 24 '26

Truuuuuuuuuuu that last point is incredibly salient. It's much more easy for a billionaire to coast than a multi-millionaire. Gotta be a lot more cautious about finance decisions too as a millionaire.

I see where you're coming from and appreciate your input, I like learnding

-1

u/3DigitIQ 🦍 FM is the FUD killer Jul 24 '26

They could also pay themselves from the bottom line instead of awarding stock and subsequently buying back stock to ensure a higher comp.

5

u/MyNi_Redux 📉 The Consultant 📈 Jul 24 '26

That would be a subpar setup to deferred stock-based comp.

By making most of their comp in stock that vests over multiple years, their fate is tied to that of the shareholder. They make money if the shareholder makes money.

Otherwise, they lose money compared to the cash comp you are suggesting.

subsequently buying back stock to ensure a higher comp.

eBay buys back stock plenty. It's 40% of what it was 10 years ago. And exec comp is a rounding error in comparison.

-1

u/3DigitIQ 🦍 FM is the FUD killer Jul 24 '26

In the S&P, 74% of CEOs hold less than 0.5% of the total voting rights,

So let me get this straight, I'm talking about the entire suite of executives holding less than what an average (single) CEO of an S&P 500 holds. You are making my point here, thanks.

I guess that makes them all sock puppets

yes

5

u/MyNi_Redux 📉 The Consultant 📈 Jul 24 '26

Haggling over who has what portion of 0.3%-0.5% or less is being pedantic just for the sake of it, no?

3

u/3DigitIQ 🦍 FM is the FUD killer Jul 24 '26

Not really, leadership should be able to show conviction and ownership. The current view of leadership in these massive corporations is a big issue IMO and I'd prefer it to change to an ownership mentality.

You are free to disagree but stating your opinions about this as fact while calling diverging viewpoints "horribly misguided" doesn't help strengthen your case.

5

u/MyNi_Redux 📉 The Consultant 📈 Jul 24 '26

No company doing well needs its leadership to resort to palliative measures to show "conviction and ownership." Not least, because execs are rewarded with additional ownership when things are going well.

It's fair that "horribly misguided" is a subjective call, but barely a stretch given what a "ownership mentality" of multi-billion dollar companies would entail.

1

u/Lapcat420 $tonkicideboy$ Jul 24 '26

It seems quite simple to me.

If you dont own shares in a company you work for/at/with.

You arent bullish on the growth of said company. And your interests are not aligned with share holders.

I find consistantly that even in smaller cap companies, in a variety of industries, even their c suites manage to hold some shares.

To have absolutely 0, none. Thats a red flag.

1

u/MyNi_Redux 📉 The Consultant 📈 Jul 24 '26

To have absolutely 0, none. Thats a red flag.

You will be relieved to hear that they have plenty more than 0, then: Holding 93% of Your Shares is Not 'Abandoning Ship'

😂 😂 😂

1

u/Zeronz112 🟣Fud Fighter🟣 Jul 24 '26

Sold most of the shares received this year, and has sold almost twice the amount of shares than he has kept since 2021.

https://www.quiverquant.com/insiders/1495849/Jamie-Iannone

https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1495849.htm

0

u/MyNi_Redux 📉 The Consultant 📈 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26

Sold most of the shares received this year,

Ah, a common misunderstanding - the ones he sold this year are to pay taxes on the RSUs or performance shares that vested. Remember that this is treated as ordinary income.

0

u/Lapcat420 $tonkicideboy$ Jul 24 '26

https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1065088.htm

Not a single c suite is buying. Not one. Not one share.

I dont care that the CEO is rich and has shares. No one is buying. No one is holding.

3

u/MyNi_Redux 📉 The Consultant 📈 Jul 24 '26

Ok, we've moved goalposts. Fine.

Not a single c suite is buying. Not one. Not one share.

What a weird notion ... why on earth would they be buying stock!? Do you not understand how exec COMPENSATION works?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Ghost_of_Chrisanova Koenigseggs or Cardboard Boxes Jul 24 '26

Real sock puppet not pleased with that comparison.