NYT Pays Former CEO $24 Million To Go Away; The Paper Made $3 Million Total Over The Last 4 Years

from the something-isn't-adding-up dept

Unlike some, I’m not that up in arms over high CEO pay… if they deserve it. In an open market, if an executive can command top dollar, based on strong performance, I’m all for it. However, if the pay is so totally divorced from performance as to be completely laughable, you have to wonder what’s up. Case in point: former NY Times CEO Janet Robinson received an “exit package” of $23.7 million. It was broken down thusly:

Robinson gets pension and supplemental retirement income valued at $11.4 million, performance awards of $5.39 million, restricted stock units worth $1.07 million and stock options worth $694,164, according to the company’s proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission today. She will also earn $4.5 million in consulting fees for this year.

Now perhaps you can argue that this is well deserved and negotiated. But here’s a key data point found in the same article:

The payout to Robinson is equal to about 2.4 percent of the company’s market value of $981.9 million, and exceeds the approximately $3 million the company earned in net income over the past four years. Not included in Robinson’s exit package is her salary of $1 million for 2011, when Times Co. reported a loss $39.7 million.

Okay. One argument you can make is that at least the NYTimes made some money over the last four years. But can we ask what kind of “performance awards” would make sense when the award massively exceeds the actual profit of the company? Similarly, what kind of “consulting fees” would make sense when those consulting fees also exceed the profit of the company over the last four years combined?

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: ny times

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “NYT Pays Former CEO $24 Million To Go Away; The Paper Made $3 Million Total Over The Last 4 Years”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Steve (user link) says:

Early but expensive pullout reward

Janet’s just getting the same sort of “performance bonus” that the current administration doles out to still-existing but failed operations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


Get used to it: the Washington D.C. gravy train’s gonna keep gaining inertia all the way to November…

Mike42 (profile) says:

Re: Early but expensive pullout reward

Yeah, current administration…
It’s called a “contract”. They were contractually obligated to pay the BS bonuses. You pay them or a bunch of lawyers when they sue. What choice would you make?
Really, Steve. There’s plenty of problems with the current administration, but this isn’t one of them. Rake you muck elsewhere.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Unless the NY Times is using some sort of creative accounting to hide their true income, paying out more than you make is never ever a good idea, reasonable or whatever you want to call it, you pay what you can or you go under, so paying 100x your yearly revenues doesn’t seem like a good plan at all, it doesn’t matter how much she lives or what you think, we live in the real world and you don’t give out what you don’t have just to be nice.

What did the NY Times did to get that money? took a loan?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

AC, that was the net profit, not the gross revenue. It’s a bit misleading to use the profit for a comparison – what if the company had only made $1? Obviously you can’t just give her 50 cents. A better figure is the worth of the company.

“The payout to Robinson is equal to about 2.4 percent of the company?s market value of $981.9 million” according to the article. That’s still WAY too much, of course. The article says her salary was $1 million in 2011. Assuming she got that much every year, then since she was there for 7 years, her total salary would have been around $7 million. Even excluding the retirement benefits (I don’t think you can take away a pension if she’s earned it) and the consulting fees (presumably she’s doing something to earn this?) they are STILL paying her more than her entire salary for the entire 7 years.

“She will also earn $4.5 million in consulting fees for this year.” How is this sane? They’re paying her 4.5 times more to be a “consultant” than to be the CEO?

“performance awards of $5.39 million” – here it’s fair to use the profits as a comparison. Performance awards for more than the company made in the last 4 years combined? What were the performance bars – don’t go bankrupt?

So this brings up the question: WHY are they paying her this? Did they actually sign a contract stating that they would pay her an insane amount if she ever left? Are there REALLY no semi-competent CEO’s out there that would be willing to take the job for “only” the salary and retirement benefits the job pays, without a clause that says they must be paid millions to go away?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:


Obviously you can’t just give her 50 cents. A better figure is the worth of the company.

Why not, she didn’t do anything to improve the company status, she obviously didn’t earn anything, if I plant a crop and I almost had it grown but it didn’t happen would it be acceptable for me to stop working and demand to be paid anything? of course not I would be on the gutter begging for food and everybody telling me I should work harder, also those are benefits that got beyond her normal salary.

Now to speculate on your question of why they are paying her that amount, I can only believe that she must have some dirt on them because really you don’t get to walk away and do such deals without the other side being made up of idiots or without leverage, so probably the NY Times is dirty, because I don’t want to believe one of the most influential newspapers in America is full of idiots commanding that organization, but I can’t exclude the possibility completely either so I will assume the NY Times is dirty and is doing something so wrong that she got the upper hand on the negotiations, they may be hiding financial information that if it got out would dry their sources of credit, they may be lying about something.

This is how rot looks inside a company.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

ONLY $380,000 a year. Lol.

Which the average middle class family is lucky to see/make ONLY half that amount, if that.

I think ONLY $380,000 a year would be a goddamn insane amount in my book. I could live COMFORTABLY off $50,000 a year and I’m still working my way up and make not even half of that amount and I manage to get more than by.

Anonymous Coward says:


Obviously the consulting fees were for a ‘method to reward CEO’s far in excess of company profits while constantly blaming… PIRACY…. PIRACY….. PIRACY as the reason the company is no longer able to make any profit’

Secondary payment was for, ‘how to try and sneak this under the radar’ which forgot to include the ‘do not include irrelevant data, like company profits or earnings, in SEC filings about executive compensation’….

Totally worth 5M for the first one, but would have had to fine the consultant 4.5M for the oversight in the second consultation…..

Steve R. (profile) says:

Another Pathetic Example

American CEO seem to believe that the companies that they manage are their own private fiefdoms. The concept that they work for the shareholders or that they be ethical has vaporized. Particularly inept was the recent $4 Billion dollar break-up fee that AT&T (management) was obligated to pay for its failed attempt to take over T-Mobile.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Another Pathetic Example

… then you look at, say, games companies who, at least according to them, Do do things because that’s what the shareholders want…

admittedly, they don’t seem to be loosing money (mostly, yet) but the customer gets epicly shafted.

i think it’s more a case of the elites in general being completely divorced from reality…

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Gotta give her some credit...

No, I’m pretty sure the rules of bankruptcy weren’t followed. CEO pays have been getting very outrageous, paying the CEOs for failing in their job. It’s the same as saying Mitt Romney is going to do a great job as president because his background is in “business.”

He wouldn’t know what the free market if it bit him on the ass. The problem with Bain Capital is that it relies on tax loopholes in federal laws to make money.

Mitt Romney used “leveraged buy-outs” which is explained as thus:

The leveraged buy-out firm will put down a fraction of the cost of buying an ailing company. The balance of the transaction is borrowed, but the debt goes onto the books of the target company, not the private equity firm ? the struggling company basically finances the lion’s share of its own sale.

The target company’s debt payments increase significantly, and those debt payments are then written off, reducing its tax burden significantly. This subsidy increases short-term revenues ? at the expense of long-term debt ? and that, in turn, is paid out in dividends to Bain’s investors and a fat stream of management fees that Romney and his partners skimmed off the top.

To get back on topic, there are CEOs that will cause a company to fail intentionally. But the company will lay off workers and make sure to pay the CEO even though their direction lead to the failing of the company. It’s quite ridiculous, but even judges (as my previous post in this section can attest) will allow these rules instead of reject them for the business failing.

Ed C. says:

Re: Re: Gotta give her some credit...

Right, but none of that actual refutes what I said. I mean, if Janet Robinson, Mitt Romney, or any of those other shysters weren’t smarter than the board, they wouldn’t have been able to rip off the companies like they did. I’m not saying that any of them are all that bright either, just that they are smarter than the idiots who hired them.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

had that happen to a few things here…
asset stripping is also unhelpful.

(usually happened when American interests gained control of significant assets which were only marginally profitable in their own right, if that, but required to allow other things to function properly. such as the railways. the instances of it happening Without American involvement generally are due to people who made their money exploiting the system rather than actually DOING anything… who think NZ should be more like the USA. still not sure how the hell we ended up with John Key as PM when everyone KNEW he was one of these people…)

Anonymous Coward says:

Maybe she prevented the company from losing MORE money than it did?
Quite often, effects can take years to show.
Companies used to pay CEOs based on current growth and income. So CEO’s would take measures that benefited short term growth. You know, like banks making really bad risky investments that in time would crash? But it was ok, because the people who made those decisions cashed out when the banks were showing profits.

Scott says:

Everyone Plays Numbers Games

It’s worth noting that the $3 million dollar profit includes a loss of $39 million in 2011. This means that in the prior 3 years they had a combined net income of $42 million and a loss of $39 million in the 4th. So the performance package is probably being calculated on performance in those other years. Additionally, we don’t know why they lost $39 million dollars this year. So I’m not saying that the CEO deserved the money, but I’m saying that people always accuse company’s of cooking the books but gloss over the fact that most articles have very leading statistics being presented.

Lee (user link) says:

Small fry compared to Chelsea FC

No matter the poor figures and extreme “exit package” of this issue it does fall short of other industries. With the influence of this position it makes sense to me to get rid.

If you want some insane figures look at what Chelsea Football Club (Soccer) paid to get and then get rid of their recent manager, I think in USD it’s just over $75 million.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...