I don't think the CEO sabotaged anything or created legal liability causing the $6b drop. I think you're stretching here.

▲

john_strinlai 4 hours ago | parent [-]

the point is that the amount of money you make is not really tied to the amount of many you can cause the company to lose (on purpose, by accident, by departure, etc.).

or, in other words, looking at the 6B loss and working backwards to say that the CEO was underpaid at 52MM is nonsensical

▲

bko 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it's a pretty clear counterfactual. Someone works there company is worth X. If he doesn't work there, what would the company be worth? Note that the role itself doesn't go away, it will get replaced, but the difference in market value is his worth to the company compared to a median CEO.

It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business. It's not a moral worth, it's just a market value as perceived by the market. In other words, a rational investor would gladly pay the CEO $1b for him not to leave and save $6b in market cap. So by definition he must be worth at least that much.

▲

john_strinlai 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business.

there's many explanations as to why the stock dropped the amount it did. one of the least likely was that desai's leadership is worth billions of dollars. it has nothing to do with "icky".

a rational investor would not want desai to receive a ~20x raise to stay, either. i have no idea why you think they would.

▲

bko 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This was sudden very large drop, coincided exactly with announcement CEO would be leaving.

MongoDB reaffirmed both Q3 and full-year FY2027 guidance this morning.

There was no revenue warning, earnings revision, or deterioration disclosed alongside Desai’s departure.

There was no major analyst downgrade today driving the move. In fact, Citizens maintained its Buy rating and $519 target.

There's literally no other reason I can reasonably think of for the large stock drop apart from his departure. So I think you're stretching here. You just can't admit what's obvious because you likely think it's morally icky to suggest someone can be worth that much.

Also you have to consider that Zuck is probably paying him 9 figures to leave. So another person validating that he really is worth that much

	▲	f33d5173 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		His departure causing a drop does not mean he was worth that drop. Investors think his departure signals internal issues and are trading based off that.
	▲	john_strinlai 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>You just can't admit what's obvious because you likely think it's morally icky to suggest someone can be worth that much. you keep saying this, but you have literally no idea who i am or what my morals are. perhaps you should not speak so confidently about things you know nothing about. i dont find anything "icky", i just disagree with you. >Also you have to consider that Zuck is probably paying him 9 figures to leave. So another person validating that he really is worth that much you can't make up a random number then use that made up number as "validation" for your point.