re: #151 sattv4u2

Lets play a game

Lets say Company X’s forecast was that it was going to lose 100 million next year
Lets say CEO candidate comes in with a plan that guarantees the losses will only be 25 million and he states that if at the end of the year it’s more than 25 million, the company owes him nothing, but if it’s a loss of 25 million or less the company pays him 30 million

SO ,,, if he succeeds, the company is out 55 million instead of 100 million

Good plan!?!?!?

That’s not really an argument that makes any sense. You could just as easily find someone to run the company for a mere 5 million a year who is just as intelligent and capable. It’s not like there is some magical CEO gene which makes people super smart. They are just massively overpaid, and that excess compensation could (and I would argue should) be directed wither toward lowering the prices of their products, paying their rank-and-file employees more, and/or paying greater dividends to the actual owners of the company, the stockholders.

Paying a single person 30+ million a year to be a CEO is just a waste of a massive amount of money. There are many more people qualified to be CEO’s than are serving as CEO’s. Somebody else could and would do the job for far less.