It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rewarding aggressive decision making

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
How do we best reward a CEO for taking the best long term decisions?

Why not pay him futures (not options) cashable in five years time?

Or ten years time?

Or length of that part of his project?

Or do we pay him masses when he empties the bank on 'nerve.'

What do we pay? What do we reward? And is it short term or long?




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Stock options for CEOs should be illegal. Also, a CEO, Board of Directors, or any member of management should, by law, not be allowed to own any stock in the company they are running.

Otherwise, they can make incredibly stupid long range choices, but that makes the immediate stock price go up in the short term.

If anything, their pay ought to be, BY LAW, tied to the net profit of said company.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Stock options for CEOs should be illegal. Also, a CEO, Board of Directors, or any member of management should, by law, not be allowed to own any stock in the company they are running.

Otherwise, they can make incredibly stupid long range choices, but that makes the immediate stock price go up in the short term.

If anything, their pay ought to be, BY LAW, tied to the net profit of said company.


The problem if they have no stocks is...... well........ they're not even tied to the company. That's why I suggested down the road........



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Stock options for CEOs should be illegal. Also, a CEO, Board of Directors, or any member of management should, by law, not be allowed to own any stock in the company they are running.

Otherwise, they can make incredibly stupid long range choices, but that makes the immediate stock price go up in the short term.

If anything, their pay ought to be, BY LAW, tied to the net profit of said company.


Dumbest thing I have ever read.

I suppose as a Majority Share Holder you should also have no voting rights.... right?


Guess what.. when the CEO and Board all own major shares of stock, they have the best interest of the Share Holder at heart, and guess what.. that's the purpose of a Corporation ...




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I'll post that the government shares gained in all of this should have no voting rights. Politicians should never be trusted with businesses other than their own......




 
1

log in

join