Quote:
|
Originally Posted by highthief
I would think that most people do own shares of large corporations via their mutual funds, RRSP/IRA, and regular trading activities, etc - thus we all do have a stake in how executives are compensated.
|
If you are saying shareholders should play a more active role in what goes on in the companies they own, I agree with you. People should attend annual meetings, read quarterly and annual SEC filings, and vote. If they are not willing to do these things they should not invest in equities. If shareholders acted like owners, executive pay would be in-line with what they want. We don't need government invovlment.
Quote:
|
Personally, I think if a company performs there is no reason an executive should not be well compensated. However, like most people, I don't think executives who receive whopping big salaries while presiding over poorly performing companies should be well paid while their companies suffer due to the executive's inadequacies.
|
Do you feel the same way about actors in poorly performing movies? Athletes on poorly performing teams? Politicians in poorly performing cities/states? Teachers in poorly performing schools? I know it is relative, but pay for performance - is pay for performance. I agree with pay for performance across the board.