tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6098993761352697681.post2129282315656245170..comments2008-09-09T17:01:53.813-04:00Mukesh Chatterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07268919175137250694noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6098993761352697681.post-76037871713827232572008-09-09T17:01:00.000-04:002008-09-09T17:01:00.000-04:00Thanks for the thoughtful comment. One of the reasons I think this would only if averaged over a number of years (four or five), is to contend with exactly the volatile stock situations you describe.<BR/><BR/>My hope is that by aligning the financial interests of the CEO with the financial interests of the shareholders, the result will be beneficial to everyone (shareholders, CEO, and workers), rather than solely to the recipient of a "golden parachute."Mukesh Chatterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07268919175137250694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6098993761352697681.post-50491064905552893682008-09-09T10:00:00.000-04:002008-09-09T10:00:00.000-04:00I think some of these compensation packages are interesting ideas but would it be applicable in all cases. For example, a blue chip company might have a much more stable stock price while a smaller company might have more volatile stock price. Which CEO should be compensated more? What about cyclical natures of certain industries like real estate and construction. Should CEO's be compensated or penalized because of it? <BR/><BR/>I agree with the overall theme that CEO compensation is out of whack with actual performance but I'm not sure what the right solution should be. For one thing the CEO salary to average worker salary shouldn't be as high as it is today. <BR/><BR/>Personally, I'd like to see CEO salary be voted on by actual workers instead of just the board. I think this will enforce a much more stringent assessment of CEO success and value to a company.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com