tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6098993761352697681.post6863482035381312236..comments2008-07-02T18:47:40.586-04:00Mukesh Chatterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07268919175137250694noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6098993761352697681.post-59788981002203949262008-07-02T18:47:00.000-04:002008-07-02T18:47:00.000-04:00Thanks for your comment, online marketer. We may be more in agreement than you think: one of the reasons I think it should be the average of the stock from the past three or four years, rather than on a yearly basis, is to prevent precisely the situation you describe.Mukesh Chatterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07268919175137250694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6098993761352697681.post-68223752618756526982008-07-02T15:58:00.000-04:002008-07-02T15:58:00.000-04:00Mukesh<BR/><BR/>while the idea of tieing executive pay to the company's stock price makes sense, it also creates an incentive for the management to focus on short term returns and decisions which may boost the stock price but may not be in the best interest of the share holders in the long term.Online Marketerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03741786787437648272noreply@blogger.com