standard argument for extremely high ceo pay (and extreme perks) seems to be 'we have to offer this to attract the best people' and 'only a handful of people ca

standard argument for extremely high ceo pay (and extreme perks) seems to be 'we have to offer this to attract the best people' and 'only a handful of people can do XYZ like this person can'. i think when these deals are made people are rarely thinking that someone will actually leave, triggering some of these more... outlandish aspects of the deal. perhaps the value is she could have possibly got $5 million per year for 2-3 years after leaving, so this is a net return of $8-$10 million to the company after she's gone?