Why not simply investments that he happens to believe are better values than Intel stock? Or is he expected to believe that Intel shares are in fact so underva

Why not simply investments that he happens to believe are better values than Intel stock? Or is he expected to believe that Intel shares are in fact so undervalued that they represent the best investment he could possibly make? Or to voluntarily maintain investments in what he believes is a comparatively suboptimal vehicle merely to "take one for the team"? In other words, why would one expect, let alone demand, a CEO to make what he believes are poor financial decisions in his personal life? As for being "invested in the company", once you reach the level of Fortune 50 CEO, the concept is basically nonsense: practically speaking, no matter how poorly you invest or perform, barring criminal prosecution, you'll still end up financially better off than nearly everyone else in the world, including many, if not all, of your peers.