I would argue the efficiency of the market produces an excellent correlation between company health and stock valuation over long periods. But even if you disa

I would argue the efficiency of the market produces an excellent correlation between company health and stock valuation over long periods. But even if you disagree, isn't that just another way of arriving to the authors same conclusion? If share price is a terrible proxy for company health, then why are we paying CEOs based on it? And if it is a good proxy for company performance, then it's proving that CEOs are being grossly overpaid for what are essentially random outcomes. Under both scenarios, something is terribly wrong.