2 ms·

This makes no sense. Paying in stock works by either issuing new shares and diluting existing shareholders or buying the shares to give out. Either way, it's a

This makes no sense. Paying in stock works by either issuing new shares and diluting existing shareholders or buying the shares to give out. Either way, it's a wash between getting stock and getting cash. If you want to see them impact, look at what shares prices do the day a breach is announced and the day it settles. The impact was priced-in long before, and shareholders already felt it.

anigbrowl 4y ago
It's not a wash, because stock allows voting* and cash does not. You could also require that firms reserve a certain amount of stock as collateral against data breaches, with rules specified about its issuance, voting behavior, and distribution designed to maximize the negative impact upon existing shareholders and management. The owners and operators of a firm that extracts information as well as revenue from consumers but fails to secure such information should suffer the consequences of their negligence. * well, not all stock allows voting, some companies have different classes of stock to prevent plebs having leverage over corporate decision-making. Since I'm making up possible rules, I'd ban that too.