3 ms·
It's not that the board sets CEO compensation that's bad, it's the personal connections they have and the observation that they appear to set compensation more
by stephen_g 3y ago
It's not that the board sets CEO compensation that's bad, it's the personal connections they have and the observation that they appear to set compensation more based those personal connections with the CEO, not based on any measure of performance or anything..
- bawolff 3y agoI was assuming that was hyperbole since if the public actually had evidence of the board violated its fiduciary responsibilities they would be in legal hot water.
- vidarh 3y agoFiduciary responsibilities can be construed very broadly, and as long as they can point to CEOs with similar salaries and haven't recorded themselves basically admitting to some illegal arrangement it's extremely hard to do anything about it unless you'd been a shareholder.
- bawolff 3y agoThat may be true, but i also think its pretty unfair to claim, even just on the internet, that the board is inapropriately setting compensation based on a conflict of interest without some evidence its true or at least some evidence that said compensation is unusual.