> My point was that executives (share sellers) benefit and it creates potentially toxic incentives. This seems like a good incentive. Executives of course don'

> My point was that executives (share sellers) benefit and it creates potentially toxic incentives. This seems like a good incentive. Executives of course don't have to have any shares, although they probably will, but that's not "toxic". I know that toxic is now the blandest word in the language due to overuse, but even given that this seems distortional.