3 ms·

I have no problem with stock compensation, but why so much equity compensation? 1.5M shares in restricted stock is mind-bogglingly unnecessary. And even if you

• ChuckMcM 13y ago
  Under normal situations (he's employed) the stock is largely useless. There is a bunch of paperwork to fill out if you want to sell any of it, you have to pre-set the sale date and follow through almost regardless of what is happening, so its "compensation" but it isn't "cash in your pocket you can spend." But what it does do, is give the holder the sense of wealth which is directly tied to the value of the stock. Make the stock go up and you certainly "feel" a lot wealthier even if you can't actually take action based on that feeling[1]. But you're very motivated to get that feeling and make the stock worth more. (at least that is the theory). At the C level and even at the EVP level, you're asked to make some pretty big decisions, decisions that could turn out to make you unemployable if they look really stupid in hindsight. Sometimes the only way to get someone to take that job is to give them some assurances that even if they become unemployable they won't become homeless. (Yes, your argument is still valid, 250K shares would probably do that _at the current valuation_, the question then is risk mitigation) I'm not saying that I agree with the decision but I am familiar with some of the reasoning that the executive compensation committee goes through when coming up with these numbers. [1] One huge loophole used to be (and may still exist) is that you can sell stock to pay off a mortgage.