What I’m perplexed at is - what if I went to the board and said “I have a guaranteed way to increase profit by 150 million - just pay me 50 million a year and fire removedai”. I would legit do my best to make great decisions for 50 million.
Why doesn’t the board care about cutting costs by cutting CEO pay? I can’t imagine any difference that would really justify removedai 's pay difference.
I also cannot imagine they are all part of some secret conspiracy where they all know each other and like each other so much that they just want to pay him that money because they’re buddies.
Wouldn’t $150 million be more than enough justification to hire someone else?
This assumes that they aren’t hiring the CEO to be the fall guy. Someone who’s job is largely (as things stand now) meant to take on the risk that if the company does not increase profits or make shareholders happy, they will blame and fire that person and hire someone else.
Since a lot of CEOs kind of bet on this they take ridiculous chances (like getting paid in stock options that only mature at a certain point with the knowledge that they need to make stock options valuable so they can cash out).
Valuable doesn’t have to be long term. It just has to last long enough for the person in question to cash out.
What I’m perplexed at is - what if I went to the board and said “I have a guaranteed way to increase profit by 150 million - just pay me 50 million a year and fire removedai”. I would legit do my best to make great decisions for 50 million.
Why doesn’t the board care about cutting costs by cutting CEO pay? I can’t imagine any difference that would really justify removedai 's pay difference.
I also cannot imagine they are all part of some secret conspiracy where they all know each other and like each other so much that they just want to pay him that money because they’re buddies.
Wouldn’t $150 million be more than enough justification to hire someone else?
People who sit on boards are also those very same CEOs at other companies…
This assumes that they aren’t hiring the CEO to be the fall guy. Someone who’s job is largely (as things stand now) meant to take on the risk that if the company does not increase profits or make shareholders happy, they will blame and fire that person and hire someone else.
Since a lot of CEOs kind of bet on this they take ridiculous chances (like getting paid in stock options that only mature at a certain point with the knowledge that they need to make stock options valuable so they can cash out).
Valuable doesn’t have to be long term. It just has to last long enough for the person in question to cash out.