If you are only referring to the purchase of an IPO - a one-time event for that traunch of capital - then you would be correct. Those funds are transferred to the corporation and added as an asset.
If you are referring to the stocks you buy or sell on exchanges, then that is incorrect. Those funds are transferred to the seller of the privately held shares.
Stockholders KNOW that some of their property will make its way into the pockets of CEOs.
Incorrect. The working capital of a corporation is different than the allotment of the income and subsequent expenses of a corporation. The CEO does not skim off part of your capital. His or her compensation comes from the cash flow of a corporation and is decided by the crony board.
They, knowing this, voluntarily transfer their private property to CEOs.
Wrong premise leads to this bad conclusion. This is a form of logical fallacy. The working capital does not go to the CEO. Ever.
When I buy stocks (frequently) I know the CEO makes a ton of cash, but I voluntarily transfer my wealth to him anyway.
It is true that a shareholder should know the compensation of the CEO at the time of purchase (not transfer). It is also true that whoever owns the shares owns the company and has a say in compensation through the choice of board members who decide the compensation.Final bad conclusion. You may buy many stocks, which is great. I did a bit of that too - billions. Your understanding is not clear. Fortunately, you do not need to understand what is happening to buy or sell securities.
Finally, your post begs the question as to what is a reasonable amount of compensation to a CEO. It also ignores the issue of who decides how much profit should compensate the CEO vs. being distributed to stock owners.
All wrong, again...
Stockholders voluntarily transfer their property to the corporation.
If you are only referring to the purchase of an IPO - a one-time event for that traunch of capital - then you would be correct. Those funds are transferred to the corporation and added as an asset.
If you are referring to the stocks you buy or sell on exchanges, then that is incorrect. Those funds are transferred to the seller of the privately held shares.
The point is that property is voluntarily transferred to companies and CEOs by private property holders. This thing about stock going to the private holder other than an IPO is completely beside the ORIGINAL POINT, which is IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS how much a CEO makes, unless you are a stockholder, and then you can sell if you don’t like it.
Stockholders KNOW that some of their property will make its way into the pockets of CEOs.
Incorrect. The working capital of a corporation is different than the allotment of the income and subsequent expenses of a corporation. The CEO does not skim off part of your capital. His or her compensation comes from the cash flow of a corporation and is decided by the crony board.
A GREAT DEAL of CEO pay is often in the form of bonuses tied to stock performance. Period. “The crony board” — there you go again — the quality, make-up, and actions of the board are none of your business, unless you’re a liberal, of course. If I own stock in X and I don’t like their crony board, I sell. If X performs well, I don’t care about their crony board, and I buy.
They, knowing this, voluntarily transfer their private property to CEOs.
Wrong premise leads to this bad conclusion. This is a form of logical fallacy. The working capital does not go to the CEO. Ever.
See above.
When I buy stocks (frequently) I know the CEO makes a ton of cash, but I voluntarily transfer my wealth to him anyway.
It is true that a shareholder should know the compensation of the CEO at the time of purchase (not transfer). It is also true that whoever owns the shares owns the company and has a say in compensation through the choice of board members who decide the compensation.
All of the above is pointless rambling.
Final bad conclusion. You may buy many stocks, which is great. I did a bit of that too - billions. Your understanding is not clear.
Your understanding is not clear. Mine is fine.
Fortunately, you do not need to understand what is happening to buy or sell securities.
Finally, your post begs the question as to what is a reasonable amount of compensation to a CEO. It also ignores the issue of who decides how much profit should compensate the CEO vs. being distributed to stock owners.
FINALLY, you get to the original point, and you get it wrong. My post makes what is “reasonable” ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. A CEO should get paid whatever he can get somebody to voluntarily pay him. Period. What is “reasonable” is the original point. “Reasonable” profit is something that ONLY liberals have been obsessed with for all time. CONSERVATIVES realize that how other people use their wealth, property, and/or capital is none of their business. Period. I bet you would never want a bunch of your fellow liberals sitting around deciding what is a “reasonable” profit for you when you sell the house that you’ve owned for the last 30 years, would you?