Let's consider your example. A company is run by a CEO that has his board in his pocket, and as a result gets paid more than the market would dictate. Kramer says you should buy if the CEO leaves. That would imply that you should sell short if the CEO stays!
In other words, companies that don't act in accordance with market dictates will be less competitive, ultimately fall behind or even disappear.
In any case these are private individuals making decisions, albeit bad ones, with private money. No one is forcing investors to own those companies. The only equality of opportunity government should be concerned with is equality before the law.
"In any case these are private individuals making decisions, albeit bad ones, with private money. "
And that opens the door to the debate, what is private money? It's a public corporation if it sells stock. It's unethical at best to sell stock in a company where the CEO is making "bad decisions". It is a problem that could easily be fixed, if the people in power weren't the ones who benefit, (fox watching the hen house?). If lower level employees were running a similar type scam, you can bet that it would be fixed yesterday.
The polar opposites of this are equally bad. Trying to fix everything so everyone is "equal" doesn't work, and will lead to a lot of trouble. Letting everyone use whatever means are at their disposal doesn't work either, and it will lead to trouble. Let's face it some people are just rotten SOBs. This is a civilization, a society. In that, there is a certain level of looking out for each other that is implied.
I have the flamesuit on, ready for the charges of being a socialist, and invitations to go to the DU.