[kearnyirish2]

Every proxy ballot I’ve seen, for hundreds of companies, has the board recommending against tying pay to performance because they “won’t attract the best candidates for the positions”. Bullsh!t: a guy that wants $10 million won’t turn down $5 million if its that or the unemployment line. The simple fact is that in many cases the companies are looted to pay the people who’ve driven them into the ground; the golden parachutes have to go. Tie a large percentage of their compensation to real (not accounting/stock price) performance (like units sold, etc.) then it would be more palatable.

[Myrddin]

When I worked at a large telco, it was heresy to suggest that the execs be required to hold their stock for 5 years so that the consequences of their policies was reflected in the long term value of the stock. The bandits were more interested in a pump and dump approach, then fleeing the disaster they caused. The "hold" requirement makes the management work in the interests of improving the company.