[lolc]

I don't see why people who speculated on options should be be compensated for their loss. That whole argument doesn't make sense to me at all. They could have negotiated less options and more salary, if they were the risk-averse type, could they not? Or worked a job with less risk.

It's just buddies taking as much as possible before they lose control. And everybody knows this. It's weird to read these invented reasons of why they need extra compensation at this point.

[sokoloff]

They’re not being compensated for their loss. They’re being compensated to stay and try to fix the company going forward.

[lolc]

Sure that's what they would say. They may even believe it themselves. So in a way it can be said to be true!

But you know, we don't need to base our perception on their perception. We can look at the pattern and say: "they sure like to reward their buddies regardless of company performance."

[kelnos]

But it's done in a completely different way. In good times, the execs are paid with equity, often with triggers based on performance milestones.

But in bad times it seems to be fine to just forklift some cash into the execs' hands. Why not set targets for the company restructure and only pay the exec when those targets are met?

[sokoloff]

It’s a negotiation; each side can propose the terms and however they mutually agree is how business gets done.

A rational exec (or employee) will look at the offered terms and compare them against their next best option (their “best alternative to a negotiated agreement”)

A rational shareholder/board will do the same. In many cases, if the board believes the shares are dramatically undervalued because of the current pandemic, they might prefer to rent executives for cash rather than renting them for shares which are in their mind undervalued at the moment.