[dpflan]

What if you examine the dead horsed mantra of “improving shareholder value”? Does their compensation reflect their ability to have improved shareholder value?

Actually another comment links to an article about:

“CEO Pay and Performance Often Don’t Match Up: The S&P 500 CEOs who received the biggest pay increases scored middling shareholder returns”

- comment link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36168067

[nightski]

I feel like that entire study is flawed because you can't just compare stock performances straight up.

You have to look at how the same stock would of performed with a different manager.

There are many factors outside of management's control that will dictate the return on a single stock. But don't confuse that with the fact that management decisions do have an impact and can make a large difference.

[dangerlibrary]

If they can't control a substantial portion of the downside risk, they shouldn't be allowed to take credit for the full upside, either.

The problem with the executive compensation ratchet of the past few decades is that it is completely divorced from any actual measure of C-level impact. If things go bad, not their fault - if things go well, it couldn't possibly have happened without these strong leaders at the helm.

[nightski]

Who said they don't? Who says those stocks wouldn't have performed considerably worse without good management? That's what I am getting at. Just because a stock goes down does not imply bad management or vice versa. But again that doesn't mean that management decisions don't matter, they can matter a lot.

[dangerlibrary]

You are arguing with a point I'm not making, I think. Have a nice day.