[TMagda]

A little random:

I think the problem is that under the current system CEO's/top mgt have absolutely no skin in the game. Nobody should get paid enough so after one year they are set for life. The argument that companies need to offer the gigantic comp packages they do to attract the top talent makes no sense to me. Offer a $1m (vs. many $m) salary and I am sure you will have plenty of applicants. How well would the next best choice perform? The CEO's select the board, the board sets the CEO comp - anyone see a conflict there? CEO's claim to be accountable to the board and the shareholders, but usually they control the board and the actual shareholders are spread so thin (thru funds) that, although they are the true entity owners, have no voice. With the money comes the power and the "haves" don't want to upset the current state for fear of losing what they have. Nobody ever complains in an up market. The system is broken and it will take more than one outstanding leader to fix it. I don't believe anything will change until people start to care about each other. This is a zero sum game. If your deal is too good, someone else's is bad. I have not met too many human beings that are wired properly to handle power. One idea I had was for the SEC to require outstanding common shares to be replaced with interest bearing preferred shares. This would enable investors to count on some reasonable return on investment and force accountability on the mgt teams. I lost at least a Z/28 last week but I am not complaining. I know the risk. Where else can I put my money?