I think part of the reason for extravagant compensation (especially stock options) for executives is that it ensures that the incentives of the executives are aligned with the stockholders and not the employees.
From time to time, a CEO will have to choose between increasing employee compensation and benefits or increasing profits or dividends. The CEO works with employees all the time and most normal human beings would naturally tend to side with the employees because they're the ones that are working hard to generate the profits that the shareholders receive. Stock options create a financial incentive to override that tendency, so that the CEO will side with shareholders more often.
An interesting thought experiment is to consider: what would happen to a CEO if he or she refused to accept stock options and would only agree to a modest salary? What would the board of directors do? Would they be happy that the CEO is being a responsible steward of the company's finite resources, or would they regard the CEO as untrustworthy and remove him/her at the first opportunity?
Perhaps stock options aren't a "reward" for services rendered, but in fact one of the necessary qualifications for holding the office.
>From time to time, a CEO will have to choose between increasing employee compensation and benefits or increasing profits or dividends. The CEO works with employees all the time and most normal human beings would naturally tend to side with the employees because they're the ones that are working hard to generate the profits that the shareholders receive.
Do we live in the same world? In all seriousness, not meaning to be a jerk - this is not how corporations or CEOs think. They don't "work with the employees all the time". They don't choose employee compensation/benefits over increasing profits. We're lucky that they _sometimes_ choose "minimizing deaths" over profit, and even that track record is spotty at best.
What I meant by "work with" is that CEOs work in proximity to and interact with employees pretty much every work day. I didn't mean to imply that their interests were aligned.
I assume most CEOs don't talk to their board of directors every day. Most normal people will empathize with and want to please the people they work with to achieve some common goal (i.e. create a good product, grow the business, and beat their competitors). To the stockholders, that would be an undesirable trait, and so the board of directors gives the CEO stock options to encourage the CEO's self-interest to override his or her innate desire (if it exists) to treat employees well at the expense of profits and dividends.
From time to time, a CEO will have to choose between increasing employee compensation and benefits or increasing profits or dividends. The CEO works with employees all the time and most normal human beings would naturally tend to side with the employees because they're the ones that are working hard to generate the profits that the shareholders receive. Stock options create a financial incentive to override that tendency, so that the CEO will side with shareholders more often.
An interesting thought experiment is to consider: what would happen to a CEO if he or she refused to accept stock options and would only agree to a modest salary? What would the board of directors do? Would they be happy that the CEO is being a responsible steward of the company's finite resources, or would they regard the CEO as untrustworthy and remove him/her at the first opportunity?
Perhaps stock options aren't a "reward" for services rendered, but in fact one of the necessary qualifications for holding the office.